Its the 0.01% that let you down
On D&A testing, I can't understand why you guys think it's demeaning. When I worked in field ops - which included responsibility for aviation fuelling safety - we accepted that we were subject to random screening as a condition of employment. We didnt see it as demeaning, we saw it as a corollary of the importance attached to a safety critical position. Office workers and senior management rarely got tested. Despite the testing there were always some idiot - thats the 0.01% part of being human - that couldnt control himself or thought the rules didn't apply to him and got nailed. The testing was risk based: you failed and you got transferred to a high-test frequency regime with counselling etc. Fail again and you are out. We even do this with Malaria medication because yet again, a small fraction of employees think they are special and don't need to take their chemoprophylaxis when in Africa, so we test for the metabolites of the antimalarial. Its a nuisance, but we don't feel personally demeaned. With respect to D& A testing we accept that its the 0.01% of tw@ts that spoil it for the rest of us and that you guys have a right to expect that when an employee fuels your aircraft he does it per book. Similarly in 2007 we live in a world where your customers and insurers have an expectation that you manage these issues. I just cant see the 'personal insult' aspect of this issue.
On fatigue, there is at least one airline - easyjet - that has recently done extensive work on fatigue. I know, because I've just employed the consultant that they used and by all acounts it was fairly successful.
PM me if you need the details.