TEST THIS IDEA

I would like to thank Bill Lueders for taking up the torch concerning
the city's drug testing. The outcome of this tempest in a pee cup came
as no surprise. Once I as informed by the mayor that his Human
Resources director; Roger Goodwin, was going to look into the policy,
I knew there was no chance .of any substantive change.

Drug testing was first implemented in 1995 when Mr. Goodwin was
superintendent of the Streets Division. In that capacity, he once told
his employees that they should leave their brains in their lockers.
This autocratic disdain for the city's trade unionists has surfaced
again and again. Mr. Goodwin and other managers systematically
violated federal rules regarding overtime, leading to a lawsuit that
cost the city more than $350,000.

How did the mayor reward this managerial gaffe? By promoting Goodwin
to Human Resources director, with a sizable pay raise.

What, I wonder, would be the fallout if random urine tests were
conditions of employment for the mayor, the HR director and all the
other smug social engineers in the city's upper echelons? If liability
is the primary reason for drug testing, and not just a fig leaf for
class based union-busting, why isn't everyone who drives a city
vehicle included in the random testing pool?

Tom Neale