Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

As I understand it, US companies have the right to drugs test their employees.

Kilkrazy wrote:As I understand it, US companies have the right to drugs test their employees.

Test drugs on their employees? That explains so much!

Troy wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:As I understand it, US companies have the right to drugs test their employees.

Test drugs on their employees? That explains so much!

I know what you mean.

I just had an embarassing revalation.

I voted wrong on the poll when I picked "hell yes"

I still stand by all my previous posts and think that drug tests for Welfare is ill-concieved, and an unfair focus on denying services to one particuar group of people. However, the OP was regarding Constitutionality. As regards Constitutionality, I think there's probably a 50/50 chance that the courts would uphold such a law.

Of course, there's probably the same chance that it would be struck down later due to privacy issues.

Can I pick "maybe"?

Kilkrazy wrote:As I understand it, US companies have the right to drugs test their employees.

Somewhat true. If it is a govt job (local/state/fed) you have to be able to prove that the position has safety or other issues where drug use would endanger. So, bus driver? You can test. Office secretary/librarian, you cannot. Police officer/ambulance driver? You can test. Several cases have gone to court over this, and though simplified, the above is about right. Access to sensitive or classified info can be a reason to test (which means maybe you CAN test the secretary if he/she will have access to social security numbers (senstiive info) for example. Laws vary by state, some much more permissive than others. See Lanier v Woodburn as a good example.

Private employers have a little more leeway, especially in hiring. You do not have the 'right' to a job (at will of employer) and they can require a test as part of the hiring, even for a cashier at Dairy Queen for example. Testing of current employees has to meet certain standards, again these vary by state.

A drug test IS a search according to the Supreme Court (which is why you can refuse to submit to one when pulled over by a cop for DUI). Having said that, since driving is a licensed activity, failure to submit to a test can result in failure to be granted a license. Most driver license applications include words to that effect in the fine print.

As to the constitutionality of testing welfare recipients? I expect this to go to the Supreme Court at some point. I have trouble with it on a couple of levels. It does force a class of citizen to submit to a search without any probable cause. I don't like that. The other issue is we are worried about folks abusing a gov't program, yet then decide the solution is another gov't program that the tax payers have to fund. I think current stats show in FL less than 4% have tested positive. So we fund the 96% of the tests that are negative. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me either.

If you have a problem with welfare, change that system. Don't add another layer of gov't, granting a search power. Not liking the fact that your tax dollars are spent a certain way does not justify more gov't, and certainly not gov't permission to violate 4th ammendment rights.

Well, as has been stated, the Florida governer likes this government expense because his wife owns a major drug testing firm.

Polonius wrote:Well, as has been stated, the Florida governer likes this government expense because his wife owns a major drug testing firm.

I'm sure that had nothing to do with it, at all.

Any one have any evidence Solantic got the contract for this, or benefits from it it any way? Did Solantic even bid on the contract (they said they were not going to)?

Or is this just guessing?

Does his wife even still hold the shares (I thought GOV Scott went back and sold it all to get out of the issue)?

Honest questions. All the info I can find on it is from before the law was enacted. The only recent article I saw mentioned only 2% of testees came up hot, and did not mention the conflict of interest issue.

Here's an article that actually has some facts I didn't know:

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-07-02/us/florida.drug.tests.welfare_1_drug-tests-drug-screening-rick-scott?_s=PM:US

The company he founded does do some drug testing, but the shares are now in a trust for his wife, and didn't bid on the contract. So, conflict of interest (legally) isn't an issue.

What is messed up is that applicants must front the cost of testing. That alone might do more to deter applications than the fear of testing positive.

The sixth Circuit found a similar Michigan law to be unconstitutional back in 2003, so there's legal precedent that this is a problem. The sixth circuit is not the most respected, but it's rarely overturned. Probably the most moderate circuit.

Polonius wrote:Here's an article that actually has some facts I didn't know:

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-07-02/us/florida.drug.tests.welfare_1_drug-tests-drug-screening-rick-scott?_s=PM:US

The company he founded does do some drug testing, but the shares are now in a trust for his wife, and didn't bid on the contract. So, conflict of interest (legally) isn't an issue.

What is messed up is that applicants must front the cost of testing. That alone might do more to deter applications than the fear of testing positive.

The sixth Circuit found a similar Michigan law to be unconstitutional back in 2003, so there's legal precedent that this is a problem. The sixth circuit is not the most respected, but it's rarely overturned. Probably the most moderate circuit.

It also says:

In April, Scott, who had transferred his ownership interest in Solantic Corp. to a trust in his wife's name, said the company would not contract for state business, according to local media reports. He subsequently sold his majority stake in the company, local media reported.

I'm guessing he did what he needed to in order to mitigate the conflict of interest issue. As I stated in my first post to this topic, I think the issue will get to the Supreme Court eventually (unless FL cancels it due to it being economically dumb) and that I don't like giving the gov't more search powers. But saying the law was passed so Scott could economically gain seems silly.

