Florida governor retreats on worker drug tests

Dec 8, 2004
48,661
20,952
693
Maine
#1


Florida Governor Rick Scott has suspended an order requiring all state workers undergo drug testing, pending resolution of a lawsuit that called the tests an illegal search of workers' bodies.

The Republican governor quietly signed the suspension memo on June 10 but it received little public notice until the American Civil Liberties Union obtained and circulated copies on Thursday.

The ACLU sued Scott last month in a federal court. It said mandating drug tests for workers who were not suspected of wrongdoing violated their constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizure, and robbed them of due process.

"We are pleased that this new order has delayed subjecting thousands of state employees to demeaning, invasive and illegal tests of their bodily fluids," Randall Marshall, legal director for the ACLU of Florida, said in a statement.

"But it does not change our Constitutional challenge. Any government search without suspicion of drug use or not directly related to public safety is a violation of privacy protections and we will vigorously move ahead with our challenge."

Scott, who campaigned on a promise of small and limited government, signed an executive order in March requiring state workers to undergo screening for illegal drugs once every three months. It also required pre-employment testing for state job applicants.

The ACLU characterized the suspension as a massive and embarrassing retreat for Scott and an acknowledgment that his testing order was fatally flawed.

Scott said he was confident the courts would uphold the testing program and that it would "ensure a safe, effective, productive and fiscally accountable workforce."

"Nonetheless, while the case is pending, it does not make sense for all agencies to move forward with the logistical issues involved in instituting the new policy," his memo said.

The courts generally have upheld random drug testing for workers in jobs that involve public safety. Scott's suspension order allows testing to continue in the Florida Department of Corrections, which already tests its 21,000 employees.

But testing had not yet begun for the bulk of the 168,000 state workers. Florida was still trying to work out details for the program that was expected to cost millions of dollars. Critics had called it a needless expense at a time when lawmakers had to make drastic spending cuts to tame a $3.6 billion budget deficit.


Link
 

Buster H

Alt-F4
Wackbag Staff
Dec 6, 2004
12,243
2,725
678
Lower Bucks Co, PA
#2
fucking ACLU... I'm all for testing the people that are supported by the taxpayer
 

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
Jul 21, 2003
17,843
5,188
838
Wilmington, NC
#4
I guess the question really is how much testing will cost and how it's going to be paid. It's not like Florida has the money for it.

It is ultimately worth the cost though. I've worked for a few companies that do random drug tests, I think most of us have at some point...it's no big deal. And if anything, as a manager, I learned that it has actually kept employees from abusing drugs and making bad decisions. They don't want to lose their jobs, they know the company does random drug testing, and they know the company punishes/terminates employees for failing their drug tests. They've got a damn good reason for not turning to drugs and they stay clean. Nothin wrong with it, especially when you're occupying a position that is paid for by the taxpayer.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,628
5,081
568
Wyoming
#5
fucking ACLU... I'm all for testing the people that are supported by the taxpayer
Good to see the ACLU is fighting for important things like helping state employee unions. Meanwhile us peons can't even get a job at Wal Mart without taking a drug test.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#6
Good to see the ACLU is fighting for important things like helping state employee unions. Meanwhile us peons can't even get a job at Wal Mart without taking a drug test.
The ACLU battled Walmart over that (and lost) in Michigan.

That being said, if it's constitutional for private employers to test, even in non-"safety" positions, I don't see why public employees should be any different.

For welfare, the governor should have just started with people on public assistance who had prior drug convictions/problems and looked to expand it later. There was already precedent set when another state tried to do this and it was overturned on appeal based on exactly that wording. Governor should have taken that into account.
 

mascan42

Registered User
Aug 26, 2002
18,728
5,602
768
Ronkonkoma, Long Island
#7

Fuck the drug testing. Who is that woman and why does she look like she's about to eat the governor's head?
 

George Costanza

All Hail the Dragonslayer.
Aug 10, 2007
4,839
8
143
Lake Orion Michigan
#10
it's good to know that i can work a day then down a bottle of jack when i get home but i can't smoke a joint.
It's been that way forever and will stay that way. It's funny that everyone knows it and there is no change. If you're smoking at home that's cool. But smoking before work, on the way to work or while at the job should not be allowed. My last boss always smoked at work and it pissed me off, even though I'm a smoker. It's the fact that if he cuts his hand off while high off of his medical pot, the rest of the workers suffer with new drug test rules at work. There needs to be a more exact test to detect how long ago someone smoked to avoid firing people who smoke responsibly at home.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,628
5,081
568
Wyoming
#11
it's good to know that i can work a day then down a bottle of jack when i get home but i can't smoke a joint.
You can smoke all the joints you want. You just need to be prepared to take the consequences, which in this case means you can't have your pick of jobs. Is it right? Probably not. But that's the way it is.
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,352
21,977
398
Northern California
#12
it's good to know that i can work a day then down a bottle of jack when i get home but i can't smoke a joint.
You can smoke all the joints you want. You just need to be prepared to take the consequences, which in this case means you can't have your pick of jobs. Is it right? Probably not. But that's the way it is.
This. First, the story was in regards to people on welfare, who aren't working to support themselves. Second, employers have every right to stipulate conditions of employment contracts... and you have every right to not work for them. I use to be a huge pot head in high school and a year or so into college... but then I started applying for jobs driving heavy equipment and realized I had to stop. The decent job was more important than getting high. I'm for legalization of marijuana but still think employers have the right to test for it. You're an adult, pick your priorities and live with them.

Also, when driving heavy equipment I was also tested for alcohol, so if I had been drinking the night before there's a good chance I would have lost my job if I was tested the next day.
 

Larz

****Self-Banned****
It's My Birthday!
Feb 12, 2006
2,678
2
228
NYC E. Village, No Homo
#13
I have to take random drug tests. My job can be hazardous at times so if it means keeping people from coming to work high and potentially injuring me I got no problem with it.

I'm pro-legalization... I just don't wanna work druggie idiots.
 

THE FEZ MAN

as a matter of fact i dont have 5$
Aug 23, 2002
41,804
9,230
768
#14
doctors are the worst drug pushers in the world, i say if any one is going to get drug tested test them for everything and if anything shows up fire them, and take there medical benefits