Are mandatory random drug tests violations of the fourth amendment?

[Nosmo King]

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!

My evidence is the text of the constitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Work place safety? Business provided health insurance? Need to think this again.

 

[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.

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

Yes they do.
But, what's the relevance of detecting cannabis in your system 28 days after you've used it?

 

[G.T.]

Like it or not, a company that drug tests is not Violating anyone's rights unless you are forced to work there. Also, and another like it or not, folks who work for said Company are a reflection of its brand and protecting that investment for something as reasonable as illegal(pretty key term)activity is actually not too bad a move from a practicality stand point either, depending on the level of what's at stake.

 

[Skylar]

Why are so many folks willing to roll over on the Fourth Amendment but fight tooth and nail for the Second?

Aren't rights rights and equally sacrosanct?

Not a good analogy. The county has the right to make you leave your gun in the car or even at home. It's the government doing the drug testing but it's for a job. They may have a good reason, like someone doing something dopey and costing the citizens a bundle. Or it may be a factor for health or liability insurance.

It isn't like the government is random testing citizens, that would be an issue.

Do you think drug testing by a government agency on their employees is unreasonable search and seizure?

If they issued a warrant and showed probable cause, I would gladly comply.

But I don't want my medical records unsecured. I don't want my body searched without cause. I value privacy.

Freedom isn't free. Protecting freedoms is not the exclusive province of the Department of Defense. I believe every citizen must fight for their freedoms whenever they are threatened.

It's a job and they may have good reason to do it like the private sector does. I don't know what you mean by unsecured medical records. If you are a building inspector they are paying you to drive around so they have skin in the game.

Where is the probable cause?
Particularly when it's "mandatory" as a condition of employment?

Why would an employer need 'probable cause' to give you a drug test?

 

[Kosh]

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!

My evidence is the text of the constitution.

No you evidence is in far left religious dogma, the Constitution is something you far left drones have no clue about. To you drones it is just a GD piece of paper!

 

[G.T.]

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.

Yes they do.
But, what's the relevance of detecting cannabis in your system 28 days after you've used it?

Cannabis testing is only relevant in that your employees are breaking laws while in some capacity representing your company(in my Corp's employee handbook, it specifies the degree to which you actually represent the company and you read the handbook once per year and either agree to it or dont, again, free to leave whenever you wish).....

but Id argue Weed shouldnt be illegal to begin with anyhow.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Yes they do.
But, what's the relevance of detecting cannabis in your system 28 days after you've used it?

Cannabis testing is only relevant in that your employees are breaking laws while in some capacity representing your company(in my Corp's employee handbook, it specifies the degree to which you actually represent the company and you read the handbook once per year and either agree to it or dont, again, free to leave whenever you wish).....

but Id argue Weed shouldnt be illegal to begin with anyhow.

Its relevant from a liability perspective as well.

 

[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.

Work place safety? Business provided health insurance? Need to think this again.

How is detecting that you've used drugs a matter of workplace safety unless you're impaired?
All it tells the employer is what you've been doing in your personal time.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Work place safety? Business provided health insurance? Need to think this again.

How is detecting that you've used drugs a matter of workplace safety unless you're impaired?
All it tells the employer is what you've been doing in your personal time.

Its a liability issue. If you can demonstrate that you knew they were users of cannibis....and then they act in an impared fashion and hurts someone, you're liable for plenty.

And why would an employer need probable cause?

 

[Pogo]

but Id argue Weed shouldnt be illegal to begin with anyhow.

--- which is all the more reason to not bend over for this shit.

 

[Pogo]

Why are so many folks willing to roll over on the Fourth Amendment but fight tooth and nail for the Second?

Aren't rights rights and equally sacrosanct?

Not a good analogy. The county has the right to make you leave your gun in the car or even at home. It's the government doing the drug testing but it's for a job. They may have a good reason, like someone doing something dopey and costing the citizens a bundle. Or it may be a factor for health or liability insurance.

It isn't like the government is random testing citizens, that would be an issue.

Do you think drug testing by a government agency on their employees is unreasonable search and seizure?

If they issued a warrant and showed probable cause, I would gladly comply.

But I don't want my medical records unsecured. I don't want my body searched without cause. I value privacy.

Freedom isn't free. Protecting freedoms is not the exclusive province of the Department of Defense. I believe every citizen must fight for their freedoms whenever they are threatened.

It's a job and they may have good reason to do it like the private sector does. I don't know what you mean by unsecured medical records. If you are a building inspector they are paying you to drive around so they have skin in the game.

