AFFIRMATIVE — WORKPLACE DRUG TESTING — SIGNIFICANCE 270

DESTROYS THE LIVES OF WORKERS

DRUG TESTING ALLOWS EMPLOYERS TO ABUSE THEIR DESCRETION POTENTIALLY SESTROYING EMPLOYEE'S LIVES

Mechelle Zarou, December, 1999, " THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY: DRUG TESTING BY EMPLOYERS IN ALASKA", Alaska Law Review

Alaska Law Review//lxnx-Sj*

Additionally, because the Act allows employers to perform random, suspicionless drug testing, as well as testing of individuals  [*315]  suspected of impairment, n128 unscrupulous employers may abuse their authority to harm particular employees. The employer could use confidential drug testing information to subject employees to criminal drug prosecution, to jeopardize an employee involved in a child custody dispute, or to threaten the employee's ability to obtain other employment. n129 Because the statute does not require company management to be tested along with employees, n130 the threat of abuse of discretion by employers is even greater. Employers have nothing to lose in this drug war, aside from the costs of testing. Employees, however, must simply accept their employers' word that they will keep medical and drug use information confidential, and that they will not intervene in their employees' other private affairs by offering drug test results to courts and governmental agencies. Employees are being asked by the Alaska Legislature to rely far too much on an employer's good faith. The Legislature could have balanced the employers' and employees' interests better by enacting a few additional protections for employees - without causing harm to employer interests. n131

DRUG TESTING INCREASES THE THREAT OF CRIMINAL ACTION TAKEN AGAINST EMPLOYEES

Mechelle Zarou, December, 1999, " THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY: DRUG TESTING BY EMPLOYERS IN ALASKA", Alaska Law Review

Alaska Law Review//lxnx-Sj*

The statute also leaves employees vulnerable to the threat of criminal action, since even confidential communications may be disclosed when ordered by a court or governmental agency. n126 The Legislature could have provided employees with stronger protection (and stronger incentive for submitting to the test rather than risking termination for a refusal to submit) by preventing the test results from being used in any court actions except those directly based on the results of the test. n127 This provision would have provided important protections for employees required to submit to drug testing as a prerequisite to employment, and it would have had no effect on the protections afforded the employers. In fact, a provision limiting the use of test results in other court actions would aid employers by keeping them out of litigation unrelated to their businesses, such as for testimony relating to the prosecution of a former employee on drug charges.