Are mandatory random drug tests violations of the fourth amendment?

[Toddsterpatriot]

My company wants to start drug testing this summer. I am opposed to them on constitutional grounds. How can I consent to an unwarranted search of the most intimate place I own, my body?

Would you consent if, as a condition of your employment, your company wanted to come into your home, riffle through your check book, peek under your bed, snoop around in your closets and dressers?

I will comply if they present a search warrant and show probable cause.

It's funny how that fourth amendment can be ignored.

Would you consent if, as a condition of your employment, your company wanted to come into your home, riffle through your check book, peek under your bed, snoop around in your closets and dressers?

Testing your urine is less intrusive than searching your papers, effects, home.

Is it unreasonable? You don't have to consent. As others have said, you'd probably have to work elsewhere.

If you would not consent to having your home searched, why would you consent to having the most intimate space you own searched? Isn't your body the most intimate space you own?

They aren't searching your body, you're peeing in a cup.

And what do they do with the urine? Do they search through it?

Yes, they search through it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A company could mandate a internal ass screening every year, and it would be constitutional.

So are private sector drug testing venues.

"Constitutional" is one thing. This is less about Constitutional rights and more about the Human rights that document is based on. The principle.

The principle of what? There is no human right against being drug tested by your employer. I wish my professors at university had been drug tested.

 

[Pogo]

Not sure what kind of deals you make for salary but in my experience work isn't "voluntary" unless you work for free.

And if the company suddenly puts you in a fire trap workplace with volatile chemicals and whips you while you work? Just roll over for it and "accept the conditions", huh?

your o.c.d. for arguing just .....flew right past my give a fuck meter pogo. Whoooo0o0osh, try again next time.

Why should I try again when I just proved the point?
When you lose your keys and then find them ---- do you keep looking?

you proved no point...you made a quibble over minutia and then posted a non sequitur. Call your boss the n word and dont get fired, give it a shot bro(i dont care if your response is something about not having a boss or your boss is your best friend). P.s. drug testing policy is along the same lines as fire safety, dont try and figure out why.....it might hurt.

Uh... no Sparkles, I extended your point to its obvious conclusion to expose the flaw in it. Your point was to go "yes master, may I have another". I say that's obsequious and enabling.

And your puerile attempt to draw a false comparison with the "fuck off, Boss" thing completely fails. That's not intruding on anybody's privacy.

no, idiot. Its not. Its (in you dumbass' dichotomy) a "1st amendment right violation." Thats your asinine view, not mine. And saying employment isnt voluntary because you are being paid... no dumbdumb. That was quibbling over minutia because I used the term "voluntarily" as opposed to "its free will," and you waste time making dope nit picks that are meaningless to the conversation and all it does is serve to make you look like an arrogant jackass. Sort of like crying about 4th amendment rights when you enter employment at under your own "free will" to begin with.

I haven't brought up any "rights violations", First or Fourth -- that's your own strawman.

As I already articulated we're talking about a Human right -- the one the Fourth, First etc are based on. And I'm simply saying people in general should grow a spine and refuse to put up with this bullshit. You on the other hand seem to want everybody to just bend over for it.

That's your thing but I just won't swing that way.

 

[G.T.]

Working there on your own free will is not bending over, it's making a choice to abide by the terms of the relationship in exchange for currency....and...NOBODY IS FORCING ANYONE so.....boogy woogy woogy the thread premise is daft.

 

[Valerie]

i'm leaning toward G.T. on this one, though it is a tough question...

simply put, the OP deems the cause 'not probable' because of his past performance and inside knowledge of his own habits.

but the state sees his job position differently and indeed has 'probable cause' because they have a responsibility to public safety.

 

[Iceweasel]

If it's legal in the private sector it has to be legal in the public sector.

 

[Valerie]

I work as the county Building Inspector.

probable cause exists because the nature of the job involves public safety...

 

[Pogo]

i'm leaning toward G.T. on this one, though it is a tough question...

simply put, the OP deems the cause 'not probable' because of his past performance and inside knowledge of his own habits.

but the state sees his job position differently and indeed has 'probable cause' because they have a responsibility to public safety.

That isn't a probable cause though. Probably cause would be if NK got busted for going on a rampage while hopped up on Goofballs, and his employer got wind of it.

I work as the county Building Inspector.

probable cause exists because the nature of the job involves public safety...

Non sequitur.

 

[Valerie]

If it's legal in the private sector it has to be legal in the public sector.

...only a handful of states ban testing that is not based on individual suspicion: Montana, Iowa, Vermont, and Rhode Island. Minnesota, Maine and Connecticut permit not-for-cause testing, but only of employees in safety-sensitive positions. These laws also require confirmation testing, lab certification and test result confidentiality.

Hawaii, Louisiana, Maryland, Nebraska, Oregon and Utah regulate drug testing in some fashion; Florida and Kansas protect government employee rights, but not those of private sector workers. Only in California, Massachusetts and New Jersey have the highest courts ruled out some forms of drug testing on state constitutional or statutory grounds. The ACLU is now continuing our efforts to protect workplace privacy rights.

