Mandatory drug testing. These requirements are compatible with. Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that drug testing. It appears mandatory drug testing is a permanent fixture of American. The legal roots of mandatory drug testing are found in the common law.
Workplace Drug Testing Programs to include Mandatory Guidelines. Mandatory Federal Workplace Drug Testing. Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs,” (Mandatory. Federal Workplace Drug Testing. DoD Civilian Employee Drug-Free Workplace Program. Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (Reference (e)). Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs. Division of Workplace Programs. Workplace Drug Testing.
The Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs initially published by.
As the Court held in Adair. United States (2. U. S. 1. 61, 1. 75- 6, 1. Employers could establish any requirements they wished for. Not only could they decline to hire employees. Employees must endure these.
The Vermont Legislative Research Shop Drug-Free Workplace Laws.
However, since most people have. Courts and legislatures have since. During the last thirty. The Civil Rights Act of 1. Later court decisions held that discrimination based on sex and religion. Nonetheless, elements of the . Consider a recent Texas Court of Appeals ruling rejecting an.
In siding with the. Minco Technology.
Labs, Inc., 7. 65 S. W. 2nd 4. 97, 1. 98. Although not in the same unqualified. U. S. Supreme Court cases. Given the staying- power of this doctrine - - albeit in. Constitution as interpreted by the Reagan/Bush court. Employers can. make extensive demands on employees, simply because it is their pleasure.
Mandatory drug testing is also underwritten by potent political. The public is concerned about the growing use of illegal drugs. The use of illegal narcotics, they said. The public wants drug use stopped; and they are willing to. Concerns about testing. Even those who endorse widespread use of drug testing do - - or should - - fear.
In fact, by focusing exclusively on this amendment, the courts have. The primary functions of the.
Fourth are to insure that governmental agents cannot criminally prosecute. Drug testing does not run afoul of any of these functions. First. testing programs are not governmental actions in the sense required by this. Amendment. Even when the federal government is the employer (as in National. Treasury, discussed later), it demands qua employer - - not qua government. Second, test results are not made available.
Third, since employees know when they accept certain jobs that they. In. short, such test are not unconstitutional searches under the meaning of the. Fourth Amendment. At least that is what the Court ruled. I am inclined to agree.
However, even if the prohibition against unreasonable searches is not. There are moral limits on an employer's discretion: no.
These moral limits are also Constitutional limits - - albeit not ones the. Court majority recognized in any of the cases cited. There the Court. held that . Even if drug tests are not impermissible. Thus, we must still determine whether employers can. This way of putting the matter, however, assumes that the use of drugs is. Our search to determine if mandatory drug testing is.
Employers demands on employees. In deciding what employers can legitimately demand of employees, we must. In our efforts. to protect workers, we should not decree whom employers must hire nor mandate. To do so would be to intrude inappropriately.
For the purposes of our present inquiry, however, we. That is, we must. Here's my suggestion. If a belief or activity is irrelevant to job.
She cannot rightly prescribe. If privacy is to mean.
The following example, I think, illustrates. Suppose an employer wants to examine an employee's blood, not to. If she fails, she is dismissed. Moreover, let us stipulate.
The employer recognizes that. She just refuses to.
Under these circumstances such tests would be. Fourth. Amendment's prohibitions on unreasonable searches. In fact, as I argued earlier. Fourth Amendment is directly relevant to the present. Likewise, employers should not be able to control employees' behavior which. For. instance, elevated serum cholesterol may be remotely relevant to job.
People with elevated cholesterol are more likely to suffer heart. Under such circumstances, permitting employers to specify an. If testing were permissible under these. That, however, would give employers extensive.
And most assuredly that limits. We return to the original question: what may employers legitimately demand of.
Can they legitimately force employees to hold particular religious. Can they require employees to have a particular diet or exercise. Can they enforce dress codes? These questions cannot be answered in the. Such matters are not invariably subject to employer control, nor are.
Whether these are reasonable demands. If what is being required is obviously and. For instance, it is generally impermissible to require employees to have. In most circumstances such beliefs are unrelated to. Nonetheless, having specified religious beliefs is an eminently. And, although diet is typically irrelevant to job. Fortunately, for our present purposes we need not determine exactly what are.
Nor do we need a comprehensive theory of. The only answer we need for the present inquiry is suggested by the.
