Bill of Rights Article IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

s of the beginning of this river season, outfitters are contractually bound by the National Park Service to provide a “drug-free workplace” and to initiate a program for periodic drug testing of their crew. Outfitters are to report annually to the NPS— how many they tested, were there any positives, and, if so, what action was taken. So there it is.
We’ve seen this coming for a while and we are frankly amazed it didn’t happen sooner. Actually, last year’s proposed regulations were more ominous. In the case of a positive result, outfitters were to contact the Concessions office at once with the name of the suspected offender, who was to be removed immediately from his job. That seemed particularly harsh considering that results of these tests can be incorrect, and that test results have no bearing on how well a guide does his job. No, the new requirement is better than it could be, but it still isn’t right.
As we have discussed this issue over the past few years, one statement we’ve heard over and over again has been “It’s the nineties. Everybody’s drug testing now; you cannot stop it, and you don’t dare argue.” Certainly Americans are shuffling off to labs in droves. They excrete into specimen cups for God and Country, but mostly under threat of losing their jobs. The masses seem to have accepted this with little question or argument.
The masses also stood idly by while Joseph McCarthy drove innocent individuals from their jobs in the 1950s. Few raised objections as perceived “un-American activities” were scrutinized, loyalties were questioned, and careers were destroyed at the whim of one man, who never managed to produce substantiated evidence of subversion against those he defamed. This continued until, at some point, a few brave souls had the courage to just say no.
Subjecting people to a degrading and meaningless exercise such as repeating the oath of loyalty or peeing in a cup, without probable cause to do so, constitutes illegal search and seizure. Any who get a positive on the test (accurate or false) are being forced to incriminate themselves (since for most of us employment isn’t optional.) Guilt is being assumed until innocence is proven, in blatant disregard of the rights that we thought were guaranteed.

McCarthy’s battle cry was “national security”; in the war on drugs the banner is “public safety.” But interrogating actors didn’t make the nation any more secure, nor has squeezing bladders been proven to enhance public safety. The plundering of Constitutional rights in both cases is ineffective as well as unconscionable.
I spoke with a guide last summer who said if drug testing becomes mandatory in Grand Canyon, it’s time for him to move on. He has quit a job before rather than submit to drug testing. I know this guy. He’s a good boatman—as solid as they come—and he could pass the test any time. But that isn’t the problem, nor is it the issue. This isn’t about drugs; it’s about an enormous abuse of power.
As valid as these arguments may seem, and as much as some of us would like to stand up for our rights, there’s just this one little problem: we love working in Grand Canyon. The Federal Government is forcing the NPS to mandate drug screening. They are squeezing the outfitters, who, in turn, must squeeze our bladders in order to fulfill their contracts. I could say, “No thanks, my bladder is my own business.” The outfitter, who probably has no personal interest in its contents, might feel that he had no choice but to take me off the schedule. What would I have proved? That I am expendable and can therefore get dumped and replaced really fast? That I can get laughed out of court just as well as nearly everyone else who has tried to contest this wave of hysteria?
No, I guess most of us will swallow our collective pride and cooperate. We want to spend the next 5 years working and playing in Grand Canyon, not hanging out with lawyers in courthouse hallways. GCRG has more pressing issues that are more appropriate to our stated goals, and the guides want to stay on the river. Until the witch hunt is over, most will probably shuffle off to the labs and fill those specimen cups. But it isn’t right.

Jeri Ledbetter

Drug Testing:
The Outfitters’ Choice

Although the outfitters have been given no choice in instituting biochemical surveillance, they have a great deal of latitude in deciding just how invasive their program may be. The NPS gave no minimum requirements. Raymond Gunn, Chief of Concessions in the Park, made it very clear at the GTS March 23rd that outfitters won’t get any extra points towards contract renewal for having a more intensive drug testing program. We hope that this will make it easier for the outfitters to refrain from trampling their crew’s rights any more than they must.
These are trying times; mutual support, understanding and respect should be everyone’s goal. Some outfitters are trying to design programs that limit invasion and degradation to the absolute minimum. Companies who strive to protect the rights of their employees in the face of government intervention into private lives should be respected and supported.
Conversely, outfitters who embrace this nonsense wholeheartedly and implement far more comprehensive policies than have been requested by the Park, are doing nothing to enhance communication and cooperation between guides and outfitters. One company manager told me, “We’re willing to give up the rights of our employees,” as though they are his to cast aside.
The buzzword “liability” frequently enters the conversation. However, nothing—absolutely nothing—will protect against a frivolous lawsuit, even prostrating ourselves before trial lawyers. Those guys don’t care about urine; they care about money. Tankers brimming with the purest of urine won’t turn them away. If we want to avoid a lawsuit, perhaps a better angle would be to stop advertising our trips as though they are a resort experience devoid of risk. If we’re going to tie ourselves into knots over the possibility of a lawsuit, we might as well all stay home.
Let’s not buy into this any more than we have to.

Jeri Ledbetter