Latest Headlines
- Cat Country 98.7 Is The 2024 CMA Radio Station Of The Year (With Gallery)
- Gonzalez Man Gets Two Life Sentences For Abusing Children
- One Airlifted After Highway 97 Rear End Crash
- Semi, Pickup Crash Closes Highway 29 For Hours In Cantonment
- Now That Matt Gaetz Has Resigned After Being Picked For Trump’s AG, Who Will Seek His Seat?
- Learn How To Break Down A Chicken At The Molino Library
- Escambia Man Dies In Two Vehicle Crash
- Flomaton Man Arrested In Atmore For Possession of Fentanyl, Cocaine
- Escambia Man Sentenced to 25 Years for Fentanyl Trafficking
- Tate High Softball’s Kara Wine Signs With The University of South Alabama
Scott Signs State Worker Drug Testing Law
March 20, 2012
In a move that likely will draw a constitutional challenge, Gov. Rick Scott on Monday signed a controversial law that would allow random drug testing of state employees.
Scott, who prompted a federal court fight last year when he issued an executive order to begin drug testing, quietly notified the Secretary of State at 5:10 p.m. that he had signed the bill.
The Republican-dominated Legislature overwhelmingly approved the measure (HB 1205) this month, with supporters saying the private sector already uses such programs to improve safety and worker productivity.
“I’ve had a drug-free workplace for more than 20 years,” Sen. Jack Latvala, R-Clearwater, said before a vote on the final day of the legislative session. “I believe that it has contributed to higher quality employees.”
But legislative opponents and groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida argued repeatedly during the recently completed legislative session that the idea would violate state employees’ constitutional rights.
“We’re talking less personal freedom without probable cause,” Sen. Chris Smith, D-Fort Lauderdale, said during the debate. “This is more government intrusion and more costs.”
The bill would allow, but not require, agencies to conduct random testing every three months. Agencies would use a computer system to choose employees to be tested, with the total not exceeding 10 percent of the agency workforce.
Also, agencies would have to pay for the tests out of their overall budgets, which would help prevent additional costs to the state. The law takes effect July 1.
Scott issued an executive order last year to start employee drug testing, but the order is largely on hold because of a court challenge. The Department of Corrections has continued with drug testing during the challenge.
Supporters dismissed arguments that HB 1205 would violate workers’ constitutional rights. But the legal fight likely will center on whether government agencies have the right to conduct “suspicionless” drug tests of workers.
A House staff analysis said that some of the issues that “may be arguable are whether the suspicionless drug testing of public employees or job applicants contravenes reasonable expectations of privacy and whether the government has a special need for such drug testing that outweighs the privacy interests of such employees and applicants.”
By The News Service of Florida
Comments
43 Responses to “Scott Signs State Worker Drug Testing Law”
Bravo! David.
REGARDING:
“To the tolling of the bells, bells bells”
No urine sample needed from Poe:
From The Bells
III
“Hear the loud alarum bells –
Brazen bells!
What a tale of terror, now, their turbulency tells!
In the startled ear of night
How they scream out their affright!
Too much horrified to speak,
They can only shriek, shriek,
Out of tune,
In a clamorous appealing to the mercy of the fire,
In a mad expostulation with the deaf and frantic fire,
Leaping higher, higher, higher,
With a desperate desire,
And a resolute endeavor
Now – now to sit, or never,
By the side of the pale – faced moon.
Oh, the bells, bells, bells!
What a tale their terror tells
Of Despair!
How they clang, and clash and roar!
What a horror they outpour ”
David for mad geniuses
To the tolling of the bells, bells bells
If anyone thinks the governor is just looking out for the tax payer with this law then I have some Florida swamp land to sell to you. The gov made his millions in the medical administration field and most of his friends are still there. He see gold in that yellow flow and it’s all about the pay check and we the tax payers will be paying the check!
@ yeah right-
It’s not OK for anyone to have to give up these rights that have been eroded for decades by the sham War on Drugs. If more people had stood up and said “Hell NO!” back then (as I have strived to do, at every opportunity), we’d still have some privacy left…
Instead of an intrusive government & corporate system that regulates your fitness to be gainfully employed by dictating the composition of your bodily fluids.
If you make a stupid, egregious error or have a serious accident, by all means you should probably be checked out. By as a matter of course, assuming everyone has something to hide? Pfahg! Totalitarianism by Economic Fiat, pure & simple.
Being drug-free is not a requirement for elected office.
For that matter, even being sane sometimes doesn’t seem to be a requirement.
Nonetheless, it would be interesting if all legislators and governors were subject to non-disclosed drug testing. By non-disclosed, I mean the name of the one tested wouldn’t be disclosed but the results WOULD be disclosed.
If the results always came back negative, all would be well. They would have shown us they were worthy of our trust and vote — at the very least in that single matter.
If they ever came back positive, we would know at least ONE of them was breaking the laws they were writing or enforcing without knowing which one or ones it was. Some of them are already known to be breaking some laws, so it wouldn’t be anything inherently new, just in kind of breach. It might make us suspicious of all of them, but not if each and every one passed every time.
I just can’t believe they would ALL come back positive, so we won’t even consider that possibility.
David for an interesting experiment
Yeah right, you make more sense than I’m use to reading on here. It’s refreshing.
“I find it interesting the Legislature exempted themselves and high level government officials from this testing.”
GreyLady, I find that interesting too but not surprising. I’m just surprised so few people even noticed.
Sam is right about the Governor selling his drug testing company to his wife. Hard to believe that was even legal but I guess it is. People have such short memories.
to yeah right
“If it’s an illegal substance, how in the world can someone be responsible with their drug habits?”
“The same exact way people can be ‘responsible’ with their drinking habits. You, sir, confound ME.”
Uh, the operative word here is ILLEGAL. If you are responsible, then you are certainly not doing something illegal. Not very complicated. We are talking about now, not during prohibition. Today, under our current laws, alcohol is legal.
Here it is in a nut shell, If “We the people” are subject to drug testing, then the government should be also.
First, if you are going to random drug test government employee’s , then every one should be tested , and that goes for the legislature, Gov, every one. I do not buy into the idea ,”do as we say, not as we do” It should be what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.Now ,so government employee’s are the only one’s with “constitutional rights”? What does that make us in the private sector, who have been drug tested for years? 2ND CLASS? How dare we ask the government employee, who is paid for by our tax dollar to stoop to such a level.? You see this is what is wrong with government, there is this idea that they should not be subject to the same rigors and demands as the rest of us. It is called pure arrogance.Well. we shall see if this is challenged in court. Be nice to know , if government employee’s are the only one’s with “constitutional rights”.
Read the Wikipedia entry on Rick Scott. He’s not about you or me. He’s about his money, his family, himself and the republican party. Educate yourselves people!!
You wanted Rick Scott, you got him, grow up and take responsibility for your choices. I played this game for 21 years. I suggest you focus on your career and the next thing you know you will be walking out of personnel, with your retirement papers, in your breif case. I remember that day standing on those steps realizing, Im holding the gun now. It is a beautiful thing, not to have to sell one’s self.
They have been doing random drug testing at private companies for years. Why all of a sudden the big fuss? If you can’t pass the drug tests then give your job to someone who can pass the drug tests. The ACLU wasn’t interested in private companies but now that it is state employees it is different?
State employees, It all comes down to one thing! You have a choice to make, either you comply with the drug testing, or you find yourself somewhere else to work. I made the choice to go into the career that I have, so it’s also my choice to comply with the drug testing. The ball is in your court! I’m sure Rick Scot has an ulterior motive, but some of YOU, who are complaining, voted him in. Sounds a little bit like “buyer’s remorse” to me.
@my two cents
This, to my knowledge, is correct. Rick Scott did in fact own a drug testing clinic which he sold to his wife. This came out during the time when he started the drug testing for welfare recipients and was a controversial issue as well.
“If it’s an illegal substance, how in the world can someone be responsible with their drug habits?”
The same exact way people can be ‘responsible’ with their drinking habits. You, sir, confound ME.
Would you say there were responsible drinkers in the 1930’s? I mean, alcohol was most definitely illegal then, so that would make the people who had a cocktail here and there irresponsible, right? If your answer to that question is “No, because alcohol was legal beforehand” then you are speaking with a forked tongue.
@tallyho:
You can test me all day, every day; observe me or not and I promise you I will pass. Just because I am against RANDOM drug tests doesn’t mean I get high. And even if I did, why is it your concern unless I am slacking at my post or show a pattern of unsafe acts? Would I still be the first person you test even if I made less mistakes than anyone else, never missed a day of work, and PREVENTED accidents but enjoyed smoking a doob when the 5o’clock whistle sounded?
By your, and a lot of other’s view points here, what would be the problem with having law enforcement come to search your house without a warrant every other week? I mean, if you have nothing to hide you obviously wouldn’t mind someone coming into your most private place and rummaging through your stuff just HOPING to find any excuse they can to persecute you. You also wouldn’t mind having your vehicle searched for no reason whether you consented to it or not when/if you get pulled over, right?
Who said I was a liberal dem anyway? I affiliate myself with neither party as both sides are despicable. I may hold one side’s beliefs on one thing and be on the complete opposite end of the spectrum on another.
What exactly does cutting welfare have to do with this anyway? Welfare is an entitlement, not a RIGHT and it is a flawed system in the first place. It shouldn’t exist. The 4th amendment, on the other hand, IS a right and is being slowly eroded away along with every other RIGHT we are ‘guaranteed’ by the Constitution.
When people begin to say “I have nothing to hide, I have no use for this right,” guess what? It goes away! If nobody needs it why have it in the first place? The point is, nobody needs these rights until they end up needing them… if that makes any sense at all. Kind of like a first aid kit; it may never get used but you’ll be glad it’s there when you need it.
to yeah right on March 20th, 2012 2:46 pm
“responsible with their drug habits”? REALLY? If it’s an illegal substance, how in the world can someone be responsible with their drug habits? You astound me.
My thoughts on the drug testing for state employees are as follows:
1. If state employees are randomly tested, then welfare receipients cannot claim they are being singled out. If all are subject to random testing, then it’s fair. I for one would LOVE to see the welfare receipients tested since there is quite a bit of abuse there. If they aren’t doing drugs with the benefits, then they shouldn’t mind testing. The money saved on fraudulent welfare claims (which is what I call it if the benefits are going for drugs, cigarettes or the like) can pay for the testing.
2. If you are doing illegal drugs, I don’t want you working for me or operating machinery, etc. and endangering both myself and my family. Say what you like, that stuff has a residual effect and you aren’t as sharp as you think you are on the morning after. Teachers, CO’s, or ANY state worker should be subject to this drug testing. No exemptions.
3. I am a federal employee and have been randomly tested 3 times over the last ten years, a price I am more than willing to pay since it keeps me honest and keeps my co-workers honest. In return, we all function in a much safer environment (a correctional facility).
4. You can’t beat a random drug test if it’s done properly. They call you over and take the sample (with a witness), so you can’t subvert it. If you can’t go right then, they give you some water and have you sit in a supervised setting unitl you can produce the sample.
5. The difference between relaxing with a beer or drink after work OR a joint is that the drink is legal and the joint isn’t. Regardless of how you feel about it, smoking a joint is illegal and if you are suject to random drug testing, don’t do it! Have the beer.
6. The amount of money saved by eliminating dangerous or poorly performing employees due to drugs can add up if this is done properly. Drug testing is a condition of many forms of employment. The scope has simply been broadened here. People who need help can claim “safe harbour” by reporting a problem with drugs and seeking help for the problem BEFORE they are ever called for a drug test. They can’t do it after they’ve been summoned for the test.
JMHO!
Go to work and pee in the cup, and be glad you have a job. If you’re clean, no worries, if not, you need to reconsider your choice in hobbies.
BPD for Cold Hard Reality
+1 on what Yeah right said. You hit the nail on the head.
@Sam on March 20th, 2012 4:59 pm,
Those are some pretty BOLD accusations. Do you have any supporting information or links to stories that comfirm what you have said?
The ones whom cry the loudest about testing are the ones i would test first. If you are clean, then what is the problem. Liberal Dem scream about rights and there the ones trying to take your rights away so we will become a Nanny state. Take a look over seas and see what is going on over there. Riots in the street because your cutting my welfare back. I have worked in these countries and have seen it .
The only thing I can for Gov Scott’s Testing Program, is Ricky Don’t Loose That Number.
Before Scott was elected, he sold his drug testing company to his wife. It operates widely in Florida and other states. This is about keeping the money in the family. He doesn’t care about costs to the taxpayer when the problem lines his family’s pockets. Everyone needs to stop being so stupid about what’s going on in politics. If it’s gonna help his or his backers bottom line, that’s what they do. Then they tell the public some totally different reason.
The people who are going to get high are going to do it regardless of whether they get tested or not. There are ways of getting around a drug test, believe me. Sure, it might be illegal to subvert a drug test but so is possession of the drugs in the first place.
“So, if you have nothing to hide, what is your objection?”
It’s the same objection I have if I am asked the question “Do you mind if we search your vehicle?” It is a warrantless search and I have the constitutional right to NOT be subjected to that kind of treatment. Sure, I have nothing to hide but that isn’t the point.
I am not against pre-employment drug screening, post-accident drug screening, OR for-cause drug screening as they each have a REASON! What I am against is random drug screening. If you have someone doing drugs on the job or notice a decrease in performance or safety then YES, drug test him/her; just don’t persecute someone because instead of drinking a beer after work they like to spark up a joint. What the employees do on their own time is NOT the employer’s concern. When that employee decides to confuse work-time with party time THEN it becomes the employer’s concern and must be dealt with.
Relate it to alcohol, which is legal. I have seen people cause more harm and waste more time/money by still being drunk or just hungover from the night before than someone who is responsible with their drug habits. Not all drug users are useless addicts who are unable to control themselves; and those exact people are the ones which random drug testing hurts the most. A junkie will more than likely not even be able to pass a pre-employment screening and would most definitely qualify for a for-cause screen. If there isn’t a problem, don’t go searching for one!
I was in the military for seven years ( and was subject to random testing at anytime) and have worked for the state for about five years. I DO NOT have a problem with this at all.
So, if you have nothing to hide, what is your objection? I had to submit to random testing while serving my country. Violation of rights? What rights? The right to get whacked out and put yourself, your co-workers and your place of employment at risk? Give me a break. The cost involved for testing and analysis is nothing compared to a potential lawsuit brought about by an incident involving an employee under the influence. Those who oppose random testing need to really think about this from an employers point of view, since employers take all the risk when it comes to their employees.
Looks like it’s time for our property taxes to go up to pay for this unfunded mandate……
So, is this another unnecessary law? Where are the statistics of all the “problems” caused by the drug infested state workers?
I think we need more of a balance in the state legislature so we can have a balance in the ridiculous new laws this legislature and the past legislature have created.
Yeah I have no problem with this as well. I know there will be cost, but this cost is worth paying for if it saves lives not only in the workplace, but even out in the community.
Just think though, maybe now a state position will be opened up to someone who is honest and doesn’t do drugs.
