http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/03/does-rick-scotts-drug-testing-policy-violate-4th-amendment

Does Rick Scott have the right to execute mandatory drug test Florida State employees? The US Military has mandatory drug testing, as does many employers as a stipulation of employment.

Personally I say good! If a person does not choose to accept the drug testing, they can choose to find employment elsewhere. The government tests many portions of Federal employees, as well as many private sector jobs.

Why the angst?

This article is very one sided and opinionated isn't it? If this is so illegal, then how does the rest of the country get away with such drug testing laws?
That answer is because it most certainly is not illegal

funny true story where I work
I work for a company who makes pro audio touring equipment, half the plant is or was in a rock band at one point (I am the token non-musician by the way) and the temporary agency we used had a random drug testing policy. Our plant manager had a cow and told them no way will we use them if they do such random testing, half the plant would be let go!!!
...so they agreed and our people avoided the testing (yes we do face this drug issue now and again but we deal with it on a case by case basis based on performance and other issues, one person was let go just last week for this, but not a random test, hahaha, not here!)

There's one stakeholder, though, that could benefit from the governor's new drug-testing push. As I reported last week, Scott's own company, Solantic, conducts drug-testing for employers and employees alike and stands to profit from this proposal—among many others.

So you don't think this is slightly concerning ?

Whether or not this is legal it's an unjustifiable intrusion into the privacy of state employees. If they're not doing a job where drug use could have public safety implications then it's none of their employer's business.

Sass,
Good Question. Are you saying it would be OK if another company tests? I think I would be fine with that.

As for intrusion in employees business, do you think the employer has the right to have the best employee possible? I would hope that we agree there. Saying that, consider a prospective employee who is the same as another prospective employee in every way but drug use. What employee would you want to hire? I would want the non-drug user. I would hope that you would as well. Perhaps not, I can't say because I don't know for sure.

Does the employer have the right to test their employees? I am not saying that a business can force an employee onto a gurney and take a blood test. The employee has the right to refuse and look for employment elsewhere. In the end, it is the EMPLOYEE'S CHOICE to test or not test.

Are you against employee choice?

I don't think that what an employee gets up to in his own private life should be any business of the employer and I don't think the employer should have the right to intrude upon their employees private lives unless there are compelling circumstances concerning the nature of the job. Obviously it makes sense that people handling lethal firearms or working heavy, dangerous machinery can't have too many complaints about drug testing because the potential harm they can cause through drug use in their private lives is such that it trumps their right to privacy, but that doesn't apply to most jobs.

Policing of the drug laws is the responsibility of the law enforcement agencies. Employers should butt out unless they have a very clear reason to get involved.

So you are against the employee having the choice of being tested or not?

http://www.healthieryou.com/vvwork.html

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=32&ved=0CCcQFjABOB4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.doa.state.wi.us%2Fdocview.asp%3Fdocid%3D2521&rct=j&q=%22workplace%20violence%22%20drugs&ei=lnyTTZLoNIz2tgPF7-i6BQ&usg=AFQjCNFW0ejaQbckzaWa31EUxyWstTf8Zg&cad=rja

Violence in the workplace is complex. Factors that can cause workplace violence to erupt include alcohol and drug abuse; financial crises related to job loss, gambling, bad investments, or credit-card debt; and mental illnesses that have a wide variety of causes. Emotional strain and mental illness lessen a person's ability to cope with difficulties such as family or relationship problems or mistreatment (real or perceived) by others.

Employee drug use affects everyone in the office. Absenteeism, health care costs, workplace violence are a start on how drugs affect the workplace.

Are you saying that the drug user has a right to use drugs as long as it does not affect anyone and no crime is committed? Would you be willing to transfer the same line of thinking to weapons usage? I would be willing to test for drugs and have skill tests for weapons licensing. Seems same/same to me.

If somebody is not performing in their job then the employer should get rid of them. They shouldn't be intruding into their private lives to try and prejudge whether they're going to start underperforming. Since you bolded it I assume you think that paragraph about factors that cause workplace violence is important and meaningful. This being the case, why stop at drug use ? Shouldn't an employer have the right to demand copies of an employee's credit card statements to see if they're running up bad debts ? Shouldn't they be blood testing their employees to see how much alcohol they're consuming, or maybe enforcing mandatory relationship counselling to make sure they're only employing staff who are in healthy and stable relationships ? Or would it not be better just let people get on with their own business and deal with underperformance if/when it happens....?

Oh, and while I'm at it:

Employee drug use affects everyone in the office. Absenteeism, health care costs, workplace violence are a start on how drugs affect the workplace.

