You have no consitutional right to a job.
If the business wishes you to do it, its your choice. Do it, or you don't get the job. You have constitutional right not to be forced unlawfully to search and seizure but you do not have a constitutional right to a job. So you get to make the choice, submit yourself to the sesarch and seizure by your own free will or leave the job.
If you sign a contract or papers while entering into the job that alerts you that there will be random drug testing conducted then you also are essentially allowing them to do the search and siezure whenever they wish. If you didn't sign it and they spring it on you THEN you should have some recourse. If they institute it after the fact then again, you have the choice to quit or agree.
No one is FORCING you to take that job, no one is FORCING you to take the drug test, it is completely your choice as to which is more important to you.
You down with TPP?
Let's look at the fourth:
Even were this not a limitation on just the government, there is nothing here that is violated by businesses that require drug testing.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 to be seized.
1. People are still secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects by the fact that it is still a voluntary action. You can choose to allow the search, or you can choose not to. The ramifications of this choice may not be appealing to some, but there still exists a choice that ios solely made by the searched party.
2. The search itself is not unreasonable. It is a reasonable requirement of an employer to employ law-abiding people.
3. The ramifications of the search are not such that charges will be filed upon the results of the search. If someone fails a drug test, they lose their job, but they are not prosecuted.
One may lose their job, but any action that can be deemed detrimental to their employer can be grounds for job-loss. Drug use can be considered detrimental to the employer.
Every job I've had that had random drug tests required that I AGREE to them prior to being hired. If I didn't want to agree to said tests, then I didn't accept the job.
That said, what I don't like about them is that they don't assess the state of the employee while on the job, but rather they assess whether or not they have used any illegal substances in the last couple weeks. (since some drugs are detectable for that long) Hell, I could have just been in the ROOM with someone smoking pot and tested positive for it.
I agree that people should not be intoxicated while on the job - whether on a drug like alcohol, prescription meds, or illegal drugs. But the drug tests do not test for a person's state while working. And that is my objection. They need to come up with a test that tests for a person's state at that moment, much like the alcohol test. THAT I would agree with wholeheartedly.
So... you don't hire anyone who ever has an alcoholic drink on their own time? Or even someone who drinks coffee?
Why do you assume that just because someone does something on their own time that that's ALL they think about all day?
Though, I will admit that most of the time while working, I thought about playing WoW. /shrug
Problem is this Riv.
At the moment doing illegal drugs is well, illegal. From what I understand ranging from misdemeanor to felony. In general, simply injesting alcohol is not that. A business has an interest in having employee's who are not actively our routinely violating laws that could potentially cause them to become incarcerated by the very nature of the act. While Alcohol can LEAD to such issues, alcohol itself is not grounds for such to happen.
While I do think the logic is a bit flimsy as its not as if we test for other reasons people are violating the law, it is still understandable that it would matter to a business.
Also, what Realm? ; )
You down with TPP?
Don't get me wrong, I have signed agreements to consent to drug testing. I have been drug tested a few times. I used to use them frequently. I was just careful about it, given my positions as a government contractor. Hell, I even admitted to using on my clearance forms. (got the clearance anyway, btw ) I don't object to the RIGHT of an employer to drug test. I firmly believe in the employer's right to hire/fire whomever they want for whatever reason they want.
That does not mean, however, that I didn't feel it was a violation of my privacy. I just opted to go along with it, temporarily, for my own benefit. LOL Mainly what I object to, like I said, is the fact that it doesn't assess your state of intoxication while at work. What it DOES assess is whether or not you've broken a drug law on your own time. And, quite frankly, I don't think that's any of their damn business.
GreymaneAlso, what Realm? ; )
Has drug testing actually lowered the amount of on job **** ups? I seriously do not know, so i am asking it to all who might be more involved in actuary science.
My take on it is this: So long as you have drug testing for employment, there will be a strong market for firms who produce products or services that will guarantee the customer is drug screen proof. I have many union friends who carry a cup of piss in their trucks in case they get injured on the job, and want to be covered by insurance. Although nobody i know has been injured due to being drunk or high on the job, i know of people who have been involved accidents that were freak occurrences, and were forced to pay out of pocket the medical costs, so to avoid being flagged for testing dirty on the job.
Basically they got hurt (broken hand) and had to leave work, and claim it happened at home or what not.
So until it is proven that having a completely drug free work force (even on personal time) reduces the instances of human error based accidents, ill have to say drug tests are a complete waste of time. Especially for teachers and white collar jobs.
I myself would not operate heavy machinery, or work from great heights when high on cannabis, although i would be the first to spark up (not anymore) after the day is done.
It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
"Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911
I'd say the 4th Amendment clearly doesn't apply here, but I also agree with rivrrat in that its really none of my company's business what I do in my free time. I've been tested before because a) I knew I'd pass and b) the job in question was far more important to me than the principle of my privacy, but I do find them to be invasive and senseless.
If I'm intoxicated on the job, that would be grounds for immediate termination. I have no problem with this. Being intoxicated on the job will clearly affect job performance and depending on your job could be a safety risk to both you and your co-workers. But if I like to light up a doobie on the weekend, I don't see how that affects my job performance. And if it doesn't affect my job performance, its really none of my employer's business.
Slipping into madness is good for the sake of comparison - Unknown.