(updated below)

Last week, my company asked me to give them a cup full of my pee.

One of my new job duties.

This is not normally part of my job. I sit at a computer most of the day and move bits around; when I do make trips to the bathroom, I return empty-handed. I don't operate heavy machinery, fly a jet plane or investigate drug dealers. There's about as much point in drug testing a Web designer as requiring a janitor to take a typing test.

Naturally, I told them to go fuck themselves. Not in those words, of course...though I was tempted. After a year's worth of 60 to 80 hour work weeks, I'd like to at least get a recommendation out of this job, or even some future consulting work. So we've managed to work out an amicable separation.

But I'm offended and infuriated that a company that operates television stations would institute mandatory, company-wide drug testing. That they would so callously invade the privacy of hundreds of employees, leaving them no other options than to resign or, more likely, be fired. No matter that some of these employees have been working for the stations recently acquired by my company for 10, 15, 20 years. Quality service and loyalty to the company are meaningless compared to the overwhelming need to collect their urine.

It's easy for me to walk away. I have no wife, no children — only a cat and a car to support. As an Internet nerd, I'm eminently employable and have no doubt I'll find a new job before my last four weeks here is up. But I know that there are many people who likewise find these tests to be a invasion of their privacy but don't have to the option of standing on their principles. If you're a television production engineer in Columbia, MO, there's not exactly a lot of other places to jump to.

Many executives absolutely love the idea of drug testing — it seems like a great no-lose, cover-your-ass proposition. Let's test everyone, and then if one of our employees is ever involved in an accident and found to be under the influence, we can point to our policy and say we did everything we could. Plus, it makes management feel like good, responsible citizens who are doing their part in the War On Drugs.

In reality, drug testing is a huge waste of resources with almost no tangible benefit. Most harder drugs, including methamphetamine, cocaine and heroin, pass through the body within 1-2 days, leaving no trace. So the only drug that testing reliably detects is that scourge of workplaces everywhere, marijuana. And of course there's no test for the drug that has caused more lost productivity, missed days and workplace accidents than any other — alcohol.

If companies can make the case that they should be able to drug test their employees, than what's to stop them from firing someone for off-hours drinking? Smoking and bad eating habits can affect insurance premiums and lead to lost work time from health complications, so they're out, too. If you don't like it, you can go somewhere else — except the conglomerate down the block has the same policies, sorry.

Many visions of the future hold corporations to be as big a threat to our future liberties as centralized government. What better way to start than by regulating employees' behavior outside the workplace?

My whole body just recoils from the idea of giving a genetic sample to my employer. The thought of taking a break from sitting at my computer to drive off to a lab, pee in a cup and hand it over to someone revolts me. I would no sooner take a drug test at work than I would consent to a search of my home without a warrant or allow the government to tell me what I can and cannot say.

What possible right does my company have to this information? A drug test can tell many other things besides whether the person has gotten high in the past couple weeks. It can indicate what prescription drugs he is taking — many employers might be interested to learn which employees are on anti-depressants, or have heart conditions. And of course there's no better way than a urine test to detect pregnancy.

Unions are traditionally the best bulwark against employers' infringements like these. But union participation is a dying thing, leaving most workers unprotected against employer invasions of their privacy. And as much as it burns my biscuits, I don't think government regulation is the answer; it almost never is.

The only real hedge that I can see against policies like these is if companies know that by implementing them, they will lose talented staff. Unfortunately, most people are unable or unwilling to sacrifice a job in a stand for privacy rights. And so, in the same quixotic way I don't shop at Wal-Mart or buy CDs produced by members of the RIAA, I will never work for a company that drug tests (at least until that fighter-pilot gig comes through). What matter it will make, I don't know. But I can't control others' behavior; I can only do what I think is right and hope it makes some small difference.

I'm sure my soon-to-be-former bosses think I'm just a drug-addled loser who doesn't want to fail a test, but I leave it to the ACLU to sum up why this is a matter of principle.

There was a time in the United States when your business was also your boss's business. At the turn of the century, company snooping was pervasive and privacy almost nonexistent. Your boss had the right to know who you lived with, what you drank, whether you went to church, or to what political groups you belonged.

With the growth of the trade union movement and heightened awareness of the importance of individual rights, American workers came to insist that life off the job was their private affair not to be scrutinized by employers. But major chinks have begun to appear in the wall that has separated life on and off the job, largely due to the advent of new technologies that make it possible for employers to monitor their employees' off-duty activities. Today, millions of American workers every year, in both the public and private sectors are subjected to urinalysis drug tests as a condition of getting or keeping a job.

The American Civil Liberties Union opposes indiscriminate urine testing because the process is both unfair and unnecessary. It is unfair to force workers who are not even suspected of using drugs, and whose job performance is satisfactory, to "prove" their innocence through a degrading and uncertain procedure that violates personal privacy. Such tests are unnecessary because they cannot detect impairment and, thus, in no way enhance an employer's ability to evaluate or predict job performance. Here are the ACLU's answers to some questions frequently asked by the public about drug testing in the workplace.

UPDATE:

Here's my letter of resignation, carefully worded to keep everyone happy:

"As a lifelong member of the ACLU and a staunch advocate for individual rights, I feel that mandatory drug testing is an unnecessary invasion of personal privacy. While I understand [Company]'s reasons for instituting such a policy, and respect their right to do so, it goes against some of my deepest-held personal beliefs. Consequently, please accept my resignation effective Oct. 6, 2006.

"This was a very difficult decision for me to make; I have enjoyed both my job and the opportunity to work with such a talented and dedicated group of people. I look forward to working with the company to make this transition go smoothly, and wish everyone involved continued success."