Comments on: Scott Orders Drug Testing For State Employees

By: ferrusivicible

ferrusivicible — Tue, 03 May 2011 23:34:52 +0000

Law Guy
Question,
wouldn’t NTEU vs. Von Rab go against drug testing of public employees unconstitutional?
In my opinion all this is moot just based off that particular case

By: protecther

protecther — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 13:50:32 +0000

Only a drug user would refuse to take a drug test…Roderick Wenzel refused to take a drug test.

By: Mike P

Mike P — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 19:35:20 +0000

Rick Scott owns a chain of clinics named Solantic, after “South Atlantic”. These clinics do drug testing.

He made a revocable trust in his wife’s name and turned it over to her in January.

Solantic charges $35 for drug tests. It’s time for Rick Scott to get his return for his campaign investment.

By: eab

eab — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 03:23:49 +0000

(laughter) Thanks, lawguy999, for bringing some facts and reason into this discussion. You may find,however, that those concepts are not always welcome here.

I do find it interesting that Scottie and his advisers seem unaware of the earlier ruling. I suppose, as a matter of pure politics, the gov and his bunch could at least point to their attempt and say “see, we tried but those mean old liberal judges wouldn’t let us”.

And you are correct about our governor’s resorting to the 5th amendment in his testimony. People should see the footage of that. For a bit, I thought I was watching Michael Corleone in The Godfather.

By: lawguy999

lawguy999 — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 02:25:29 +0000

I know some people don’t want to hear this, but, we have this thing in the U.S called the Fourth Amendment that specifically prohibits what Scott is proposing. Employers, both public and private, can institute a drug testing policy and require their new hires to agree to it as a condition of employment. In such cases, the employees voluntarily agree to waive their right to privacy, and
once you’re hired, both parties are bound by that agreement. But you can’t change the rules later in the game. Contrary to what a lot of people think, the
State of Florida already has a comprehensive drug testing policy (it’s even written into the the Statues). However, that policy does not allow for RANDOM testing and that is the crux of the issue. Changing the policy in mid-stream for existing employees is a breach of contract at best; at worst it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. That’s not my opinion, that’s the judgment of the Federal District court when a state agency tried to do the same thing in 2004. The employee in involved sued the state and walked away with a $150,000 settlement. Apparently Scott wasn’t aware of that case when he signed the order. How does a $150,000 settlement times 100,000+ state employees sound to you? That’s what Scott is
setting the taxpayers up for. However, he does seem to know a few things about Constitutional rights, after all, he plead the Fifth 75 times …..

By: Walnut Hill area

Walnut Hill area — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 04:10:14 +0000

Scott needs to focus on creating jobs in Florida now and stop concentrating on drug tests, teachers union rights etc. This does nothing to improve jobs for Florida!!!!!!

By: Ifish4

Ifish4 — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 01:19:33 +0000

Sure seems like Scott is doing this mainly to put money in his friends pocket. In the past 20 years I have worked for 3 companies, all required drug testing, and at 2 of the companies we did drug testing for other companies. The standard for all was a pre-hire test then a random test at least annually, not quarterly like Scott wants. Drug test aren’t given for free, and giving state employees a random test every 3 months will be putting a lot of taxpayer money in the hands of the companies doing the test.

By: sktmax

sktmax — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 00:01:51 +0000

Who is against state employees being drug tested? Nobody. Not even state employees. But people sure do assume that state employees are against it, and somehow think that there is a sudden need for state emplyees to be drug tested. All this is, is a clever campaign by rick scott to turn public employees into the enemy. And people are mindlessly buying into it.

By: deBugger

deBugger — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 21:09:26 +0000

@ safebear:

just a taste— “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

if that doesn’t state that our rights are God-given, I don’t know how else to explain it to you-

I never consented to have my rights as a free individual trampled in the name of an ill-advised & non-productive “war on drugs” or anything else…

if you would give up your God-given rights for a paycheck, then you never were a truly free individual— only persons whose work directly involves public safety, or whose on-the-job behavior causes or foreshadows imminent danger should be asked to consent to any unwarranted search of their persons, domicile, or bodily fluids

we are headed down the road to a police state, and apparently some people are all to happy to drive the infernal car

By: art

art — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 14:52:51 +0000

gravy train deluxe for both the companies that do the testing and the companies that manufacture the tests. yes siree…scott is a golden boy when it comes drummin’ up business for his best buds…never mind if you feel humiliated or somewhat disgusted by peeing in a cup for some stranger. i mean why stop at students being randomly tested that want to play sports etc.? why not drug test everyone if they want a gosh dog social security card for god sakes? not valid til you get tested and pass. why not?