Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 03/14/2008 10:56:23 AM PDT by SmithL
SAN FRANCISCO -- A city can't require all job applicants to be tested for narcotics and must instead show why drug use in a particular job would be dangerous, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled against the city of Woodburn, Ore., which argued it was entitled to maintain a drug-free workplace by requiring job candidates to be screened for drugs and alcohol.
The city was sued by Janet Lanier, whose job offer as a part-time page at the city library was withdrawn in 2004 when she refused a drug and alcohol test. A federal judge ruled the policy unconstitutional and awarded Lanier $12,400 in damages and $44,000 in legal fees, her lawyer said.
The appeals court said Thursday that the judge's ruling went too far, because the city may be able to justify drug-testing of applicants for some jobs. But the court found no basis to test applicants for library positions.
Federal courts have upheld mandatory drug screening for jobs in which performance "may pose a great danger to the public," the appeals judges said.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Close the library - end of problem.
I know drug tests can show past use of drugs, but what's with the alcohol test? Breathalyzer?
The 9th circus. All f****g clowns.
Sure to be overturned in a heartbeat.
Hot Dog. The only thing I have ever seen the 9th Circus Judges do that made any sense.
Good. Employees should fight all invasion of their privacy.
This has to be the only time I’ve ever agreed with the 9th Circus.
Same here. But what’s up with testing for a legal product, alcohol? And here’s one I can’t help asking in a PC world. Do they also test for plain ole tobacco use? Betcha the Ninth would make an exception for THAT in a parallel case ruling!
I think most urinalysis drug tests will also show alcohol. Though use is not illegal the thought is to pick up on alcoholism before hiring.
Why?
Only in San Fran would an employer have to prove why drug use in the owrkplace is dangerous.....
I would like all insurance companies require drug testing for your business insurance.
I don’t want any employee working on a job for me who is using drugs. I don’t care if they are mowing the lawn or installing a hot water heater.
These test are never 100%. There is an significant acceptable false positive rate where the livelihood of individuals can be permanently ruined.
For many jobs it should not be a requirement.
Please report to the HR Office. We have some tests for you.
(hey, it's frieday, just messin' with you)
FMCDH(BITS)
Maybe, but at least for private sector employees I don't think using the courts is the way to go. If you don't like the conditions required by your employer, negotiate for different conditions or seek employment elsewhere. You shouldn't go running to the government to force your employer to offer more favorable terms.
Of course, this case involves a government employer so the same rules don't necessarily apply.
I guess they test to see if you have been drinking at a particular time of day, such as morning. It’s a problem with some trades.
Are the tests sophisticated enough to distinguish between casual use (or perhaps a rare celebratory weekend) and abusive use of alcohol?
I don't know how the technology works, but I always thought it just detected the presence and concentration of the drug in the person's body fluid.
Another one tha twill be tossed out on appeal... the ninth circus at it again.
Groan. I hate it when I agree with the 9th Circus.
Well my info is second (or third hand) but talking to some HR people at a company I used to work for said they could tell the difference between casual use and possible alcoholism...and it makes it really easy if they take the test at say 2pm on a Tuesday as opposed to 8am on a Saturday.
According to the Ninth US Circus Court, some drug use may be perfectly innocuous at most places of employment?
Dissenting interpretations are welcome.
Right, I guess alcohol doesn't stick around in your system that long.
Duh :)
I don't care for the intrusive policies of many employers, either. I should also explain that my earlier comments were based on the assumption that the employer's terms were outlined in a contract or otherwise made known to the employee before settling into the employment relationship.
I don't think an employer should be able to unreasonably pry into an employee's personal life when that was never part of the original bargain.
Dissenting interpretations are welcome.
________
you say that, but I wonder ...
I read it as the court saying the onus is on the employer to justify, on the basis of the work to be done, that the intrusion is warranted.
My sentiments exactly.
What is so sacred about a library when we have the internet to do our research? It's just a place for the Brownshirts to hold their meetings at our expense, and for perverts to oggle their porn.
Make ALL of them take random urine tests, alcohol tests and background checks.
How many do you think we could get rid of? Talk about cleaning house!!
You’re right. I know a couple of people who have never done drugs in their life, yet they’re as dumb as a box of rocks and should never be in charge of someone else’s safety.
Be careful - a library is a community memory bank, and while I might not like all of their decisions (what to keep, what to toss), I will gladly pay the taxes for it.
I spent years crawling around in the grad stacks at UM, and I have to tell you, I learned things I didn’t even know I was interested in.
I have no issue with that, because to test positive for alcohol you have to be either actively intoxicated, or had so much the night before you shouldn't be at work in the first place. However, in the case of drugs, you could have had a 'good time' on a weekend and test positive for weeks, in the case of some drugs. How is penalizing someone like that being a "drug free workplace", when there was NO drug use at work, only drug use at some point. Also, if I'm taking a legit prescription that would indicate use of narcotics and pee in their cup, I then have to bring in ALL my medications and tell them who my doctor is and why I'm on the medication(s). That is a CLEAR violation of my personal life and business IMO, and no employer should be 'going there'.
Oh crap, gotta stand up for potheads again....Why is is so inconcievable that someone could casually enjoy drug use ( those of you that smoke cigarettes and drink coffee or alcohol can start breaking glass walls now) and still be productive? I don’t want a bus driver near anything illegal frankly, but if you went on any construction site and fired anyone who occasionally did an illegal drug, you might be surprised how long it took to build your house. Some of the most talented artists I have known, and I consider framers, autobody repairmen, carpenters and bricklayers artists, have been users. Should we lock them up, pay for state ordered rehab, or just let them do what they do best? I have spent plenty of time in the trades and I will tell you, some of the best have 2 beers and a joint for lunch.
How long before drug testing would be outlawed if we tested Congress?
We agree on all points, as long as you’re correct about the immediacy of the alcohol tests results.
Bravo for privacy.
Absolutely!
ANYONE, ANYWHERE that has a drug in them,, like “CAFFEINE” should be fired, put on a block in town square for a month in the rain, banned from holding a job, put on welfare for a few hours and then jailed for life.
CAFFEINE! ITS A DRUG! OMG!! THE SKY IS FALLING.
And if you don’t drink coffee, we can find something else in you, just fill out this 145 page form.
Stupid? Yes.
Sarcastic?? Maybe for now.
SAN FRANCISCO — A city can’t require all job applicants to be tested for narcotics and must instead show why drug use in a particular job would be dangerous, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.
Accidents, death, mistakes, Come on, are the Judges really this stupid or are they just sitting back laughing their butts of when they make one of these asinine rulings?
What about sex? It releases a drug similar to Heroin, and is there anyone on here that can honestly say they have never made a stupid, potentially costly or dangerous decision with sex, or an attempt to procure it?
Government should start testing immediately, after all...oh wait, can’t say it’s for the children this time...
Anyone testing positive for SMOG should be water boarded!!
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
How 'bout that?
I hope it stands. We need far LESS of this useless, intrusive sort of barbra streisand...
>>I think most urinalysis drug tests will also show alcohol. Though use is not illegal the thought is to pick up on alcoholism before hiring.
Actually, I can understand that. Due to, I believe the ADA, I don’t think you can just fire an alco any more. They have a *disability*, and you as the employer have to *help* them treat their *medical condition*.
I think the same thing but I didn’t mention it because I wasn’t sure. You can choose not hire someone because they are alcoholic but you can’t fire them for it later if you find out they are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.