I assume you have very little experience with people who take drugs recreationally. Sure, a small minority do end up being chronic absentees, or violent or whatever, but the overwhelming majority function just fine. Most people who take drugs will maybe smoke a little pot at the weekend and occasionally do a little harder stuff on a big night out. It really doesn't have to have a serious impact on your working life. It's been many years since I dabbbled myself so i'd have nothing to fear from testing personally, but nevertheless I can say that I don't think it's necessary. I know a helluva lot of people who either do occasionally take drugs or have done in the past and hardly any of them have been seriously impaired in their work. Alcohol on the other hand.....

On a related note:

A PPP poll of registered voters released today shows that in a hypothetical re-do of last year's gubernatorial election, Florida Gov. Rock Scott (R) would lose to Democrat Alex Sink by a nearly 20-point margin, 56%-37%. Scott won a squeaker of an election last year, edging out Sink by about one point.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/poll-fl-gov-rick-scott-would-lose-do-over-election----by-20-points.php

I wonder how President Obama would do now. Maybe a case of buyers remorse, all around.

The question I have is does the employer have a right to make drug testing mandatory or be a cause for termination? I say they have as much right to ask for the test as the employee has the right to say no.

To answer Sass,
I do have some contact with recreational drug users. I don't like it, but I have contact.

If you want to say wait until the job is impacted, fine. Apply the same logic to gun ownership. Wait until the weapon is used wrongfully, and then punish as the law or business chooses. Same with the drugs; wait until the drugs/alcohol/tobacco is used wrongfully and then punish as the law or business chooses.

As to the bolded paragraph... Yes, if creditors are calling the business, it could be cause for termination. If a wacko boyfriend/girlfriend stops by and makes a big scene it could be cause for termination. Same with Alcohol (which is a drug, let's not kid ourselves), and Gambling

If you want to say wait until the job is impacted, fine. Apply the same logic to gun ownership. Wait until the weapon is used wrongfully, and then punish as the law or business chooses. Same with the drugs; wait until the drugs/alcohol/tobacco is used wrongfully and then punish as the law or business chooses.

This is a false analogy because nobody is proposing to have mandatory tests of employees to find out if they're gun owners. I'm not talking about whether drugs ought to be illegal, I'm talking about whether employers should be entitled to intrude upon the private lives of their employees in order to make a pre-judgment of their competence.

As to the bolded paragraph... Yes, if creditors are calling the business, it could be cause for termination. If a wacko boyfriend/girlfriend stops by and makes a big scene it could be cause for termination. Same with Alcohol (which is a drug, let's not kid ourselves), and Gambling

All of these are very different to carrying out drug testing. They're all examples of situations where somebody's private life is intruding on the workplace, what you're talking about is testing people who's private life is not intruding on the workplace to find out what they're doing in their private life.

I should also add that I don't really believe you. I don't know if you're an employer or not but I'd be very surprised if you'd fire a member of staff if his girlfriend turned up one day and made a scene, or if you found out that he had a big credit card bill.

bbauska wrote:Does the employer have the right to test their employees? I am not saying that a business can force an employee onto a gurney and take a blood test. The employee has the right to refuse and look for employment elsewhere. In the end, it is the EMPLOYEE'S CHOICE to test or not test.

Are you against employee choice?

Looks like a forced choice to me if an employer brings it in after the employee has joined. I'm sure at a time of 9% unemployment and shortly after a recession people will be a little concerned at such a 'choice' being presented to them.

I am self employed, and have no employees. I choose that course. I was in the US Coast Guard for 20 years and was involved in many drug interdictions. Needless to say, I have seen the effects in my current business (EVERY DAY!) and my previous profession. I appreciate your honesty about your perception of me.

If I did have employees and the drug test was failed/girlfriend made scene/drunk on duty/creditors calling etc., I would terminate the employee and find another(ABSOLUTELY!). This is job market where there are many to hire, and not many jobs for them. Why not strive for the best.

You bring an interesting point, though. Should I hire a criminal? A "recreational" drug user is a "recreational" criminal. I do not think the Government should intrude into the business dealings of an employer and his/her employees as long as the employee accepts the stipulations of employment. If an employer hires person X, and says the job entails drug testing to continue employment, then so be it. It is the employees choice. Will all employers think as I do? I am not that foolish to think so. Numbers of employers do not matter. It would be a choice between employers and employees.

Danivon,
Choice just the same...

These calls that suggest random drug testing is possibly illegal is curious to me, I know of several dozen companies that do random testing. How come it's ok for these dozens of companies but not for Florida?

US Military does random drug testing.