Daily
PY Nebraskan
^ Wednesday, November 16,1988
| NelSaskan
| University of Nebrasks-Lincoin
Cuit Wagner, Editor, 472 1766
Mike Reilley, Editorial Page Editor
Diana Johnson, Managing Editor
Ijx Rood, Associate News Editor
Bob Nelson, Wire Page Editor
Andy Pollock, Columnist
Micki Haller, Entertainment Editor
-----r—
Safety vs. privacy
Drug-testing ordered for employees
The federal government, once again, has shown itself
to be a Don Quixote when setting its domestic
policies.
At a press conference Monday, Secretary of Transpor
Itation Jim Burnley ordered random drug testing for
more than 4 million workers in a broad range of transpor
tation-related industries, The Associated Press reported.
Like Quixote, who seemingly fought for what he
believed was right, yet proved inept in doing so, the
government’s actions are at best indecisive and ill-di
rected and at worst capricious and unconstitutional. It is
commop sense for some kind of regulation in these
industries, if only because of the public safety concerns
involved in airline, railroad, interstate and mass transit
transportation. In die secretary’s words, “The American
people demand and expect a drug-free transportation
system.”
This demand for legislation increased after the drug
related collision of a Conrail locomotive and an Amtrak
passenger train in Chase, Md., on Jan. 4, 1987. According
to AP, the crash killed 16 passengers and injured 175
others. In general, this shows that public safety is an
important issue.
However, a closer look at the drug-testing policy is its
own worst defense. According to AP, under the new law
companies would have until December 1989 to set up
their own drug-testing programs. Companies with 50 or
fewer employees would have a second year to comply.
Employers would keep records that would be available to
federal officials.
I l hey would administer the tests betore employment, to
employees periodically during annual physicals if there is
reasonable cause to suspect drug use, and after accidents.
This self-administration is unfair to workers. The
policy cannot ensure standard testing procedures or
standard results and subjects the test results to tampering,
subjectivity, etc.
The law does not seem to account for the over 10,000
independent truckers on our roads. Are they expected to
test themselves? This seems a clear violation of the 5th
Amendment and is one of the many specifics not directly
dealt with in the law. This seerns to show the
1 government’s indecision.
Random testing will not ensure public safety. By its
nature it cannot ensure that drug users will be caught
because employees can avoid the tests, or they might be
the percentage that isn’t randomly tested. Similarly, post
accident testing does not protect the public, for obvious
% reasons.
In a judicial sense, this kind of testing may be a viola
tion of the right to privacy. The Supreme Court has before
it two cases involving drug testing that are expected to be
decided next year One involves post-accident testing of
railroad workers. There should be some kind of consensus
on this issue before any law is implemented.
The related labor unions already have voiced their
opposition to the random testing, while stip)>orting pre
employment and post-accident testing. In an AP article,
Airline Pilots Association President Henry Duffy said,
“Random testing is a counter productive, shotgun strategy
that is at the same time an unwarranted invasion of pri
vacy laid of no significant value in die battle against drug
ah«it.n;A\
This issue wth not be resolved easily It is indacarite of
many of the social issues of our tiwrc; what are the rights
of the individual vs. the rights of society and what r
I should the government have? wh.
It seems that public safety and a person’s right to
privacy shouldn't be decided by a vague, capricious and
contradictory policy seemingly so representative of the
current administration.
— AsMtfMMfcart
isiiiiKiafc= =
.. . ^ t*. • • . .1 _I % Ml .U<
aigneu siaii caiianui rcuicseiu me
official policy of the fall 1988 Daily Ne
braskan. Policy is set by the Daily Ne
braskan Editorial Board. Its members are
Curt Wagner, editor; Mike Reilley, edito
rial page editor, Diana Johnson, manag
' mg editor Lee * Rood, associate'nev* *
editor; Andy Pollock, columnist; Bob
nciMjn, wire pagc^cuiLur, *jiu ifuvaj
Haller, eniertainnytni editor.
Editorials do hot necessarily reflect
the views of the university, its employees,
the students or the NU Board of
Resents.
EdltorlrtTohMuswpfi^nt'tftt dpftt *
ion of the author.
I " "■^SEwiSn
©Ot® f
IN A Republican! \ /[
controlled i(iH&do^, ^
THE BRSD&E IS STILL —
OUT.
Dukakis loss not due to ignorance
Bush win is a ‘yes’ to Reagan policies without Reagan charm
It has only been a week since the
proper epithet for George Bush
was changed from “Mr. Vice
President” to “Mr. President-elect.”
Yet in some ways it seems like
months.
The last seven days have brought a
flurry of activity worldwide in reac
tion to the Bush election. James Baker
has been named as our next Secretary
of State — an appointment that
should ease the fears of those who
were afraid that the Quavle choice
was representative of Bush’s leader
ship selection capabilities. Top Bush
officials have been on major news
shows everyday and already have
their non-answers and rcfusal-to
spcculate speeches down pat. And the
world money market has gone ber
serk.
