TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:[RANT] Re: Drug Testing From:John Gear <catalyst -at- PACIFIER -dot- COM> Date:Wed, 8 Mar 1995 15:07:00 PST
>Please, please, let's not argue about drug testing again. We argued this to
>the nth degree only months ago.
ERROR INVOKE SUBR SOAPBOX
... and you know we *never* discuss anything twice on this list!! ;^)
>We can't resolve the issue in this forum.
Disagree. Do you mean *you* don't think we can resolve this in this forum?
Or that you're happy with the status quo? I think we could influence the
STC and IEEE PCS to take a position on it, for example. The STC "Code for
Communicators" (which twice refers to ethical behavior) is one avenue. How
about these proposed additions?
New paragraph for the STC Code for Communicators (between existing third and
fourth):
********************************************************************************
"I affirm that competence in technical communications is independent of
race, sex, sexual orientation, creed, heritage, marital or veterans status,
and physical abilities. I also affirm that past or present mental illness
and neurological impairments are invalid grounds for discrimination against
a technical communicator except as that person's professional competence in
technical communications is presently impaired."
*******************************************************************************
and a new bullet for fourth paragraph:
********************************************************************************
"My commitment to professional excellence and ethical behavior means that I will
* Accept employment only from individuals and organizations who do not
discriminate among technical communicators on any basis other than
professional competence and who do not require any testing as a condition of
employment that is unrelated to determining professional competency."
****************************************************************************
*****
Course then we'd have to actually start *being* a profession instead of a
loose agglomeration of folks with some similar tasks and job titles. And
we'd actually have to exert ourselves--and risk something--on behalf of the
profession.
But I suggest that it's our willingness (or unwillingness) to make that
effort that decides how strong--or, in our case, how weak--our "profession"
is, which has a *lot* to do with the low levels of r-e-s-p-e-c-t and
m-o-n-e-y that so many members of this list complain about.
General United Megalithic MicroWare Inc. gives urine tests and runs
anonymous investigations on you and considers whether or not you smoke or
use other drugs because for every writer who declines these invasions five
jump up and say *take me!* We need a code of ethics that makes it clear
this is wrong and it's wrong for the right reasons--because it has *nothing*
to do with your competence as a tech. communicator.
>(Skills testing for technical communicators is a new, if not valid topic for
>discussion on thislist.)
?Say again? Do you mean that skills testing is *not* a valid topic? The
one kind of testing that at least kinda bears on the issue of technical
competence?
SUBR SOAPBOX OFF
I feel better anyway.
John Gear (catalyst -at- pacifier -dot- com)
"The same old fraternity boys, geezers in golf pants, cheese merchants, cat
stranglers, corporate shills, Bible beaters, swamp developers, amateur cops,
and old gasbags that we have known since time immemorial."
--Garrison Keillor on the congressional GOP majority