Lifendason
I work for the state and I have for the past 10 years. We have ALWAYS been subject to random drug screening in the office where I work. I have NO problem with this.
If I must drug test for a min. wage job, so should state officials…. line’em up.
Some companies are allowed to actually WEIGH their employees and fire
them if they weigh to much. Testing for drugs seems to make more sense
than that one if you ask me and I do understand the thought behind the
weigh-ins. I guess Civil Liberties doesn’t care about companies infringing
on how much a person eats, but what drugs he does is another matter…..
hummmmmmmmmmmmm
It’s worked for years
me wants a pair of those rose colored glasses
I don’t understand what all of the fuss is about. I’ve worked in an environment, for the past 30 years, in which I had to have a drug test before being hired, and a random whenever my number came up. This law will include teachers, and who is against finding out if their child’s teacher gets “high”, or the cop that’s carrying a gun and stops you for a traffic, stop is “high”, and maybe it will help find out which CO is taking drugs into the prison. If I have to be drug tested, why don’t state employees that my tax dollars are helping to pay have to be tested. I think it should have been started a long time ago. Start weeding out them out!!!
OK..I am one of those people who think random drug testing violates my privacy as I do not do illegal drugs, drink before work, etc. But does anyone realize this will increase the costs of every government agency’s budget? And could potentially lead to a cut in job benefits to government employees once again? I know that most of the general public seems to “hate” government employees, but really, what would the state be like without us? Who would educate your children, police your neighborhoods, keep the dangerous people off the street, keep up with who owns what property, give out the welfare money? Oh, you say, let’s privatize. Costs more money in the long run don’t you think? Because you still have to have some government to oversee the private contractors. So, why don’t we leave the system alone? It’s worked for years.
I am very sick of hearing that orgainizations who claim to be do- gooders on
the side of everyone just slow down the process of a DRUG FREE AMERICA,
and this to the demise of to many of our CHILDREN. That is the trouble
with any org. including our own government, people are so afraid of their
rights being infringed on and the whole time they infringe on all our rights
to a good safe environment where ever we may be rather home or the
office.
I say test everyone every chance we get the life that is saved may just
be one of your own, if you don’t do drugs what have you to fear.
You have 3 choices here… legalize it…. test everyone… or just shut up about it and let everyone who wants to DIE!
Get serious and make up your mind.
I find it interesting the Legislature exempted themselves and high level government officials from this testing.
I was tested three times during the course of my military career, and had to serve as an observer twice. Save that money now, the next thing you know you will be retired and doing as you please. I just wish someone would ask me for a urine sample now, it would be a life altering event, for them.
Scott is a state “employee” so start the drug testing with him. Scott is not above anyone else and should be held to the same rules as everyone else. I suppose he will take the 5th. to avoid being tested. lol
I thought Republicans were for less government in your lives? Seems a bit backwards . I guess everyone is now Guilty until proven innocent. Will Scott and Friends submit a drug test? Are they not also considered State workers?
“But legislative opponents and groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida argued repeatedly during the recently completed legislative session that the idea would violate state employees’ constitutional rights.”
So when it comes to the private sector it’s perfectly OK to invade our privacy without suspicion yet when it comes to the government it’s against their constitutional rights?
It’s OK for the working class to be drug tested yet when it comes to the welfare recipients for whom WE support it’s against THEIR constitutional rights?
I don’t believe in on-the-job drug testing at all unless there is a reasonable suspicion, but if I have to keep my urine clean and subject myself to warrantless, suspicionless searches of my bodily fluids just to earn a pay-check then why shouldn’t they? Sounds to me like there’s a lot of people in cozy positions who have excess ‘toxins’ in their systems.
Why aren’t Ricky & the legislators included in the provisions of this bill?
What do you say to this, fans of smaller government?
“We’re talking less personal freedom without probable cause,” Sen. Chris Smith, D-Fort Lauderdale, said during the debate. “This is more government intrusion and more costs.”