Rick Scott orders random drug testing of state employees

[redrumloa]

Florida Gov. Rick Scott orders random drug testing of state employees
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politi ... 5252.story

I'm conflicted on this one, but I guess I will have to side with Rick Scott. Many private companies have similar requirements, why not people with ultra-cushy state jobs? Just like a private company, if you don't like it don't work there.

 

[cecilia]

The people who need to be tested are the ones who directly affect the public.

This is my list and while it may not be related to "state employees" it illustrates my point:

people who fly planes, drive buses and trains.

They also should not be "texting" (god, I hate that word), surfing or talking on a cell phone.

People have been known to die because someone was distracted and caused an accident.

Would I like it if everyone doing ANY job paid attention and gave it their all? well, sure. do I want to be a cop and spy on everyone? well, not so much. paper pushers are less likely to kill anyone. at least not directly.

of course, if their incompetence does harm the public then they should be made accountable

 

[faethor]

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

I'm conflicted on this one, but I guess I will have to side with Rick Scott. Many private companies have similar requirements, why not people with ultra-cushy state jobs? Just like a private company, if you don't like it don't work there.

The 4th Ammendment protects people against unreasonable search and seizures. If an employee has done no wrong and doesn't have a job that could injure or kill others (police, snowplow driver, bus driver). It seems to me random testing is illegal.

Didn't Rick Scott outspend his opposition by 3:1 and won by about 1%?

 

[redrumloa]

search and seizures. If an employee has done no wrong and doesn't have a job that could injure or kill others (police, snowplow driver, bus driver). It seems to me random testing is illegal.

So why have private companies been permitted to do this for decades? I can't remember the last company I worked for who did not require employees to be subject to random testing.

Didn't Rick Scott outspend his opposition by 3:1 and won by about 1%?

What does that have to do with the price of milk?

 

[faethor]

search and seizures. If an employee has done no wrong and doesn't have a job that could injure or kill others (police, snowplow driver, bus driver). It seems to me random testing is illegal.

So why have private companies been permitted to do this for decades? I can't remember the last company I worked for who did not require employees to be subject to random testing.

In the US we allow private businesses to have a degree of freedom that the government is not allowed. As the government here is the employer it's the government who is doing the random testing without evidence of wrong doing. The 4th amendment protects from random government searches.

Subsequent to my statment I ran across the ACLU against this. (Hate the ACLU or not) Turns out there was a previous court case. LINK where the Dept of Justice in Florida tried to randoming, without cause, test an employee. The judges in Florida ruled this to be illegal.

I may indeed be correct and Florida's Gov. may soon run into legal prescence.

Scott seems scummy to me. I wouldn't be surprised to find out Scott owns stock in a Drug Testing business.

[quote:9bce7iw7]Didn't Rick Scott outspend his opposition by 3:1 and won by about 1%?

What does that have to do with the price of milk?[/quote:9bce7iw7][/quote] It had no relation. It was a side note for my personal understanding of the Republican support of last election. Florida is one place where Republicans won. I wanted to double check my understanding is correct.

 

[Robert]

search and seizures. If an employee has done no wrong and doesn't have a job that could injure or kill others (police, snowplow driver, bus driver). It seems to me random testing is illegal.

So why have private companies been permitted to do this for decades? I can't remember the last company I worked for who did not require employees to be subject to random testing.

[/quote]

It's the same in the UK and, as far as I'm concerned it's an absolute disgrace. What I get up to at the weekend is none of my employer's business.

I have a number of friends subject to random drug tests. Most of them not involved in the types of jobs faethor listed.
If they are found to have any illegal substances in their system they face the sack, regardless of whether it has any effect on their performance.

I think this practice is completely outrageous and would ban it.

Also, I'd go further, even if they were e.g. a snowplough driver, bus driver, etc, (I'll omit police, purely on grounds of hypocrisy) unless you can produce evidence that the *amount* of a substance in the body could have an influence on reaction time, etc, (as they do with alcohol) the whole practice should be banned.
To clarify, if you drive a bus whilst tripping of your arse, or stoned, or drunk, you should not just be sacked but gaoled.
But if you drive a bus a few days after being smacked out of your brains, or whatever, it should be nobody's business unless they also ban drivers from having a beer on a Friday night before work on a Monday.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Random drug testing is just harassment. It's a way for employers to demonstrate to the employees just how much their ass is owned. It's no different from random searches on the street. There is almost never any justification for random drug testing and anyone who shows up to work incompetent can already be sent home or dismissed but you don't need a drug test for that. When it's a test that can tell what you've been up to on your own time it really isn't the business of your employer.

Where there is a strong case for public safety then any test should be consistently taken before every shift. Random testing is next to useless for this kind of enforcement as there is a good chance you can "use" and get away with it on any given shift. But the biggest problem is that random testing is likely not to be random, but used more frequently on certain individuals or groups.

The reason why the right wing tend to favour it is that fundamentalist Christians are less likely to use. Therefore there is a built in bias towards fundies so it's sort of a back door hiring discrimination. Of course, the fundie Muslims would pass the tests too. Doubtless there are other screening criteria in place for that.

 

[cecilia]

Where there is a strong case for public safety then any test should be consistently taken before every shift.

that was really my point which I didn't make clear enough. thanks for making it for me.

 

[faethor]

Fluffy what I've found is 'random drug testing' seems to apply to those who make the least but that high salaried CEO is nearly always exempt. And really who can do more damage to the company Joe Stockboy or the Michael Milkens and Jeff Skillings? Shouldn't we be auditing all accountants, accuaries, and investment bankers personal holdings? Afterall without testing everyone for drugs we don't know if they're conducting illegal behaviors and without testing everyone for financial abuse we don't know if they're conducting illegal behaviors.


EDIT:
According to Wikipedia Scott is a major owner of the Solantic chain of healthcare providers. One of the services they provide is Drug Testing.

Under the category of things that make you go hmmm... My question about Republican spending 3:1 to win by 1% may actually have been serendipitous. See Rick Scott loaned his campaign $22million of the $60Million he spent. It appears in 2009 the business received a large investment influx. I go above when I tongue-in-cheek demanded auditing of people's finance and now think for Scott that might be a very good idea. I wonder if the investment was used for investment or if Scott laundered it into his campaign. If so certainly mandating the State send people into his pockets is one way to cover his ass. In the least I see Scott with some $$ in his eyes expecting his business will see a profit from his new rules. Perhaps a not so thinly veiled consipracy is a foot in Florida.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Grayson on Scott

[youtube:31g232j3]FWFvIge4tKg[/youtube:31g232j3]

 

[redrumloa]

Grayson on Scott

Prove it besides a MSNBC hit piece. Prove that Rick Scott will make a fortune. If this turns out to be true and he makes out like a bandit, I will join you in condemning him.

-Edit-
Holy crap! you listen to these talking heads????

:roll:

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Prove it besides a MSNBC hit piece. Prove that Rick Scott will make a fortune.

And that's why he'll make money. He can rip you off and you'll defend him because you'd rather hate drug users than believe you are being tricked. Politicians get ahead by widening divisions and playing to people's bigotries.

 

[ilwrath]

Politicians get ahead by widening divisions and playing to people's bigotries.

That, right there, probably sums up the politics of the past 10 years better than anything else I've ever read. And so few people see it.

 

[Robert]

Politicians get ahead by widening divisions and playing to people's bigotries.

That, right there, probably sums up the politics of the past 10 years better than anything else I've ever read. And so few people see it.

It's been at least 30 years in the UK - probably longer.

 

[faethor]

Rick Scott won't profit from his policies promoting medical clinics. Cuz he transferred his $62Million in holdings to his wife. Seriously he said this.