Drug testing: Florida aims to be first to test public workers

rockin'robin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
24,430
Reaction score
551
New Florida drug-testing law allows agency heads to randomly test public workers for illegal drugs, prescription drugs, and alcohol. But it exempts the governor and state legislators.

Florida, which already tests welfare recipients for drug and alcohol abuse, is poised to extend drug testing to state public employees – a first-in-the-nation move that lawmakers from other states may copy, even as labor unions, civil libertarians, and small-government advocates rail against it.

Under the law, which cleared the Legislature March 9, agency heads are allowed (but not required) to randomly test up to 10 percent of their workforce for illegal drugs, prescription drugs, and alcohol, every three months. Elected officials are exempt.

The Republican-backed measure is intended, supporters say, to be a net benefit in that it gives workers who have drug problems a way to get clean, while at the same time protecting the broader citizenry from impaired public servants.

How much do you know about marijuana? Take our quiz.

State workers in Florida are not known to have greater substance abuse problems than workers elsewhere. Rather, the new drug-testing law seems to be part of a trend to raise accountability for a wide range of people who are receiving taxpayer dollars – be they public employees, welfare recipients, or jobless people collecting unemployment benefits.

Drug testing is a winning political issue, even if some measures may be straining the US Constitution's protection against "unreasonable search and seizure," analysts say.

"People are always in favor of locking up miscreants, and, despite our constitutional legal traditions, there's always a lot to be reaped from the argument that if you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about," says Colin Gordon, a labor historian at the University of Iowa in Iowa City. "But it's always surprising to me," he adds, "how little weight the civil liberties argument has – an implication that has become exaggerated in the war-on-terror era, and which says we can and should suspend liberties for people who don't deserve them."

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, a tea party favorite, is among Republican officials pushing for mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients. Indeed, while Florida is the only state to require drug tests for people on welfare, such legislation has been introduced in more than half the states. A February Quinnipiac Poll of Virginia voters, for example, showed such legislation has public support, with 3 in 4 respondents favoring drug tests for people who receive cash assistance from the state.

No state yet requires those collecting unemployment to undergo drug testing, but Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and Utah are among those considering it. The US Department of Labor, as instructed by Congress in December, now allows states to require drugs tests for unemployment recipients whose job search is confined to industries that already require drug testing, such as aviation.

The various drug-testing proposals are all of a piece, says lawyer George Wentworth at the pro-labor National Employment Law Project, in New York. "This is symptomatic of what happens in a bad economy, where just as unemployed workers are being misrepresented as living on the dole, state employees are also frequently the target of politicians who want a convenient target," he says.

On the other hand, private industry already does random drug testing of employees, and why should public employees live by a different code? ask supporters of Florida's measure, which Gov. Rick Scott (R) says he will sign. Some 19 million American workers – about 15 percent of the workforce – have drug or alcohol problems, according to the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

Legal hurdles loom for both of Florida's new drug-testing laws. A chief issue is whether individuals can be tested in the absence of any evidence or suspicion of drug use. "I haven't been running across drug-addled employees who are unable to do their jobs," quips state Sen. Joe Negron, the lone Republican to vote against drug tests for state workers.

In a 1997 US Supreme Court case testing Georgia's effort to require drug tests for candidates running for office, the court said no. The problem, wrote Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is that "Georgia asserts no evidence of a drug problem among the state's elected officials. However well meant, the candidate drug test ... diminishes personal privacy for a symbol's sake. The Fourth Amendment shields society against that state action."

That may explain why the Florida measure exempts elected officials from drug tests. But courts' interpretation is evolving as to what constitutes a "reasonable" search or seizure, and Florida Republicans are aiming for what they hope will be a sweet spot.

The law, which does not make a first-time positive test a firing offense, frames the issue as extending a helping hand and not as a punishment, supporters say.

"Drug-testing programs that require results to be kept confidential to all but a small group of non-law enforcement officials and that only minimally impact an individual's life are more likely to be considered reasonable," states a constitutional assessment of the new "suspicion-less" drug-testing proposals, written by David Carpenter, a Congressional Research Service lawyer.

