PDA

View Full Version : RickScott'sUncostitu. Exec.Order 2 B Challenged



Gayle in MD
03-29-2011, 09:34 AM
MIAMI (Reuters) - Florida's Republican Governor Rick Scott will soon be hit with legal challenges over his decision to make drug tests mandatory for all state workers, an American Civil Liberties Union official said on Monday.

"We're certainly moving in that direction," said Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida, when asked about possible lawsuits challenging the policy.

"It's certainly going to be subjected to a test, a constitutional evaluation by the courts," Simon, a veteran civil rights advocate, told Reuters.

He was referring to an executive order that Scott, a Tea Party-backed conservative, signed last week requiring random drug screening for all workers on the state payroll at least once every three months.

New job applicants would also be subject to drug tests under the order signed by Scott, a controversial former healthcare executive, who took office in January.

Scott issued his order on the same day a bill was filed in the state legislature seeking to make good on his campaign pledge to require drug tests for welfare recipients, who would be required to pay for their own drug screening.



Simon said both the executive order and legislative proposal contradict what many consider to be established law, and clear standards on drug testing set by the U.S. Supreme Court about two decades ago.

He said random drug testing of government workers, without reasonable suspicion of drug abuse, has generally been limited to employees in jobs where public safety is an issue.

"There's federal, U.S. Supreme Court standards on all of this. I don't think the governor got very good legal advice on this thing," Simon said.

He noted that Scott has staunchly opposed a statewide computer database that would track prescriptions of Vicodin, Percocet and other dangerous narcotics, on grounds that it could intrude on privacy rights.

"That could only come from a person who is very, very selective in their principles," Simon said.

Law enforcement officials say Florida is the largest U.S. state without a database to keep track of painkillers, including oxycodone, and the undisputed epicenter of America's illegal pill-mill trade and prescription dope dealers.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/28/rick-scott-faces-challeng_n_841703.html

pooltchr
03-29-2011, 10:04 AM
Why would you be opposed to drug testing of public employees? Do you think your tax dollars should be paying people who show up to work high on drugs?

Steve

LWW
03-29-2011, 10:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why would you be opposed to drug testing of public employees? Do you think your tax dollars should be paying people who show up to work high on drugs?

Steve </div></div>

Because the regime has told her she's opposed to it.

eg8r
03-29-2011, 12:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Florida's Republican Governor Rick Scott will soon be hit with legal challenges over his decision to make drug tests mandatory for all state workers, an American Civil Liberties Union official said on Monday.
</div></div>Who here believes government workers should not have to be drug free employees?

eg8r

pooltchr
03-29-2011, 12:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
</div></div>Who here believes government workers should not have to be drug free employees?

eg8r [/quote]

Apparently, at least one person does.

Steve

llotter
03-29-2011, 01:32 PM
What we have going on is the Cloward-Piven tactic of overloading the system to crate chaos that causes a demand for order by the State. Law suits, civil disobedience and whatever can bring down the existing order is the goal.

It's going to be interesting to watch the Left's reaction to being defunded when union dues are no longer deducted from paychecks as they have already done in WI

cushioncrawler
03-29-2011, 03:57 PM
The main problem in theusofa iz legal drugs, and legal gov aktions.
Then kums illegal drugs, and illegal gov aktion.
mac.

Soflasnapper
03-29-2011, 04:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Florida's Republican Governor Rick Scott will soon be hit with legal challenges over his decision to make drug tests mandatory for all state workers, an American Civil Liberties Union official said on Monday.
</div></div>Who here believes government workers should not have to be drug free employees?

eg8r </div></div>

It's a balancing test between 4th amendment rights and government employment.

If Scott could show there is some general drug problem, or even if limited, some severe result to government's purposes from that limited drug problem, then he'd begin to be able to push down on the balancing test for his position and make a case.

However, there has been no such showing, this testing will cost in the $10s of millions of dollars, at least, and this state like many is struggling with large deficits.

It's purely a political move to please his base, which also impinges on 4th amendment rights AND costs a lotta money. (Note, this is NOT only for health and safety workers, those who drive on the job, or others for whom drugs could cause clear and imminent dangers and liabilities for the state. This includes people whose 'heavy equipment' during working hours consists of computer keyboards.)

eg8r
03-30-2011, 07:42 AM
But you are avoiding my question...

eg8r

pooltchr
03-30-2011, 12:24 PM
Of course he is. There is no way they can justify not wanting our government (taxpayer paid) employees to be drug free.

Personally, I don't care if the employee is a janator or a bus driver...if I am paying them to do a job, and they are coming to work stoned, I want them out of there!

Steve

Soflasnapper
03-30-2011, 04:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But you are avoiding my question...

eg8r </div></div>

Nobody working for the government ought to be on drugs at the workplace. Any reasonable cause for suspicion that such a worker is ON DRUGS AT THE JOB should be looked into.

Absent reasonable cause, and as simply a general principle, you are doing something that is invasive of privacy, costly to the public, and without any demonstration that public interests are being addressed in a sensible way.