Workplace Drug Testing

 

[Pogo]

is not bending over, it's making a choice to abide by the terms

Nothing needs to be added.

 

[G.T.]

is not bending over, it's making a choice to abide by the terms

Nothing needs to be added.

Oh youre too tough, 4got

 

[Iceweasel]

If it's legal in the private sector it has to be legal in the public sector.

...only a handful of states ban testing that is not based on individual suspicion: Montana, Iowa, Vermont, and Rhode Island. Minnesota, Maine and Connecticut permit not-for-cause testing, but only of employees in safety-sensitive positions. These laws also require confirmation testing, lab certification and test result confidentiality.

Hawaii, Louisiana, Maryland, Nebraska, Oregon and Utah regulate drug testing in some fashion; Florida and Kansas protect government employee rights, but not those of private sector workers. Only in California, Massachusetts and New Jersey have the highest courts ruled out some forms of drug testing on state constitutional or statutory grounds. The ACLU is now continuing our efforts to protect workplace privacy rights.

Workplace Drug Testing

Fascinating. You left off the "as of 1997" part.

 

[Valerie]

i wasn't sure how updated the state info was...

 

[idb]

My objection to mandatory workplace drug testing is that it doesn't test for impairment...only that you've used drugs.
That should be no business of the employer.

 

[Valerie]

feel free to add more info, if you can...

my point in response to your post was, it clearly depends on several factors.

 

[Pogo]

My objection to mandatory workplace drug testing is that it doesn't test for impairment...only that you've used drugs.
That should be no business of the employer.

Excellent point. One I've often made on this topic but neglected here.

If one's job involves, say, critical motor skills, testing specifically for execution of those skills could expose periods of insufficient such skills, whether that was based on substance... lack of sleep.... some medical condition, or some mental condition or whatever. The presence of some substance may or may not be a causation.

Of course ------ taking that approach would presuppose that the obiective actually IS "safety", but obviously that's not the objective.

 

[Iceweasel]

My objection to mandatory workplace drug testing is that it doesn't test for impairment...only that you've used drugs.
That should be no business of the employer.

The drugs they test for impair you. Jesus, this isn't rocket science.

 

[Pogo]

My objection to mandatory workplace drug testing is that it doesn't test for impairment...only that you've used drugs.
That should be no business of the employer.

The drugs they test for impair you. Jesus, this isn't rocket science.

Not necessarily.

Again -- you could test for actual impairment, whether that's a result of some substance, lack of sleep, sickness, whatever.

But that's not what they're doing --- because actual "impairment" isn't what they're looking for. If it were, the same fascist employers would be requiring proof that the employee got enough sleep.

 

[Nosmo King]

I am not a member of a union. I work as the county Building Inspector. I have a sterling attendance record, I have NEVER been involved in a workplace accident and I do not use drugs.

I am an American who holds the constitution dear. Ever read it? I advise you to start with the Fourth amendment.

And yet you do not understand that which you read!

You only know far left religious dogma.

If you say you hold the constitution dear then you would never vote far left..

These are just words to make yourself sound noble, but you are hardly noble supporting the far left .

Just suck it up and take the test! Unless you have something to hide..

And you show with each and every post that you do not understand the forth amendment..

Just suck it up and leave your gun at home, unless you want to shoot somebody.

Perfect example of a far left drone when shown the facts!

They have to do what everyone else does and they want special privileges, because they are part of the far left religious culture!

Your employer has the "right" to make the work place safe for everyone!

Why do you want to deny that right?

Here's where I see my rights:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things

Show me where you see the right to make the workplace safe by conducting unwarranted searches.

Yes I know you far left drones cut and paste your religious dogma!

The employer has the right to make sure the work environment is safe, even safe from those that abuse alcohol and drugs! So they can make it safe for everyone. Please show the law that prevents the employer from making a safe work environment..

My "dogma" is the actual text of the Fourth Amendment. Are you not familiar with the constitution?

 

[Kosh]

And yet you do not understand that which you read!

You only know far left religious dogma.

If you say you hold the constitution dear then you would never vote far left..

These are just words to make yourself sound noble, but you are hardly noble supporting the far left .

Just suck it up and take the test! Unless you have something to hide..

And you show with each and every post that you do not understand the forth amendment..

Just suck it up and leave your gun at home, unless you want to shoot somebody.

Perfect example of a far left drone when shown the facts!

They have to do what everyone else does and they want special privileges, because they are part of the far left religious culture!

Your employer has the "right" to make the work place safe for everyone!

Why do you want to deny that right?

Here's where I see my rights:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things

Show me where you see the right to make the workplace safe by conducting unwarranted searches.

Yes I know you far left drones cut and paste your religious dogma!

The employer has the right to make sure the work environment is safe, even safe from those that abuse alcohol and drugs! So they can make it safe for everyone. Please show the law that prevents the employer from making a safe work environment..

My "dogma" is the actual text of the Fourth Amendment. Are you not familiar with the constitution?

Your religious dogma comes from being a far left drone and not understanding the Constitution!

So you have no evidence to support your claims other than a far left religious view, because you want unsafe work environments!