Drug testing: Florida aims to be first to test public workers - Yahoo! News
 
Interesting.
My former neighbor used to work for a comany that required mandatory drug testing anytime there was an accident at work. He injured his hand badly, but left work and refused to get medical treatment until three days had passed, presumably because he was on drugs. He had a drug problem.

Only by the time he went to the doctor, he passed the drug test, but his injury was already healing badly and he did not regain full use of his hand, so he lost his job anyway. Could not do the job without the hand.

If the company had mandatory drug testing BEFORE accidents, he might have gotten counseling and help he needed.
 
Interesting.
My former neighbor used to work for a comany that required mandatory drug testing anytime there was an accident at work. He injured his hand badly, but left work and refused to get medical treatment until three days had passed, presumably because he was on drugs. He had a drug problem.

Only by the time he went to the doctor, he passed the drug test, but his injury was already healing badly and he did not regain full use of his hand, so he lost his job anyway. Could not do the job without the hand.

If the company had mandatory drug testing BEFORE accidents, he might have gotten counseling and help he needed.
My husband had to take drug test after he got hurt at work several times which it is full of BS. He never took drugs, just that he worked 12 hours/7 rotating shifts. It made him so tired and accident do happen. He passed all those tests. I disagree with drug test and I feel they voliated my right because of someone else who took drugs and expect us the innocent ones to take also. BS.
 
But if you passed, what's the problem?

If the guy is working 84 hours a week, what's a couple more hours to go pee in a cup? Add that to the ER time, and he could be looking at an 88 hour work week. He might just as well move his mailbox out in front of his employer's offices and change the address on his driver's license.
 
But if you passed, what's the problem?

True dat....there are many people that look normal, act normal but are actually drug addicts or alcoholics. There was this lady I knew that was a graphic artist and used an xacto knife (it's very sharp!)...and she was an alcoholic....taking very small bottles of vodka in her purse, and at lunch or breaks going to the parking lot and drinking. She did this all day long and one day, she really cut (sliced) her finger almost half off. Luckily, for her, she was offered rehab in order to keep her job.

And long-distance truck drivers (semi)...lot of them take "bennies" (pills) to keep them awake while driving long distances, state to state. A real hazard on the road.
 
Wirelessly posted (Blackberry Bold )

I have absolutely no problem with random drug/alcohol testing - but it's either all or nothing (meaning elected officials, company presidents etc aren't exempt "just because" of their position... Heck if an upper level person is on drugs that's even more dangerous because of the power/influence they have!)

I take a medication for chronic pain that requires me to accept random testing (they can test as often as they want, or not at all - I volunteered once because they said the meds "weren't working as well as they thought they should for the dose I was on - so I volunteered to prove I was taking the medication 100% correctly - I haven't been asked to give a sample since. Honestly works.)

The fact of the matter is that taking certain medications - legally (a Rx from your doctor) or illegally can impair your judgment and make you more likely to have accidents etc. Employers should have the right to know if their employees are taking medications/drugs etc which increase the likelihood of accidents (especially since they may have major insurance/liability issues if drugs are found to be a problem).
I always put safety first - if I know I'm not safely able to do something, I find another way (ask someone else, use a different less risky method etc).

As far as I'm aware in most if not all situations, if someone has a legitimate prescription from a doctor and is taking the correct dose - legally the employer reads the random testing as a "pass" as long as the medication level found matches what should be there based on Rx and doctor's notes stating that the medication does not impair their ability to perform any part of their job.

The point of random drug testing is to catch people who are consuming alcohol within hours of arriving at the job & or during the work day, and those illegally taking medications, or drugs.

It's not to discriminate against those with legal prescriptions who are working closely with their dr and have been medically cleared that they are able to do their job safely.

It may be your "right" to ingest whatever you want - legal or illegal, but employers should also have the right to make sure that their workers are safe and not putting their co-workers or the public at risk due to alcohol &/or drug/medication use.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top