Harrison disagrees with drug policy

[xxSnEaKyPxx]

Thanks for clearing it up Devin, he is an idiot haha.

[mizzoupacers]

When it comes down to it, the NBA and the PACERS are a private organization, who's objective is the same as any other buisness, to make money. And if they want to drug test their employees, they have every right to do so.

I'd like to see someone with a legal background weigh in on this. I don't have a legal background, but I suspect that private companies have no such right.

We are talking about civilian life here. And we are not living in a police state, at least not yet.

I would think that the individual's right to privacy and right to earn a living would trump the employer's wishes to know what chemicals their employees are ingesting/inhaling/absorbing. I can't imagine that private companies have any legal standing to force unconsenting employees to take drug tests, or even to coerce them into consenting.

What if the drug tests uncover something private such as that the employee is taking medication for depression? You think that some employers would not hold that against the employee, even if there was absolutely no indication that the depression/treatment was harming work performance? This is the real world here.

Again, it's a slippery slope once you start permitting employers to evaluate employees on anything beyond actual work-related performance.

[Devin 1L]

-= original quote snipped =-



I'd like to see someone with a legal background weigh in on this. I don't have a legal background, but I suspect that private companies have no such right.

We are talking about civilian life here. And we are not living in a police state, at least not yet.

I would think that the individual's right to privacy and right to earn a living would trump the employer's wishes to know what chemicals their employees are ingesting/inhaling/absorbing. I can't imagine that private companies have any legal standing to force unconsenting employees to take drug tests, or even to coerce them into consenting.

What if the drug tests uncover something private such as that the employee is taking medication for depression? You think that some employers would not hold that against the employee, even if there was absolutely no indication that the depression/treatment was harming work performance? This is the real world here.

Again, it's a slippery slope once you start permitting employers to evaluate employees on anything beyond actual work-related performance.

Man, I couldn't disagree more, and private companies do have a right to drug test.

[mizzoupacers]

I respect your right to disagree.

This seems like a pretty good link for anyone who wants to know more about current drug-testing law:

link

Pretty interesting stuff. Seems like there is more legal support for drug testing than I would have guessed, but it's also clear that employers' rights to drug test are limited in many instances due to questions regarding rights to privacy and related protections guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

And here is another link that gives a pretty good argument for the case to be made against drug testing, courtesy of the ACLU:

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/emp02.htm

[harding156]

I'd like to see someone with a legal background weigh in on this. I don't have a legal background, but I suspect that private companies have no such right.

We are talking about civilian life here. And we are not living in a police state, at least not yet.

I would think that the individual's right to privacy and right to earn a living would trump the employer's wishes to know what chemicals their employees are ingesting/inhaling/absorbing. I can't imagine that private companies have any legal standing to force unconsenting employees to take drug tests, or even to coerce them into consenting.

What if the drug tests uncover something private such as that the employee is taking medication for depression? You think that some employers would not hold that against the employee, even if there was absolutely no indication that the depression/treatment was harming work performance? This is the real world here.

Again, it's a slippery slope once you start permitting employers to evaluate employees on anything beyond actual work-related performance.

I'm in the trucking industry, and I'm the one that selects which drivers are going to be tested for our company. One failed drug test and they're gone. I don't know about you, but I don't want truck drivers going on 12 hour coke binges before they get behind the wheel.

Companies are even firing employees that smoke cigarettes, and they have the right to do that too. Smokers think companies are impeding on their right to get lung cancer, but what they're actually doing is lowering their health insurance costs by getting rid of the people that are slowly committing suicide. Same thing can be said about drugs. The heroin addict might perform wonderfully, but it affects the company when he doesn't show up one day because he OD'd. Then the company has to scramble to fill their position.

And we don't need a lawyer. Do you actually think random drug tests would still be happening in lawsuit-happy America if it wasn't legal?

[mizzoupacers]

I'm in the trucking industry, and I'm the one that selects which drivers are going to be tested for our company. One failed drug test and they're gone. I don't know about you, but I don't want truck drivers going on 12 hour coke binges before they get behind the wheel.

Read my links. The first one makes clear that a legal right has been established for employers to drug test in situations where safety is clearly at stake. Safety is clearly at stake in driving a truck.

Companies are even firing employees that smoke cigarettes, and they have the right to do that too. Smokers think companies are impeding on their right to get lung cancer, but what they're actually doing is lowering their health insurance costs by getting rid of the people that are slowly committing suicide.

I'm pretty sure companies can't fire otherwise satisfactory workers simply for smoking, any more than they can fire them for becoming pregnant or coming down with Lou Gehrig's disease. At least not without legal challenge. You can fire smokers for smoking at the work site if it is a prohibited activity. You can probably choose not to hire smokers in the first place. I don't think you can fire them just because you think they are an insurance risk--that seems like a fairly obvious violation of their constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Same thing can be said about drugs. The heroin addict might perform wonderfully, but it affects the company when he doesn't show up one day because he OD'd. Then the company has to scramble to fill their position.

By that logic, you should also fire good workers who routinely break the speed limit while driving, because one day they might get in a serious traffic accident and then the company would have to scramble to fill their position. Maybe all employees should be subjected to random radar-gun tests as well as random drug tests. Are you going to test for every potentially harmful personal habit?

I submit that if someone is a heroin addict, it will only be a matter of time until it affects his or her work performance. At that point, the addict can be fired for cause, or drug-tested for cause and then fired for failing the test. In the meantime, there is no reason for testing the ENTIRE WORKFORCE for drugs that is compelling enough to outweigh their constitutional rights (such as privacy), unless that workforce is operating hazardous equipment or something.

And we don't need a lawyer. Do you actually think random drug tests would still be happening in lawsuit-happy America if it wasn't legal?

Again, read my links. Random drug tests happen in some contexts, because our legal system has determined that in some contexts they are appropriate. But it is also recognized that there is an inherent conflict between random drug tests and some of our constitutional rights, and that therefore either a compelling reason must be presented for carrying out the tests, or the employee must willingly consent to the test.

I'm kind of surprised that more of you aren't more sensitive to preserving civil liberties. These are our most basic rights we are talking about. Yours and mine. It's not something foisted on us by lawsuit-happy attorneys.