Does this seem to be a violation of the 4th amendment?

[Wcross]

Workplace drug testing. We were informed that we would have to submit to yearly hair drug tests if at some point we "might" use powered industrial fork trucks. As I am employed at a Union factory (on staff) they decided I "might" have to use a truck if the union employees went out on strike.

Here is where the fourth amendment violation comes in. The company receives a 5% discount on its workers compensation premiums from the STATE if it implements the program. In my opinion that makes it a violation of the fourth amendment which states-


"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

If a government encourages a search without probable cause is it not in violation of a citizens rights? Any opinions?

[unpossibles]

1. while I think the idea of testing without reason is invasion or privacy

private companies are allowed to do it.

[bluescribbler]

3. You're right.

Many years ago, I worked for a company which manufactured components for aircraft engines. At some point during my tenure there, a new policy of random drug testing was put in place. The corporate PTB explained that it was required under DOD and FAA regualtions. They nailed a friend of mine.

[unpossibles]

6. I don't have a problem with it on jobs where public safety is involved, honestly

although when a company does it to people who have a glowing review history of being good workers, it's insulting.

[NightWatcher]

2. the gov cant do it, but you are free to leave the employer if you dont like their policy

the Bill O' Rights only protects us from the government- not private or commercial entities.

[Solo_in_MD]

4. Ah...many Gov employees are indeed drug tested, including everyone in uniform

[KansDem]

5. Really? So I can choose to not hire you because of you race, religion or ethnicity?

I didn't know that!

[NightWatcher]

7. is that covered in the 4th Amend, nope

it is covered in the EEOC. That applies to all employers

[KansDem]

10. Then why did I have to sign a statement allowing an employer to search me...

...if it was deemed necessary to do so while I was on the job?

I applied for a job once and was told during the interview that I would have to sign a statement saying I could be searched if ever there was malfeasance while I was working.

If it's okie-dokie, then why the waiver?

(I didn't accept the job because of drug-testing, but I was a bit flummoxed that I had to sign away my right to privacy)

[Beausoleil]

11. Probably so you wouldn't sue. n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

12. No, Congress has passed laws saying employers cannot do those things

It has not passed laws barring employers from conducting drug tests.

[KansDem]

14. It seems the time is right to pass such laws...

Used to be that polygraphs were given as a condition for employment. Now credit checks and drug tests. I don't think these should be allowed. If you're hiring someone, the candidate's resume and references should be enough.

When I was a teen and looking for summer work, my mom told me to put on my application (after getting permission) the names of:
1) one of my high-school teachers
2) a family friend who owned a business
3) my minister's name

She felt that would "cover all bases" and provide the prospective employers with all the information needed to determine my employability.

Now, we have to submit to privacy-invading measures to get hired or find an apartment. It's insane!

[SteveM]

16. I believe if your business is small enough, you can. (nt)

[Beausoleil]

8. It's sad that the government

(states included) can get around the Constitution by having companies violate the 4th amendment for them. When it's a government requirement or inticement, it should be unconstitutional but courts generally don't see it that way. If the company does it on their own, that's different.

[Wcross]

9. So if the government encourages a private employer to test....

...it is not a violation?

[rinsd]

13. So the drug testing is in connection with operating "heavy equipment"?

I'm not sure but you may have a state law requiring such testing.

[BuyingThyme]

15. Yes.

Just as if the government was paying them to preach some kind of religion to you.