Rights of the falsely accused?
You take a drug test.
It is mandated.
They say you failed.
You know you could not have failed.
You follow procedures.
You ask for all testing information.
Regulations, fed and state direct the release of information.
You don't get most of it.
You go thru every channel u know.
U don't get it.
Eventually, some trickles in as a regulator makes a phone call or two.
Discrepencies on federal chains of custody.
Exact duplicates are not the same.
Ask for more info.
0
Talk to lawyers.
Raspberries. They aren't familiar.
Go up the ladder to the big boys.
Nothin.
Go to court.
Get lost, punk.
Is there a competent legal professional who knows testing laws and fights for employees, not employers?
I have so much money that I can't stand it.
Rights of the falsely accused?
Sounds like you feel you got a bad rap! Feel for you bro! There are people here that can advise you legally. Just keep coming back looking.
Welcome to the group!
While you are waiting for a response. Skrol to the "Legal" section and read your heart out. Many case's similar to yours and you will get many different opinions from many case's, very similar to yours! Good luck! :thumbsup: :rastasmoke:
Rights of the falsely accused?
Quote:
Originally Posted by heyguys
You take a drug test.
It is mandated.
They say you failed.
You know you could not have failed.
How do you know you could not have failed. What measures did you take to ensure you would pass your drug test?
Quote:
You follow procedures.
You ask for all testing information.
Regulations, fed and state direct the release of information.
You don't get most of it.
Pretty sure this is public information. They can't with hold it from you. If they are I suggest hiring a lawyer.
Quote:
You go thru every channel u know.
U don't get it.
define every channel you know?
Quote:
Eventually, some trickles in as a regulator makes a phone call or two.
Eventually what trickles in?
Quote:
Discrepencies on federal chains of custody.
Exact duplicates are not the same.
Discrepencies on federal chains of custody? What?
And Exact duplicates certified by the court or state are the exact same as originals.
Quote:
Ask for more info.
0
Talk to lawyers.
Raspberries. They aren't familiar.
Go up the ladder to the big boys.
Nothin.
Go to court.
Get lost, punk.
No offense but I seriously doubt any court, lawyer or any legal system would be run in the manner in which you describe. Not just that but your entire post doesn't make much sense.
This isn't some long winded haiku, can you retype your post into some sensible writing?
Quote:
Is there a competent legal professional who knows testing laws and fights for employees, not employers?
I have so much money that I can't stand it.
There is plenty, unlike most things in life with lawyers you get what you pay for. I can say with all certainty that the better a lawyer is the more expensive he is and it is ALWAYS worth the extra money to hire the bulldog lawyer.
After this entire post I'm still not sure what happened except that you took a piss test and felt you were wronged.
Rights of the falsely accused?
You're right. It is a rigged system. Dillution as an example. You can be fired for drinking too much water. Ruin somebody's life because he drank too much water. You might try contacting your states dept of labor and industries. They can be helpful sometimes.
Rights of the falsely accused?
Quote:
Originally Posted by killerweed420
You're right. It is a rigged system. Dillution as an example. You can be fired for drinking too much water. Ruin somebody's life because he drank too much water. You might try contacting your states dept of labor and industries. They can be helpful sometimes.
you do realize he actually said nothing to give us insight to his situation to determine what's going on.
I've been tested after drinking too much water.. you cannot be fired for drinking too much water. They HAVE to re-test you as the tests are inconclusive. I know because I've been in that exact situation. And if they don't they are obligated by law to re-test you upon your request otherwise they open themeselves up for a wrongful firing suit.
Besides if you drank too much water you probably didn't take any vitamins or supplements to add vitamins, minerals, color back into your piss.
Remember everyone; until the government says otherwise Cannabis is still illegal. Therefore you can come in here and complain about how unfair it is, but the truth is that we ALL know the law and so you should take responsibility for yourself.
I am for the legalization for Marijuana but it does not blind me from what the current legal status is and the consequences that go along with that.
Rights of the falsely accused?
Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
you do realize he actually said nothing to give us insight to his situation to determine what's going on.
I've been tested after drinking too much water.. you cannot be fired for drinking too much water. They HAVE to re-test you as the tests are inconclusive. I know because I've been in that exact situation. And if they don't they are obligated by law to re-test you upon your request otherwise they open themeselves up for a wrongful firing suit.
Besides if you drank too much water you probably didn't take any vitamins or supplements to add vitamins, minerals, color back into your piss.
Remember everyone; until the government says otherwise Cannabis is still illegal. Therefore you can come in here and complain about how unfair it is, but the truth is that we ALL know the law and so you should take responsibility for yourself.