For health and safety workers, fireman and police and EMTs, people who drive vehicles on their state duties, etc., there is a prima facia reason to randomly test without probable cause.

Otherwise, my opinion is that if you're not bringing drugs to the workplace (in or out of your body), selling drugs, impaired from the use of drugs at home away from the workplace but still impaired at work, etc., a broadly cast net over everyone, almost none of whom are under reasonable suspicion, is going too far.

Likewise, we might also say we don't want state employees selling drugs at the workplace. Would you then support random required permission to search their private cars, and/or their private homes, so as to perform hundreds of thousands of costly searches, without any reason, but at a large cost?

Somehow you want to invade their very bodies, which have the greatest privacy-- wouldn't you then have to agree to require searching all of their cars and homes periodically?

pooltchr
03-30-2011, 05:03 PM
I'm guessing you haven't been in the job market lately. Go on one of the job boards and check out the jobs. It is normal in applying for a job to sign a waiver authorizing the potential employer to run a background check, credit check, and require pre-employment drug screening.

If this is prudent in pre-employment situations, why would it not be prudent to do random testing of employees after they are already employed?

Random testing does not have to be a huge expense. The term ramdom means not everyone will be tested. I used to be subject to random testing. Every month, HR would send a list of 3 or 4 names and we would send those employees for their test. Funny story, one day, rather than sending me the list, the HR rep showed up with it in person. Seems they wouldn't e-mail the list to a manager, if that manager's name was on the list!

Steve

LWW
03-31-2011, 03:43 AM
How is it invasive of privacy?

Qtec
03-31-2011, 05:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How is it invasive of privacy? </div></div>

What I do in my own free time is my business, not my employer's.


Q

Qtec
03-31-2011, 05:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm guessing you haven't been in the job market lately. Go on one of the job boards and check out the jobs. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>It is normal </span>in applying for a job to sign a waiver authorizing the potential employer to run a background check, credit check, and require pre-employment drug screening. </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>No its not.</span> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Maybe in the Land of the Free</span>, but not over here.

Q

Gayle in MD
03-31-2011, 06:02 AM
Too bad they weren't drug testing at the White House while Bush was in there....

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Stretch
03-31-2011, 06:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm guessing you haven't been in the job market lately. Go on one of the job boards and check out the jobs. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>It is normal </span>in applying for a job to sign a waiver authorizing the potential employer to run a background check, credit check, and require pre-employment drug screening. </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>No its not.</span> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Maybe in the Land of the Free</span>, but not over here.

Q </div></div>

Ya my jaw droped when i read that this is "normal" in the States. Of course the next step in the evolution of the Reich Wing Nuts is to have everyone implanted with a computor chip to track their every movement and identify unauthorized activities. St.

Stretch
03-31-2011, 06:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Too bad they weren't drug testing at the White House while Bush was in there....

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif </div></div>

That would have explained a lot. St.

Gayle in MD
03-31-2011, 06:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm guessing you haven't been in the job market lately. Go on one of the job boards and check out the jobs. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>It is normal </span>in applying for a job to sign a waiver authorizing the potential employer to run a background check, credit check, and require pre-employment drug screening. </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>No its not.</span> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Maybe in the Land of the Free</span>, but not over here.

Q </div></div>

Ya my jaw droped when i read that this is "normal" in the States. Of course the next step in the evolution of the Reich Wing Nuts is to have everyone implanted with a computor chip to track their every movement and identify unauthorized activities. St. </div></div>

They will get to that as soon as they finish legislating for a mandate that all American Women wear Burqa's.

Knuckle Dragging Neanderthals!!!

G.

Qtec
03-31-2011, 07:02 AM
Lets try it. lets start with Republicans ans Wall St bankers!

Q

Gayle in MD
03-31-2011, 07:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How is it invasive of privacy? </div></div>

What I do in my own free time is my business, not my employer's.


Q

</div></div>

It's their flawed thinking. If a woman's own uterus isn't off limits, what is?

Republicans ALWAYS use the exact opposite language of their real policies.

Get Government our of our lives, while we invade your uterus, your sex life, and your blood stream, and force our religious beliefs upon your school children, as we rewrite history, in their books, and remove their bargaining rights, for a safe, effective work place.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Soflasnapper
03-31-2011, 11:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm guessing you haven't been in the job market lately. Go on one of the job boards and check out the jobs. It is normal in applying for a job to sign a waiver authorizing the potential employer to run a background check, credit check, and require pre-employment drug screening.

If this is prudent in pre-employment situations, why would it not be prudent to do random testing of employees after they are already employed?

Random testing does not have to be a huge expense. The term ramdom means not everyone will be tested. I used to be subject to random testing. Every month, HR would send a list of 3 or 4 names and we would send those employees for their test. Funny story, one day, rather than sending me the list, the HR rep showed up with it in person. Seems they wouldn't e-mail the list to a manager, if that manager's name was on the list!

Steve </div></div>

What is agreed to as a condition of getting the job is one thing. Clearly enough, Scott is proposing that people who did NOT have any agreement to do this either once prior to hiring, or subsequently as a random and/or annual test, will now be subjected to something never demanded as of their hiring, and not agreed to.

