Legal haikus on drug testing
That's a first.
Printable View
Legal haikus on drug testing
That's a first.
you know you are guilty until proven innocent in the us ;)
Hahaha it seems like people are getting their legal advice from a cracker jack box!
Oh Veggii, you crack me up.
I don't do pot, drink, or do drugs, ever. But I was fired for testing positive. When I tried to figure out how it happened, I was lied to, ignored, sent forged documents, etc.
I have a right under the constitution to be free from unreasonable searches. The S.C. decided that mandatory testing of employees working in safety-sensitive positions was a "search" under the constitution. If I am covered by mandate, the D.O.T. demands that my selection to undergo random testing must be truly random, verifiable scientifically. If an employer selects a worker to be tested, and pretends that he was chosen at random, the S.C. draws the line, and calls that a violation of this right.
But, there is no accountability within this system. The private testing businesses have become extremely profitable, enjoying the same bed as government officials. This information is on the net.
It appears to some, me included, that the influence of money's power, wins.
if true, none of this comes as a surprise to me! sadly!Quote:
Originally Posted by heyguys
I am confused so please help me understand what you are saying. When you say the supreme court has decided that mandatory drug testing, "by employers" (not law enforcement, I am assuming is what you are saying,) is a "search" under the constitution. Something here sounds not right, maybe I am just ignorant. I don't believe this constitutes a "search" as you put it, since IT IS A VOLUNTEER JOB. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSTE. NO LEGAL REPRUCUSIONS FOR REFUSING. I have never heard anything about an employer not being able to do mandatory drug testing if they want to. Most employers will state openly if they do this in the hiring process, as they do when conducting preliminary drug screening for employment. I didn't realize the supreme court had handed down any decisions about how any employers should/or could conduct their own testing policies? Not to mention, as daihashi had stated earlier, and as most people know from experience, most companiest have a procedure in place to dispute an initial test result, to be followed up by a second test with the exception of some government jobs. (I think, I have never worked for the government, that is just a guess.) Was I not reading your post correctly, I am sorry if this sounds like I am totally lost at what you are saying, but I am?:wtf:Quote:
Originally Posted by heyguys
Are you basically saying that your employer had it out for you, and the only way he could get rid of you was to go through a shirade of making you take a drug test, then he made arrangements with the testing company (which is likely 1 of a handful) and got them to "forge" documents so that he could fire you? I guess anything is possible, but that does not sound probable.
Why don't you just come out and say whom you worked for number 1,
then what the companies specific drug policy is 2,
and then what state you live in 3.
It may sound silly to you to provide this information, but it may help you if you gave some actual details. I don't know if it is intentional on your part or not, but you "elude" to alot of things, but are very NONSPECIFIC.
So far all I get is that you "don't drink or do any drugs" and that your boss has some kind of influence over people that work for another company that tests piss. Unless you are implying that your boss himself just forged documents to make it look like you failed a piss test after the fact.
I am sorry but something here does not sound right at all.
You kind of make it sound like you had some kind of "federal" job since you keep refering to, "Regulations, fed and state direct the release of information." and "Discrepencies on federal chains of custody."
But then you also say, "Ask the DOT, the FMCSA, the FAA on and on"
How exactly would your "drug test" have anything to do with all 3 of those government agencies?
I am not trying to rag on you at all, I am trying to be as specific as possible as to why I have no idea what you are talking about, so that you may be able to clear it up.
BTW, when you said this, "I have a right under the constitution to be free from unreasonable searches.":wtf::wtf::wtf:
That is true, when talking about law enforcement. Not your employer, not when it comes to drug testing. If you have an issue with an employment policy of a company, especially is you "believe" they are "violating your constitutional rights, (which they are not)," but if you believe that, then my advice would be to not work for them.
If you are just looking for a place to drum up some harsh words "against the man, drug testing, ect...", then I am sure you will get that easily enough, but as for your story something is not right, unless I am just really missing something, and if so please fill in the gaps.:wtf:
I went out on my own for about 5 minutes to see if I could verify some of what you are claiming. I can't. In fact most of what you are saying is absolutely false.
For example:
"I have a right under the constitution to be free from unreasonable searches. The S.C. decided that mandatory testing of employees working in safety-sensitive positions was a "search" under the constitution."
As my first instinct told me, this is absolutely false.
Mandatory drug testing entered the American workplace in the 1980s, led by gradually expanding federal government requirements.
The government first ordered drug testing in the military, then extended the requirement, consecutively, to the Coast Guard, to federal workers in "safety sensitive" positions (over half the federal workforce), to employers receiving federal grants or contracts of over $25,000, and by the mid-1990s to workers in the aviation, trucking, railroad, marine, and pipeline industries.
Meanwhile, other employers were persuaded on their own to test by statistics showing that drug users are more likely than other workers to file workers' compensation claims, use sick benefits, be late to work, be involved in a workplace accident, request extra time off, steal, perform poorly, and create disciplinary problems.
As workplace drug testing became widespread, some unions opposed it. Allied with the American Civil Liberties Union, unions such as the American Federation of Government Employees, Amalgamated Transit Union, United Transportation Union, Air Line Pilots Association and the Teamsters fought it in court as an intrusion into employees' private lives.
Random testing, in particular, was opposed as an unreasonable and invasive search of innocent and guilty alike, and a violation of the Fourth Amendment protection against warrantless search and seizure. Union efforts did not succeed in halting drug testing for millions of workers in government and in transportation industries. A Supreme Court decision largely ended discussion about whether the government could require random testing for safety-sensitive employees. But union research and lobbying did result in the use of more accurate testing practices and in greater protection for workers' rights, including: Careful custody and control procedures; "split sample" testing, with one portion set aside for a second opinion in the event of a positive result; testing of samples with two separate methods to ensure accuracy; and the requirement of a doctor known as a "medical review officer" look at the test results and interview the sample donor to rule out false positives.
You can go through the trouble to verify this with your fingers as I did.
I also found this within 1 minute:
By some estimates one-third of American corporations now require their employees to be tested for drug use. These requirements are compatible with general employment law while promoting the public's interest in fighting drug use. Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that drug testing programs are constitutionally permissible within both the public and the private sectors. It appears mandatory drug testing is a permanent fixture of American corporate life. (Bakaly, C. G., Grossman, J. M. 1989)
So wtf are you talking about exactly? Where are you getting your information?
So again, I ask, could you just give us the story straight the first time, if not then don't waste the time of my friends here in this community.:thumbsup:
government mandated testing is a search.
Quote:
Originally Posted by heyguys
No it's not, especially when you VOLUNTEER FOR THE JOB!:mad:
A federal appeals court in Chicago upheld a public employer's termination of a "safety-sensitive" employee who refused to submit to a random drug test. The Court of Appeals concluded that the random drug test did not violate the employee's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches.