home

FL Governor Orders Drug Testing For All State Employees

By Jeralyn, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 01:21:49 PM EST
Tags: drug testing (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via Exeuctive Order, Florida Governor Rick Scott today ordered mandatory drug testing for newly hired state employees, and periodic testing for existing employees.

Scott issued an executive order requiring each of his agencies to amend its drug testing policy within 60 days to require pre-employment screenings of all job applicants and random testing of the existing work force.

The American Civil Liberties Union, though, pointed out that a federal judge in 2004 ruled random drug testing of most state employees was an unconstitutional violation of privacy rights.

The ACLU says in order for a drug-testing requirement to pass constitutional muster, there must be some connection to safety, or some evidence of illegal drug use.

The order may also violate labor union contracts and collective bargaining rights .[More...]

Scott also cannot unilaterally order drug testing of existing employees without safety issues if they are covered by labor contracts, said Tom Brooks, a lawyer for the Federation of Physicians and Dentists...."Drug testing is considered a mandatory subject of collective bargaining" for most public employees,

One exception to those with collective bargaining rights: police officers, according to the Florida Supreme Court.

The Governor's legal aides insist the order is valid. Exemptions include:

Scott's order does not cover independent constitutional agencies and those of Cabinet members or that he jointly administers with the Cabinet. It also does not cover the Legislature or court system.

So prosecutors, judges and probation officers are exempted? What about prison guards?

< "There Are No Saints Or Geniuses In Politics" | Defendants Sentenced by Drug-Using Judge Seek Case Review >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    FL Governor Orders Drug Testing For All State Employees | 29 comments (29 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    how convenient (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 01:26:40 PM EST
    So prosecutors, judges and probation officers are exempted?
    Not really (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 04:31:44 PM EST
    Link

    Under Scott's order, current employees in agencies that answer to the governor, would be subject to periodic random screening.

    So, yes, judges are exempt.  And my guess is since that the State Police, Parole Department, Department of Corrections (minus the privately run prisons), which includes the probation department) are directly part of an agency directly under the direction of the governor, then they WOULD be subject to this law.  The only lawyers that who, from this reading, would NOT be subject to the drug tests, (because they are under the Judicial Branch and do not report directly to the governor) are the State Attorneys and the State Public Defenders.  

    Local prosecutors in county courts are under the organization of local elected prosecutors and do not seem to be in an agency under the direct control of the governor. I could be wrong about that - can't find anything showing a direct correlation to the governor's office, unless they somehow go up through the AG's office.

    Of course, I don't see this law holding up to constitutional muster anyway, so all this pearl clutching is probably a moot point.

    Parent

    Hey look... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 01:28:30 PM EST
    FLA has money to burn...maybe they can loan Uncle Sam some cash.

    Lets just install a urine analysis device in every residential sewage waste line and be done with it...privacy and liberty is so age of enlightenment last season anyway.

    And What is This Clown Going to Do... (none / 0) (#17)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 04:26:07 PM EST
    ... when they fail, fire them ?  Better beef up that unemployement fund and get ready for the unemployement rate increase.  Florida isn't exactly a drug free zone.

    What I want to know is he and his staff exempt ?  Because if anyone if Florida needs their urine checked it's this clown and the people advising him.

    Even though when I go to the DMV, I feel like they are all on drugs, the fact is drugs at the work place isn't a problem anywhere.  Psuedo sickness is 1000 times bigger issue.  It's just another made up issue to line the pockets of contributors at the expense of people's lives and wallets.

    Who cares if the guy I call on the tax hot line is smoking weed on the weekends, or the toll both attendant does a couple lines on vacation.  So long as he is doing is his job well, I don't care if he mainlining in the bathroom with a crack chaser.

    Parent

    My Point Was... (none / 0) (#30)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 24, 2011 at 09:50:52 AM EST
    ... more that we should judge people at the workplace by their performance/behavior.  Obviously, one would have to have superman like qualities to do heroin and crack w/o being noticed.

    A better example might be the guys who have a drink or two at lunch, or maybe the smoker with a pinch or two in thier cigarette.  Which is leading me back to the story, if there is no reason to suspect someone of doing drugs, why test them ?

    But my real point is we are so lost in politics that if two identical people do the same behavior, the only one at risk of losing their job is the one doing drugs.  

    If I never did a drug, screwed up really bad, and my co-worker got his arm chopped off.  That is not a fireable offense, maybe a reprimand, but if I had a scrap of something in my system, even from a week ago, I would gone ASAP.

    Same with drinking and driving, kill someone and you go to jail, which I am on board with.  But do the exact same screw-up w/o alcohol, and you get a ticket.  The behaviors, or in this case the actions identical.  We are blaming drugs and alcohol, not the person, which to me is insanity.  

    The assumption being, which you made as well, is that drug users are bad for business, which may be true, but I doubt it.  What is bad for business is employees who aren't looking out for themselves or their company.  And you have been around long enough to know that some of the best employees, especially in sales, are functioning alcoholics/addicts.

    So in your case with the manager, the drug behavior IMO doesn't matter, if the guy was screwing up, he should have been gone regardless.  But that's now how society views drug behavior, even if you outperform most of your peers, do drugs, get fired.

    Never mind the guy/gal with the bad attitude who has zero output, and isn't capable of performing their job.  Those people are HR nightmares, because so long as one is one time, firing them is nearly impossible.  But a top performer whose excels in every aspect of their job, will be canned immediately should they get caught at a club dropping X.

    Parent

    Not necessarily (none / 0) (#31)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 24, 2011 at 12:10:00 PM EST
    Same with drinking and driving, kill someone and you go to jail, which I am on board with.  But do the exact same screw-up w/o alcohol, and you get a ticket.  The behaviors, or in this case the actions identical.

    Not sure where you get that idea, but when I worked for a judge, I saw more than a few negligent homicide cases where a driver killed someone and the driver wasn't drunk or high.  They went to jail.

    And no, the behaviors AREN'T identical.  In one case, the driver knowingly and deliberately plied themselves with alcohol - a drug proven to impair judgment, slow reaction time, and loosen reflexes, and then got behind the wheel of a car.  In your other example, a driver got behind the wheel of a car.

    Please explain how that is "identical".

    Parent

    Scott seems to exemplify (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by KeysDan on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 01:52:03 PM EST
    the inconsistencies of the tea party types: get the government into my urine (we need to catch those dope fiends), but kept them out of my company's Medicare billing (we don't need to catch those fraudulent business practices).

    Scott has plenty of ties to the health care (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 01:58:36 PM EST
    system...I'm sure someone will be getting a nice contract for the drug testing. Fraudulent business practices are always the ones someone else is doing, not a tea partier!!!

    Parent
    check out what the gov of maine (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 02:04:37 PM EST
    is up to

    you cant make this sh!t up


    AUGUSTA, Maine -- Maine Gov. Paul LePage has ordered the removal of a 36-foot mural depicting the state's labor history from the lobby of the Department of Labor headquarters building in Augusta.

    In addition, the LePage administration is renaming several department conference rooms that carry the names of pro-labor icons such as Cesar Chavez.

    LePage spokesman Dan Demeritt says the mural and the conference room names are not in keeping with the department's pro-business goals and some business owners complained.



    Parent