Can't agree with you there, but not because you intent is amiss, but rather because other things would need to be put in place first - things which may not be possible and may even not be partuicularly desirable. Let me suggest that if private enterprise were to select to excuse itself from such a requirement (as it will always do given the competitive disadvantage it would suffer as a result of taking on this additional overhead) - with all other things being equal, quality employees will move to sectors which infringe less on their privacy (not to mention indignity and the substantive potential getting a 'false positive' through someone's accidental [or perhaps even premeditated] accident/action, leaving only the lesser qualified individuals (and those with less choice) as the prime candidates for public positions. The state of public affairs is bad enough as it is - I don't think we need add insult to injury and make it even worse. As to whether this should be mandated for private enterprise - by doing so you would place domestic business at a disadvantage to business owned and operated from outside of the country. Once again -- not likely to be a supportable position. I see lesser downside with that idea - although once again, individuals with longstanding and/or exemplary service records and/or those that would be likely to be the targets of discrimination would have to be protected from the potential of accident and/or abuse of the testing process.