Where is the probable cause?
Particularly when it's "mandatory" as a condition of employment?

Why would an employer need 'probable cause' to give you a drug test?

Because it's pre-emptive.

 

[Skylar]

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!

My evidence is the text of the constitution.

The constitution is a list of government powers and individual rights against federal government interference.

What does have to do with your employer?

 

[Skylar]

Not a good analogy. The county has the right to make you leave your gun in the car or even at home. It's the government doing the drug testing but it's for a job. They may have a good reason, like someone doing something dopey and costing the citizens a bundle. Or it may be a factor for health or liability insurance.

It isn't like the government is random testing citizens, that would be an issue.

Do you think drug testing by a government agency on their employees is unreasonable search and seizure?

If they issued a warrant and showed probable cause, I would gladly comply.

But I don't want my medical records unsecured. I don't want my body searched without cause. I value privacy.

Freedom isn't free. Protecting freedoms is not the exclusive province of the Department of Defense. I believe every citizen must fight for their freedoms whenever they are threatened.

It's a job and they may have good reason to do it like the private sector does. I don't know what you mean by unsecured medical records. If you are a building inspector they are paying you to drive around so they have skin in the game.

Where is the probable cause?
Particularly when it's "mandatory" as a condition of employment?

Why would an employer need 'probable cause' to give you a drug test?

Because it's pre-emptive.

And?

 

[G.T.]

but Id argue Weed shouldnt be illegal to begin with anyhow.

--- which is all the more reason to not bend over for this shit.

No, acually its non sequitur so long as businesses arent writing the Law.

 

[Pogo]

Do you think drug testing by a government agency on their employees is unreasonable search and seizure?

If they issued a warrant and showed probable cause, I would gladly comply.

But I don't want my medical records unsecured. I don't want my body searched without cause. I value privacy.

Freedom isn't free. Protecting freedoms is not the exclusive province of the Department of Defense. I believe every citizen must fight for their freedoms whenever they are threatened.

It's a job and they may have good reason to do it like the private sector does. I don't know what you mean by unsecured medical records. If you are a building inspector they are paying you to drive around so they have skin in the game.

Where is the probable cause?
Particularly when it's "mandatory" as a condition of employment?

Why would an employer need 'probable cause' to give you a drug test?

Because it's pre-emptive.

And?

And ---- that's it. What more so you need?

You can't arrest Joe Blow for bank robbery, on the basis that Joe needs the money and might conceivably do it.

 

[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.

Work place safety? Business provided health insurance? Need to think this again.

How is detecting that you've used drugs a matter of workplace safety unless you're impaired?
All it tells the employer is what you've been doing in your personal time.

Its a liability issue. If you can demonstrate that you knew they were users of cannibis....and then they act in an impared fashion and hurts someone, you're liable for plenty.

And why would an employer need probable cause?

So, how far should the employer take these risk factors that might cause impairment?
If he/she was aware the employee was going through a marriage break up for example.
That might cause them to be distracted and a danger to others.
Should they be automatically stood down...or tested for 'impairment'?

 

[Pogo]

but Id argue Weed shouldnt be illegal to begin with anyhow.

--- which is all the more reason to not bend over for this shit.

No, acually its non sequitur so long as businesses arent writing the Law.

No actually it's about standing up for your own rights. And that means collectively.

 

[Skylar]

It's a job and they may have good reason to do it like the private sector does. I don't know what you mean by unsecured medical records. If you are a building inspector they are paying you to drive around so they have skin in the game.

Where is the probable cause?
Particularly when it's "mandatory" as a condition of employment?

Why would an employer need 'probable cause' to give you a drug test?

Because it's pre-emptive.

And?

And ---- that's it. What more so you need?

Some relevance to the 4th amendment. Or constitutional rights.

Rights are restrictions on government actions. Not businesses. By the standards you're using, a non-disclosure agreement would violate your 1st amendment rights.

You can't arrest Joe Blow for bank robbery, on the basis that Joe needs the money.

A business isn't 'arresting' anyone. If you fail the drug test, you are free to go.

Permanently.

 

[G.T.]

but Id argue Weed shouldnt be illegal to begin with anyhow.

--- which is all the more reason to not bend over for this shit.

No, acually its non sequitur so long as businesses arent writing the Law.

No actually it's about standing up for your own rights. And that means collectively.

I stand up for my rights by not working for any company that does something that I cant rock with, simple as that. Im not into forcing some corny personal ideals on every single company when I have the choice to work for those Im most aligned with and not work for those Im not.