Comments like

Well, as has been stated, the Florida governer likes this government expense because his wife owns a major drug testing firm.

seem to be demonstatively untrue and don't really further the discussion.

Don't worry about the Governor and his wife. Even though they sold their shares, Solantic isn't likely to forget who offered them up a big tasty government contract anytime soon.

But saying the law was passed so Scott could economically gain seems silly.

Yes, because no politician has ever done anything like that before.

Again, did Solantic bid on the contract? Did they get it?

Since Scott has gotten rid of his ownership, and meets the FL legal requirements to avoid conflict of interest, if Solantic DID get the contract, were there any protests from other companies that bid? How did those turn out?

And, regardless, how does that influence the constitutionality of the law?

Heck, Al Gore profits from a bunch of environmental regulations. That in and of itself does not mean the regualtions are good or bad for either the economy or the environment.

When Haliburton got a bunch of contracts in Iraq folks went ape crap because VP Cheney at one time had been involved in the company. That did not change the fact that at the time Haliburton was the only company that could execute those contracts in the time window needed.

Either the drug testing passes through the courts, or it does not, based on the constitutionality of the law. Issues of Scott's relationship with Solantic will not change that.

CptJake wrote:Again, did Solantic bid on the cotract? Did they get it?

The concern seems to be that Solantic provides walk-in drug testing for a relatively low price ($35 IIRC). People use this as a pre-screening for job or other required drug tests. So hypothetically, welfare applicants who are required to take a drug test are more likely to use Solantic as a pre-screening, thereby increasing their business.

Interestingly, and not surprisingly, these allegations tend to follow political lines.

I could see the allegation. Strangely enough I've not been called a left leaning tree hugger very often on this forum.

If they are worried enough to pony up $35 bucks, it is probably because they are doing drugs. Frankly I could care less if some company profits from that, no matter who owns it. No one makes the welfare applicant pre-screen themselves.

If they are not worried about pissing hot they don't pre-screen.

And if Solantic can offer that service, so can other companies. If they want a piece of that action, they'll jump in to the market.

And again, none of that decides the constitutionality of the requirement in the first place.

Edit: I'm not calling ANYONE a left leaning tree hugger. I'm not one either, I'm against drug use, I am against welfare fraud, and also against the gov't imposing searches without a reasonable cause.

CptJake wrote:If they are worried enough to pony up $35 bucks, it is probably because they are doing drugs. Frankly I could care less if some company profits from that, no matter who owns it. No one makes the welfare applicant pre-screen themselves.

If they are not worried about pissing hot they don't pre-screen.

And if Solantic can offer that service, so can other companies. If they want a piece of that action, they'll jump in to the market.

And again, none of that decides the constitutionality of the requirement in the first place.

Edit: I'm not calling ANYONE a left leaning tree hugger. I'm not one either, I'm against drug use, I am against welfare fraud, and also against the gov't imposing searches without a reasonable cause.

If you're against drug use, I assume you don't drink alcohol?

CptJake wrote:If they are worried enough to pony up $35 bucks, it is probably because they are doing drugs.

Or eating bagels.

CptJake wrote:
I'm not one either, I'm against drug use....

What about Tylenol?

Frazzled wrote:I could see the allegation. Strangely enough I've not been called a left leaning tree hugger very often on this forum.

We all know you're an overeducated suburban weiner loving paper-pushing lawyer, it's not much of a stretch

Assume wrongly. Alcohol is legal for 21 and above where I live.

I'll restate more clearly. I am against illegal drug use and all drug abuse.

Now, how does that change the constitutionality of the law being discussed, or are you just being a troll and looking for a way to attack me?

Well, i'm sorry for not getting my facts completely straight. Of course, I'm the only person in this thread since the OP to actually look for facts, so I like to think I've added a little to the discussion...

And since the first page of this thread, the consensus is that as a case of first impression, there's no real way to comment on the constiutionality of the issue. Even knowing that there is out of circuit doesn't change anything. The conversation has been dominated by discussions about the policy aspect of the law. And a perceived conflict of interest does change the way you view the law.

What will be interesting to see isn't the number of denied applicants, but how the number of applicants changes. If a small percantage of claims are rejected, but the number of applications halves, than it's a more fiscally sound practice.

My problem, more than the search aspect, is requiring people that want financial assistance to pay essentially an application fee. Seems to run counter to the nature of the program.

DAMN HIPPIES SMOKIN POT ARGGGGGGGGGGG

CptJake wrote:Assume wrongly. Alcohol is legal for 21 and above where I live.

I'll restate more clearly. I am against illegal drug use and all drug abuse.

Now, how does that change the constitutionality of the law being discussed, or are you just being a troll and looking for a way to attack me?

I guess, the question is why is funding illegal drug use with welfare benefits any worse than funding alcohol? If it's a matter of drug use, than alcohol is worse than pot (though better than crack or heroin). Why a person buying something illegal with welfare benefits is any worse than any other expenditure seems to elude me.

And people that want drugs always come up with the money. Those drugs are getting bought whether or not we give them welfare.

Polonius wrote:

CptJake wrote:Assume wrongly. Alcohol is legal for 21 and above where I live.

I'll restate more clearly. I am against illegal drug use and all drug abuse.

Now, how does that change the constitutionality of the law being discussed, or are you just being a troll and looking for a way to attack me?

I guess, the question is why is funding illegal drug use with welfare benefits any worse than funding alcohol? If it's a matter of drug use, than alcohol is worse than pot (though better than crack or heroin). Why a person buying something illegal with welfare benefits is any worse than any other expenditure seems to elude me.

And people that want drugs always come up with the money. Those drugs are getting bought whether or not we give them welfare.

It's because marijuana is a gateway drug that leads to crack and heroin and prostitution! Haven't you seen Reefer Madness??!? No one has ever done anything bad while drunk on alcohol ever!

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I could see the allegation. Strangely enough I've not been called a left leaning tree hugger very often on this forum.

We all know you're an overeducated suburban weiner loving paper-pushing lawyer, it's not much of a stretch

Polonius wrote:Well, i'm sorry for not getting my facts completely straight. Of course, I'm the only person in this thread since the OP to actually look for facts, so I like to think I've added a little to the discussion...

And since the first page of this thread, the consensus is that as a case of first impression, there's no real way to comment on the constiutionality of the issue. Even knowing that there is out of circuit doesn't change anything. The conversation has been dominated by discussions about the policy aspect of the law. And a perceived conflict of interest does change the way you view the law.

What will be interesting to see isn't the number of denied applicants, but how the number of applicants changes. If a small percantage of claims are rejected, but the number of applications halves, than it's a more fiscally sound practice.

My problem, more than the search aspect, is requiring people that want financial assistance to pay essentially an application fee. Seems to run counter to the nature of the program.

In fairness they are supposed to be reimbursed. Of course, we all know how efficient the gov't can be with stuff like that...

Assuming the do get reimbursed, and assuming they gain more than they lose by paying the 'application fee', that part does not really bother me as much as the search issue. If found constitutional, it can be used as a precedent to expand upon, and I'm not comfortable with that.

I guess when a person is asking for a few hundred dollars a month for basic living expenses, $35 is more of a hurdle than it is to you or I.

There were law schools I didn't apply to because they wanted $35 in application fees.

I have not read all the posts, so apologize if I repeat something.

Firstly, yes I think it would be constitutional to test welfare recipients, unemployment recipients, and public/elected officials.

In fact I demand it, especially that last bit there.

In most states of the union, if you are on Welfare, foodstamps, unemployment or the like, you are required to look for work to try and get off the welfare. More and more companies drug sceen applicants now, probably most.

The exception to this rule are those on social security/ disability.

So the arguement can be made that you are unable to fullfill the requirements of welfare contract of trying to get a job.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
In regards to the discussion of the drug testing fee. I would be fine with we the tax payer picking that one up.

If we pay $35 to get someone drug tested, and they come up positive, it just saved us thousands and thousands of dollars over the next several years.

If we pay $35, and they are clean and get the welfare, we recoup that cost, by giving them $5 less welfare each month for the next 7 months.

Polonius wrote:

CptJake wrote:Assume wrongly. Alcohol is legal for 21 and above where I live.

I'll restate more clearly. I am against illegal drug use and all drug abuse.

Now, how does that change the constitutionality of the law being discussed, or are you just being a troll and looking for a way to attack me?

I guess, the question is why is funding illegal drug use with welfare benefits any worse than funding alcohol? If it's a matter of drug use, than alcohol is worse than pot (though better than crack or heroin). Why a person buying something illegal with welfare benefits is any worse than any other expenditure seems to elude me.

And people that want drugs always come up with the money. Those drugs are getting bought whether or not we give them welfare.

Funding alcohol (or in my opinion, cell phones/cable TV or anything not essential) with welfare is just as bad, BUT because alcohol is not illegal you cannot test for it as a condition for receiving welfare. I think that is the difference, good or bad.

Polonius wrote:I guess when a person is asking for a few hundred dollars a month for basic living expenses, $35 is more of a hurdle than it is to you or I.

Very True. Depending on the situation, $35 bucks can be alot of $ to come up with.

I run a very small weekly LEGO/Math program for third graders here in the neighborhood. It's not at all uncommon to have a student or two each semester who has to pay the 10 dollar classroom fee (one time fee for 10 sessions and the kids get $50 of free LEGO at the end of the program) in installments of 2 or 5 dollars a week.

Eilif wrote:I run a very small weekly LEGO/Math program for third graders here in the neighborhood. It's not at all uncommon to have a student or two each semester who has to pay the 10 dollar classroom fee (one time fee for 10 sessions and the kids get $50 of free LEGO at the end of the program) in installments of 2 or 5 dollars a week.

If they weren't so lazy and would just get a job they wouldn't have that problem. Oh that's right, the government is holding back an entire generation of able bodied workers with their age discrimination laws.