I must admit that I don’t under
stand this last one. But then again 1
have never understood currency fluc
tuation, stock prices or commodities
exchange. It has always given me the
impression of a very dangerous game
played by spoiled rich kids who don’t
have the gumption or the qualifica
tion to go out and get a real job.
One person with some possible
connection to a future Bush admini
stration makes a single comment
about his personal preference for one
aspect of the world economy; and the
dollar plunges, world stock markets
plummet and Bush’s much-deserved
vacation gets interrupted by reporters
in hip boots wading into the Atlantic
Ocean to ask the surf fishing not-ycl
president what he’s going to do about
all this.
Then, just as quickly, a word from
Bush, a disavowal by two or four
other officials, and things stabilize.
Bush didn’t say exactly what he
would do, but my guess is that he
would have liked to have paddled the
speculators’ behinds and sent them to
bed without their suppers.
But enough of that hobby-horsing.
A particularly intriguing aspect of the
Bush win is the reaction of that vocal
minority, the anti-Reagan Demo
crats. For eight years, a band of ma
rauders whose common bond was a
disgust for the very initials “RR” held
their tongues and encouraged one
another with the slogan: “Just wail till
’88.” The tribulation was eight years
instead of seven, but the millennium
was indeed coming.
1988 would be the year when
America would wake up from its
what it was doing. 1988 would be the
year when Illinois farmers. Michigan
aulo workers, California migrant
workers and Southern boll weevils
would understand that the ’80s had
been nothing but one giant Huffy,
contentlcss feel-good in which a lotof
horrible things happened but no one
seemed to notice.
1988 — ah, the blissful melody of
the refrain. Just wail till ’88. America
will come home to the ideals it left
behind in its rabid allegiance to the
insane policies of the Great Commu
nicator.
You sec, in 1988 the Republicans
will have to run someone who isn’t
charmed like Reagan — someone
who will be heard for what he is
saying and not for the way he is saying
it. In 1988 the conservative ideal will
lose its figurehead and be revealed for
the slinking whiled sepulcher it is.
Just wail till '88.
I-1
Well, 1988 has come and gone and
so has the dream. Anti-Reagan
Democrats sit shocked and refuse to
be comforted. The alarm clock rang,
and no one woke up. The man chosen
to lead the return to Camclot saw his
white horse fade to black. The Reagan
aura was gone, the Republican plat
form was seen for what it was and still
people voted for it.
And they voted for it in droves. If
it had only been close, if only the
Democrats had taken some Southern
stales and maybe a Northern indus
trial power or two, t’ere might have
been some explanation for the Bush
win. But Dukakis failed to take a
single state that is not solidly Demo
crat and failed to take many that arc.
Ot the 112 electoral votes he managed
to scrounge, 52 were from his home
state and slates adiacent to it.
What can possibly be the explana
tion? Certainly it cannot be that the
American people actually voted for
Reagan's politics all along and not
just his sex appeal. Yet Bush has no
aura, no “Aw, shucks” boyishness, no
pet-like demeanor. Ail he has is a
political agenda — a political agenda
that carried in 40 stales.
So I have heard many attempt to
explain this unspeakable tragedy.
The most common melody concerns
the level of awareness of the elector
ate.
“The people arc uninformed,"
they cry. “If they really knew what
was going on, they wouldn’t vote lor .
Bush.” This path was chalked out
during the race itself when so many
deplored the candidates’ supposed
failure to deal with the issues and
Bush’s resorting to negative cam
paigning. The stage was set to charge
that the Bush victory was largely a
function of disinformation.
After all, these people arc so sure
that they are right that they cannot
fathom any truly informed person
disagreeing with them. So if I say yes
and you say no, the only possible
explanation is that you don t really
know what you arc talking about.
Here, let me tell you about it. Now, l
say yes. You still say no? Well, you
are either loo dumb to understand or
you just don't care about what is
really important.
What happened last week was
plain and simple. The people said yes
to the policies and values of the Re
agan administration, even without
Reagan leading it. They said no once
more to what they have said no to tor
eight years: problem solving by big
government doing big things to little
people.
The American people arc not unin
formed. They are not uncaring. They
are not ignorant lackeys of a totalitar
ian war machine. They disagree with
the anti-Reagan Democrats and
probably will for a long time. But
maybe that says more about the anti
Reagan Democrats than it does about
the American people.
Yes, I know that the Democratic
party increased its seats in Congress
and in local and state offices. But
Democrats can run on the local level
in a way they cannot on a national
level. The Democratic plea sounds a
lot better when you are talking about
me and my neighbors. But when the
talk gets generalized to everybody, it
starts sounding irrelevant, expensive
or just plain unworkable. Local and
stale elections arc driven much more
by special interest issues than a na
tional election.
So the Democrats will hold on to
Congress for a long time. But if tunes
don’t change, it may be even longer
before they can print up stationery for
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
StoMtt Iij graduate student la philosophy
and b a Dally Nebraskan editorial colunMibt