Florida Gov. Rick Scott orders random drug testing of state employees

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheTrueCentrist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Many private companies require it, why not?

They should also drug test welfare recipients while their at it.

I knew a guy who would go home sick if he came in and found out they were popping ransoms.
 
bbarrick8383 said:
Many private companies require it, why not?
Click to expand...
It does seem inconsistent with his opposition to the state database which tracks narcotics prescriptions. Florida has a major problem with “pill mills”, clinics which write large numbers of narcotics prescriptions for apparently flimsy reasons. However, Gov. Scott wants the program which tracks such prescriptions discontinued because he considers it an invasion of privacy.
articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-02-26/news/fl-prescription-drugs-politics-20110226_1_prescription-drug-monitoring-program-pill-mills-drug-database
 
Oh look another hypicritical Reupbilcan who supports big government in American’s lives.
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-03-22/news/os-rick-scott-drug-testing-state-work20110322_1_random-drug-testing-testing-of-state-employees-drug-screening

“Gov. Rick Scott’s executive order requires quarterly drug tests, ACLU says courts have already found similar attempts unconstitutional”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Scott#Solantic
Rick Scott co-founded a company that (among other things) provides drug screening throughout Florida.
Click to expand...
whats his connection to it today ?if none that you know about dont bother to post.
 
More likely his connection with drug testing is why he believes it to be important. I see know problem in his move as long as he does not receive any personal or financial benefit. I think the OP was a good thing to think about, but many public entities already drug test to insure it’s employees are clean. I do not see the objection to drug testing.
 
I know as a state and federal contractor we are required to have random drug testing and pre-employment drug screening.
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
“ACLU says courts have already found similar attempts unconstitutional”
Click to expand...
Cases?

The ACLU has an OPINION, but the law is on the side of the employer.

lectlaw.com/files/emp02.htm

Legal cases:

allaboutinformation.ca/2010/10/02/case-report-court-says-random-drug-testing-reasonable/

Supreme Court Ruling:
supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-04/24-drug-testing.html

In practice:

Key Provisions
Under state and federal drug-free work place programs include the following:

Both employees and applicants may be tested.
Tests may be conducted pre-employment, “upon reasonable suspicion” or “for cause,” at random, routinely, and/or post treatment or rehabilitation. Random testing involves unannounced, “suspicionless,” and/or non-routine testing that may be indiscriminately applied to some, but not all, employees.
Basic tests screen for amphetamines (speed, meth, ecstasy, crank, etc.), cannabinoids (marijuana, hashish), cocaine (coke or crack), opiates (heroin, morphine, opium, codeine), or phencyclidine (PCP).
Extended tests might screen for barbiturates, benzodiazepines, ethanol, hallucinogens, inhalants, or anabolic steroids.
Tests may involve urine samples, saliva tests, hair samples, sweat patches, breathalyzers, or blood tests.

enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/drug-testing-2
 
SamH said:
Cases?

The ACLU has an OPINION, but the law is on the side of the employer.
Click to expand...
This may be a “both are right” situation. Drug testing is fine, but can be done in a manner that is not acceptable. I found a testing on drugs and alcohol struck down by a the 9th Circuit, and the Supreme Court has struck down testing of those running for political office. Mostly, the Courts have allowed drug testing. Florida does not need to worry about an appeal to the Ninth, so they should be alright with this.
 
If random testing is good enough for our veterans it is good enough for anyone.😉
 
pnewton said:
This may be a “both are right” situation. Drug testing is fine, but can be done in a manner that is not acceptable.
Click to expand...
I agree. Our screens are done by an independent contractor. My agency requires re-employment drug screening for all applicants, and for all employees who move to new positions. Random screening is also alllowed, but is done infrequently.

Failing a drug test means not getting the job for applicants, but for employees, it means having to enter a drug abuse program and completing it successfully.

I personally have never had to take a drug screening test.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
Failing a drug test means not getting the job for applicants, but for employees, it means having to enter a drug abuse program and completing it successfully.

I personally have never had to take a drug screening test.
Click to expand...
As stated in most industries a valid/legal drug testing plan will not call for the automatic firing of the employee - most plans have to allow for the employee to “recover” from their drug problem with a return to duty policy. Some industries that can justify the policy will have an automatic firing of an employee that fails to pass a drug test.

We employ one CDL driver. We would have him tested once every quarter thinking we were fulfilling the drug testing requirements for DOT. We learned that wasn’t legal because it wasn’t random (how do you randonly pick from “1”?). We had to enroll in a group of small carriers and the managers would randomly select the drivers. Now instead of being tested 4 times a year our driver is usually tested once or twice.
 
Suudy said:
So does ours. Zero tolerance.

And there used to be a similar no-smoking policy. It was automatic termination if you were found to be smoking or using any form of tobacco.
Click to expand...
Harsh! Did you work for Mormons?

We have a no smoking policy at work and no smoking within 25 feet of any entrance. Wonder what those folks gathered together 26 feet from the doors are doing? 🙂

But, smoking at work doesn’t call for immediate firing.
 
JaredM said:
Oh look another hypicritical Reupbilcan who supports big government in American’s lives.
Click to expand...
Ummm, I am totally for public employees being drug tested regularly and often, and I don’t think there is anyone here who knows me who can claim I am a “big government” guy (or a republican for that matter). If you are paid via the public coffer, you work for the people of the state and they have the right to know that their public servants are clean and fit for duty.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
Harsh! Did you work for Mormons?
Click to expand...
Nope. We do have soda machines (with other than Pepsi ;)), so that isn’t it.

The reasoning, as I understand it, is that there was a big break on from the health insurance company for being a “smoke free” employer. However, once we opened an office in North Carolina, we had to can that policy. Wanna guess why? 😉
Rich_Olszewski said:
But, smoking at work doesn’t call for immediate firing.
Click to expand...
Previously, any smoking was grounds for termination. Even at home. I don’t know anybody that did get fired for doing it in the privacy of their home, but I do know of some that were questioned heavily because of the smell of their clothes. In reality, the only person I know of that got fired for it was because they were smoking in their car during lunch.
 
Suudy said:
Nope. We do have soda machines (with other than Pepsi ;)), so that isn’t it.

The reasoning, as I understand it, is that there was a big break on from the health insurance company for being a “smoke free” employer. However, once we opened an office in North Carolina, we had to can that policy. Wanna guess why? 😉

Previously, any smoking was grounds for termination. Even at home. I don’t know anybody that did get fired for doing it in the privacy of their home, but I do know of some that were questioned heavily because of the smell of their clothes. In reality, the only person I know of that got fired for it was because they were smoking in their car during lunch.
Click to expand...
ANd I think that private companies are well within their rights to establish these sorts of employment conditions. Working for a particular company is not a right.
 
I’ve had to take drug tests everywhere I’ve worked.

The Florida Governor probably took a look at how many are on disability.

It has to stem from something, after all.

State employees shouldn’t be driving to or from work or be under the influence of drugs or alcohol while on the job.

Not only could they injure themselves-thereby going on disability—worse yet-they might kill or injure you or me.

Who can function-and do a good job-while under the influence?

Great idea.

God Bless you.
+Jesus, I Trust In You!
Love, Dawn
 
DawnInTexas said:
I’ve had to take drug tests everywhere I’ve worked.

The Florida Governor probably took a look at how many are on disability.

It has to stem from something, after all.

God Bless you.
+Jesus, I Trust In You!
Love, Dawn
Click to expand...
I live in Florida, I’m on disability. Mine stems from multiple sclerosis, not drugs. You must know a lot of disabled drug users in Florida.

God Bless you, too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top