I am for the legalization for Marijuana but it does not blind me from what the current legal status is and the consequences that go along with that.
Not true depending on your job. If you fall under the dot guidelines a dilluted sample is the same thing as a positive.
Rights of the falsely accused?
Quote:
Originally Posted by killerweed420
Not true depending on your job. If you fall under the dot guidelines a dilluted sample is the same thing as a positive.
well that is a load of Bullcrap. I never knew that; that seems to be unconstitutional since they did not actually prove anything except that you drank a lot of water that day.
Rights of the falsely accused?
You guys just blew my socks off. Thanks for responding.
You are a supportive bunch.
What is fascinating is how testing is nuts, no matter how much I learn, I find there is more.
I am only familiar with mandated testing, which I would expect to be more carefully enforced.
Let me throw this out.
What law did they break if they don't comply? I mean the lab, the mro, the employer or collection site. Not one, not if it is government mandated. If you have a contract through a union, or individually with your tester, that makes a big difference. But, if you're simply at-will, you're in trouble.
Imagine you go to your local police and tell them so-and-so won't release a copy of his COC ply from your test. Or the mro won't ask the lab for the lit packet. Go to your state rep or senator. Ask the DOT, the FMCSA, the FAA on and on. The carefully crafted regulations which lay out exactly what the different participants must do, don't mean nothing when push comes to shove.
Go to court with the best attorney in the world. What is he/she gonna do? Get a court order? Under what jurisdiction? Who owns the pee? Who owns all the paperwork? Many agree that it belongs to the guy who paid for it.
I am your employer.
I don't like you.
I want to get rid of you.
How, w/o getting in trouble and w/o paying you UC?
Let's see. If I say you failed your drug test, that's an automatic disqualification. Besides, man, we are fighting a war on drugs and I'll look like I'm just doing me duty.
No one will suspect nothin.
The burden is on the falsely accused and no one is gonna believe him anyhow.
Rights of the falsely accused?
I've always disagreed with the philosophy of pre-employement and random UA's. Guilty until proven innocent by a drug test. Seems like a violation of the 4th amendement to me. Guilty till proven innocent.
Rights of the falsely accused?
Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
Remember everyone; until the government says otherwise Cannabis is still illegal. Therefore you can come in here and complain about how unfair it is, but the truth is that we ALL know the law and so you should take responsibility for yourself.
Holy christ, thank you daihashi.
If you really want help, you need to tell people what ACTUALLY happened instead of speaking in hypotheticals, i.e., "imagine this, if, ect...."
It sounds like everyone in the world in the vague situation you are eluding to must all be involved in some kind of mass conspiracy against you.
If you don't want to fail a drug test, DON'T DO DRUGS. Works everytime it's tried.;)
Rights of the falsely accused?
Legal haikus on drug testing
That's a first.
Rights of the falsely accused?
you know you are guilty until proven innocent in the us ;)
Rights of the falsely accused?
Hahaha it seems like people are getting their legal advice from a cracker jack box!
Oh Veggii, you crack me up.
Rights of the falsely accused?
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.
Rights of the falsely accused?
Quote:
Originally Posted by heyguys
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!
Rights of the falsely accused?
Quote:
Originally Posted by heyguys
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.
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:
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:
Rights of the falsely accused?
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:
Rights of the falsely accused?
government mandated testing is a search.
Rights of the falsely accused?
Quote:
Originally Posted by heyguys
government mandated testing is a search.
No it's not, especially when you VOLUNTEER FOR THE JOB!:mad:
Rights of the falsely accused?
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.
Rights of the falsely accused?
Quote:
Originally Posted by heyguys
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.
Maybe you have a reading comprehension issue? I dunno. Let me break that down and translate your own post for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by heyguys
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. .
Meaning the court sided with the boss, employer, the man. NOT THE EMPLOYEE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by heyguys
The Court of Appeals concluded that the random drug test did not violate the employee's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches.
This means their decision in the case was that IT DID NOT NOT NOT NEGATIVE, NO, NOT VIOLATE THE EMPLOYEE'S 4TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
So maybe you don't understand.
I am done, you obviously do not get it, and will not be able to comprehend or understand what you are being told. Obviously, and I will not waste another second on you.:i feel stupid::i feel stupid::i feel stupid:
Good luck as you attempt to alter the space time continuim and create a parellel universe around you!:thumbsup:
I doubt that any employer would need to get a positive on a UA to term you from the way your posts sound.
Rights of the falsely accused?
that is what i have been saying. government mandated testing is a search. searches are permitted. unreasonable searches are prohibited.