If normally private information is irrelevant to a job's. Thus, in circumstances where drug use is irrelevant, or only. That seems only too obvious if. Tylenol. On the other hand, if drug use (or any other trait or behavior, for that. Someone might object that no one should have to disclose details of her. To. ask that they do is to violate the Fifth Amendment's protection against.
For the Fifth Amendment - - like the Fourth - -. As previously argued, employee drug tests are not criminal. No one is in danger of being imprisoned. The Fifth Amendment is. Rather, the issue is whether (prospective) employees should have to disclose. The answer, I would have thought, is yes. Consequently it is appropriate for.
Given these principles, employers may reasonably want to know whether their. But this. does not yet establish that employers may use mandatory drug tests as a way of. For the issue is not merely what information an employer may.
To consider an. earlier example, the local parish may ask prospective priests about their. After all, such beliefs are relevant to job performance. But. the parish cannot demand that applicants submit to lie detector tests; nor may. Likewise, employers may ask an employee about drug use if that employee's. Perhaps, too, they might legitimately. However, employers should not.
We must still be concerned about employees' privacy. Testing is. not a justified means of identifying drug use unless, in addition to being. Or. so I shall argue in the next section. The Rationale for Mandatory Testing.
The theory. The principles discussed in the previous section appear to provide the. Department of Transportation.
That ruling specified that nearly four. These regulations require not only tests for job applicants, but also. The ruling further specified that . The stated purpose of these tests is to protect the safety of innocent people. That purpose is most noble. However, before we endorse testing, we must. To bring the previous discussion together, I propose that testing is.
The job is such that its improper performance can have immediate, serious. I shall discuss. later). Moreover, I think. They. would recognize that testing would increase the likelihood that their fellow. Surely that is a goal of all responsible professionals. Someone might object that such testing, even for this noble purpose, is not. Most assuredly we must be concerned about individuals' privacy.
It is very. easy for policy makers and executives to lose sight of these concerns in their. If. however, these conditions are satisfied, drug use would not be private for. Rather it would be public. It would be public even by the guidelines set down.
J. S. 1. 97. 8: 9) The distinction. We can only. determine if an action is public in the relevant sense, if the action.
Thus, an action which is generally considered private. In summary, employees' private lives should be free from intrusion. However, for people in jobs which. The practice. I have argued that testing is theoretically justified: that testing is.
Whether testing is actually. We cannot merely assume they are satisfied. We must. demonstrate that they are, else testing will be unacceptably intrusive. How. likely is it that a professional who uses drugs will perform her tasks in ways. Perhaps the chances are extremely remote.
If so, testing. would not prevent harm to others and would be unnecessary. Perhaps there are. If so. testing would be unacceptably invasive. If on the other hand these criteria are. However, philosophers are not especially equipped to determine when the. Thus, I cannot state unequivocally that the criteria are.
Nonetheless, it is plausible to believe they are satisfied in at. Both anecdotal and scientific evidence suggests that use. Consider, for example, a pilot for a. Pilot error could have immediate, disastrous, and. Second it appears. Perhaps, too, previous. LSD), even if not currently in the.
Moreover, by all accounts, there is no feasible way of detecting use of some. Finally, it appears standard. DOT - - are not unduly intrusive (criterion 5).
If these suppositions are plausible, and if there is reason to believe people. It is important to note that this argument for drug testing does not imply.
Although I have not settled this issue to my own. I am sympathetic with the claim that people should have a right to. But these arguments for legalizing drugs are. Ex. hypothesi, this behavior no longer concerns just themselves; on good. Millean grounds we should support limited testing.
Limits on Testing. But limited testing it must be. I do not endorse extensive testing programs.
There are any number of ways in which the rationale. Unless carefully. This would lead to far more extensive. Were this to happen, some of us might come to oppose all. For instance, likely some employers establish testing programs merely to. I am in strong sympathy. Justice Scalia's biting dissent to the majority's holding in National.
Treasury Employees Union. Scalia had approved the Court's ruling in Skinner.
In my view the Customs Service rules are a kind of immolation of. Testing under these conditions would be nothing more than an. Consider, for a moment, auto makers. Several of the. proffered criteria are not satisfied.
For instance, any harm which might occur. Worker error may be. We expect them to.