Legal to Drive Doesn't Mean Legal to Work

Years ago, a radical feminist wrote a column about whether women should be allowed to do “any job that they desired.” She had to admit, she said, that in her “heart of hearts” she hoped that if she was on the third floor of a burning building, it would be a burly 225 lb man that burst through to rescue her and carry her down the ladder, and not a 105 lb young woman who had gotten her job because of affirmative action rather than ability.

In the same way, every day our safety depends on the other people around us. People who have a job need to be qualified to do it, and ready and able as well. We want the pilot of our jet to have his wits about him, and the surgeon who works on our child in the emergency room. We want the drivers in the opposing lane on the 50 mph highway to all be fully concentrating and staying on their own side of the double yellow line.

It’s disturbing that in one week’s time there were two different stories about people losing either their job or their position because they failed a random alcohol test.
Most people know that the legal limit for driving a car is .08, but in some jobs, the limit is much lower.

That’s why a Greenville SC newspaper reported that over in Seneca at the Oconee Nuclear Station, a contractor supervisor was removed from duty. He will lose access to the operation of the Nuclear plant because of this. All employees must pass pre-employment drug and alcohol testing, and random tests have also been given.

Another SC newspaper reported a story from out of state about an air traffic controller in Colorado whose blood-alcohol content was above the .02 limit for on-duty controllers. While this wasn’t in SC, it is interesting to note that the repercussions from the situation include an opportunity for the employee to seek counseling and eventually to be restored to his position.

Anybody can make a mistake. But I sure don’t want to be the one affected when it happens. Do you?