Once something is agreed to, as when a policeman asks your permission to search your car, there is no unreasonable search under the law or the 4th amendment. If there is no agreement, then it is per se unreasonable, barring other probable cause or arrest.

So, my take is that Scott could now make it a condition of employment prospectively, going forward for new hires, but that it is probably quite illegitimate to make already hired people do this, since they already have their conditions for employment met which do not include such testing.

It is surprising once again to see a supposed businessman make such a decision without any showing of a cost/benefit analysis. My guess is that there can be no showing that the benefits outweigh the costs, which contrary to your point, will be very large. I've read that similar proposals for just one county were priced at over $10 million dollars, and there are maybe 65 counties in Florida.

Gayle in MD
04-01-2011, 06:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm guessing you haven't been in the job market lately. Go on one of the job boards and check out the jobs. It is normal in applying for a job to sign a waiver authorizing the potential employer to run a background check, credit check, and require pre-employment drug screening.

If this is prudent in pre-employment situations, why would it not be prudent to do random testing of employees after they are already employed?

Random testing does not have to be a huge expense. The term ramdom means not everyone will be tested. I used to be subject to random testing. Every month, HR would send a list of 3 or 4 names and we would send those employees for their test. Funny story, one day, rather than sending me the list, the HR rep showed up with it in person. Seems they wouldn't e-mail the list to a manager, if that manager's name was on the list!

Steve </div></div>

What is agreed to as a condition of getting the job is one thing. Clearly enough, Scott is proposing that people who did NOT have any agreement to do this either once prior to hiring, or subsequently as a random and/or annual test, will now be subjected to something never demanded as of their hiring, and not agreed to.

Once something is agreed to, as when a policeman asks your permission to search your car, there is no unreasonable search under the law or the 4th amendment. If there is no agreement, then it is per se unreasonable, barring other probable cause or arrest.

So, my take is that Scott could now make it a condition of employment prospectively, going forward for new hires, but that it is probably quite illegitimate to make already hired people do this, since they already have their conditions for employment met which do not include such testing.

It is surprising once again to see a supposed businessman make such a decision without any showing of a cost/benefit analysis. My guess is that there can be no showing that the benefits outweigh the costs, which contrary to your point, will be very large. I've read that similar proposals for just one county were priced at over $10 million dollars, and there are maybe 65 counties in Florida. </div></div>

And this proves what a hyocrite he is....

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He noted that Scott has staunchly opposed a statewide computer database that would track prescriptions of Vicodin, Percocet and other dangerous narcotics, on grounds that it could intrude on privacy rights.

"That could only come from a person who is very, very selective in their principles," Simon said.

Law enforcement officials say Florida is the largest U.S. state without a database to keep track of painkillers, including oxycodone, and the undisputed epicenter of America's illegal pill-mill trade and prescription dope dealers.


</div></div>

hmmmm, is he making money off Florida's illegal prescription drugs, black market trade????

pooltchr
04-01-2011, 06:45 AM
So it seems you and G are opposed to having a drug free workplace for employees who are paid through taxpayer "contributions".

Noted!

Steve

Qtec
04-01-2011, 08:09 AM
<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Why do you hate freedom so much?</span>

You cry about how Obama is a socialist who wants to enslave you but you will lie down when your 'employer' says so?

What I do on <u>my time</u> <span style='font-size: 20pt'>is my business</span>, not my employer's. End of story.

If you don't believe that then you should emigrate to North Korea.

Q

pooltchr
04-01-2011, 08:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[

What I do on <u>my time</u> <span style='font-size: 20pt'>is my business</span>, not my employer's. End of story.


Q </div></div>

And what you do on the job becomes my business, if I am the one paying you to do a job!

Steve

eg8r
04-01-2011, 08:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nobody working for the government ought to be on drugs at the workplace. Any reasonable cause for suspicion that such a worker is ON DRUGS AT THE JOB should be looked into.
</div></div>So the important part of what you are saying is the part you are avoiding. What about off the job? Drugs generally lead to criminal activity in some way or another sooner or later. What happens if a judge is a drug addict on the side. He is not using while at work but he abuses all the time while off the clock. What is that doing to his capacity to perform at a top level while on the job? What if he gets into some trouble that follows him to work? What if that trouble negatively impacts others around him?

Sure all of this could happen if the guy played pick up basketball with a bunch of friends every day but how often would you say problems follow a person, legal activity or criminal?

What you are saying, by not saying it, is that it is OK for federal employees to break the law on their own time but hopefully will be ship shape once they punch the clock.

eg8r

eg8r
04-01-2011, 08:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Clearly enough, Scott is proposing that people who did NOT have any agreement to do this either once prior to hiring, or subsequently as a random and/or annual test, will now be subjected to something never demanded as of their hiring, and not agreed to.
</div></div>So nothing as far as rules for employment are subject to change? What about their pay rate? There is probably nothing in there that says we might decrease your pay during tough economic times. Will you support an ACLU lawsuit then?

eg8r

ugotda7
04-02-2011, 05:26 PM
PO....................?