NationStates Jolt Archive

I've got an interview for a job in a few hours, followed by a mandatory drug screening. Last night I was thinking about this, and wondered if this doesn't violate my 5th amendment rights. In a sense, I'm being forced to give them evidence (my urine) that could be used against me (deny me the job). I know this is probably stretching things, but just curious what the great minds of Nation States thought.

I've got an interview for a job in a few hours, followed by a mandatory drug screening. Last night I was thinking about this, and wondered if this doesn't violate my 5th amendment rights. In a sense, I'm being forced to give them evidence (my urine) that could be used against me (deny me the job). I know this is probably stretching things, but just curious what the great minds of Nation States thought.
Since employment is a private contract between the employer and the employee, only those who can show a prima facie case of discrimination against them as a member of a legally protected group have any hope of winning a lawsuit. Screening all prospective hires for a specific job ( or for all jobs at a particular firm ) for drug use does not qualify.

If you could show that only members of a protected group ( females, minorities, the disabled, those over 40, veterans ) are screened for drug use and that you belong to the protected group being screened, then you might ... might have a case.

Well, first things first. It's a privately organized company who's doing the drug testing, as such, they do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Constitution, which deals with government acts.

Beyond that, the government can drug test you if you're applying for a job, chiefly because you're entering an extra agreement with them.

What is illegal is for the government to go out and drug test people at random.

snip

If you could show that only members of a protected group ( females, minorities, the disabled, those over 40, veterans ) are screened for drug use and that you belong to the protected group being screened, then you might ... might have a case.

I doubt I could get musicians "protected" status, but we could sure use it in situations like this!! wink-wink, nudge-nudge.

I doubt I could get musicians "protected" status, but we could sure use it in situations like this!! wink-wink, nudge-nudge.
Lol :) but even doing so they are testing everyone not just musicians so still would not be illigal :D

Well, first things first. It's a privately organized company who's doing the drug testing, as such, they do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Constitution, which deals with government acts.

Beyond that, the government can drug test you if you're applying for a job, chiefly because you're entering an extra agreement with them.

What is illegal is for the government to go out and drug test people at random.
Um ... not quite! Everyone in the US is subject to the Constitution, as well as all laws passed by Congress.

The first response answered it perfectly.

As for my advice, put apple juice in the cup and see how they react to the test results.

I doubt I could get musicians "protected" status, but we could sure use it in situations like this!! wink-wink, nudge-nudge.
Sure! Have Congress pass a law saying that musicians are a protected group! LOL! Good luck! :D

One thing I left out of my original post was the idea that this goes against "the American way". By that I mean we're supposed to be presumed innocent and proven guilty. Employers that drug screen are presuming us guilty, and we have to prove our innocence. And yes, I realise this is more of an ethical thought as opposed to true constitutional law.

The first response answered it perfectly.

As for my advice, put apple juice in the cup and see how they react to the test results.
Unless they caught you doing it, they wouldn't even blink. These tests are for the presence of drug residue only. They wouldn't even know it was apple juice. :)

Sure! Have Congress pass a law saying that musicians are a protected group! LOL! Good luck! :D

Or I could pull the old Cheech and Chong gag. Find a pregnant woman and use her urine!

One thing I left out of my original post was the idea that this goes against "the American way". By that I mean we're supposed to be presumed innocent and proven guilty. Employers that drug screen are presuming us guilty, and we have to prove our innocence. And yes, I realise this is more of an ethical thought as opposed to true constitutional law.
There's no "presumption" either way. It's simply a universal screen for those applying for a specific job, or for employment by a specific employer.

You didn't mention what the job entails, but hiring a drug user for many jobs would be inviting disaster. I briefly wondered if the 23 year old driver of that train that wrecked in Japan, killing over 70 people, was a drug user.

Or I could pull the old Cheech and Chong gag. Find a pregnant woman and use her urine!
ROFLMAO!!! I use to love Cheech and Chong! They were totally off the charts! :D

Unless they caught you doing it, they wouldn't even blink. These tests are for the presence of drug residue only. They wouldn't even know it was apple juice. :)

Darn, there go my plans to make people think I was a mutant apple tree.

Darn, there go my plans to make people think I was a mutant apple tree.
Hehehe! Well, if it's any consolation to you, I think you are! :D

Red Sox Fanatics: Unfortunately, there's nothing unconstitutional about testing you for drugs. As stated before, hiring a drug user can and will cause disasters. For starters, companies are trying to protect themselves from people whose actions could result in lawsuits against the company. Even if the company wins the suit, that's still a lot of money the company loses in litigation fees.

On top of that, there's also those companies whose quality of service/products could be jeopardized by hiring drug users. So, I would rather have companies test their employees for drug abuse, than not. In fact, I don't think that current legislation is enough, because people *are* finding ways around it, and that makes it even worse. I think more legislation is needed to control drug abuse in the workplace.

And Red Sox, if you're a person that doesn't do drugs, then why are you making such a fuss about doing a drug test? You wouldn't have anything to worry about if you were clean.

And Red Sox, if you're a person that doesn't do drugs, then why are you making such a fuss about doing a drug test? You wouldn't have anything to worry about if you were clean.

I ALREADY stated that I'm a musician. Duhh.
But on a serious note, what I do AT HOME and ON MY OWN TIME is no concern of theirs. I would NEVER "get high" before or during work. My big problem is that they show no concern over alcohol. It would be fine (in their eyes) for me to drink a six pack or more every night. What about coming to work the next morning hung over and out of it? Wouldn't that create serious safety/quality problems?

I've got an interview for a job in a few hours, followed by a mandatory drug screening. Last night I was thinking about this, and wondered if this doesn't violate my 5th amendment rights. In a sense, I'm being forced to give them evidence (my urine) that could be used against me (deny me the job). I know this is probably stretching things, but just curious what the great minds of Nation States thought.

If you're going to become a truck driver, you have to pass a driving test - the results of which can be used to deny you a job.

It's not the police doing it to you, and you're not going to be charged with a crime as a result, so you're not being "incriminated".

I doubt I could get musicians "protected" status, but we could sure use it in situations like this!! wink-wink, nudge-nudge.

They're testing you for a job as a musician? How does that work? If you're clean you can't possibly be any good?

I agree that it isn't technically unconstitutional to require drug testing for jobs in private companies but I seriously think that random or general screening should be illegal except in cases where the lives of others are put at demonstrable risk, such as bus drivers, fire fighters, and police officers etc. To test people at random because of a supposed, and unsupported, increase in worker productivity is just wrong.

Time to right to congress people. You don't have to be high to be against being ordered to piss in a cup on demand.

I ALREADY stated that I'm a musician. Duhh.
But on a serious note, what I do AT HOME and ON MY OWN TIME is no concern of theirs. I would NEVER "get high" before or during work. My big problem is that they show no concern over alcohol. It would be fine (in their eyes) for me to drink a six pack or more every night. What about coming to work the next morning hung over and out of it? Wouldn't that create serious safety/quality problems?

They're also not really concerned about you showing up for work high. There are tests that can check to see if you're high on marijuana rather than have used it in the past month, but no one uses them here.

There were a few states proposing testing all drivers who get pulled over for marijuana use and calling it a plan to catch "drugged drivers" but of course they weren't looking for people who were high, just people who would test positive for use.

This isn't about productivity or safety, it's about getting money out of an unpopular group of people. Who cares if a law is bad for drug users, right? And when private labs who don't get much business on their thousand dollar paternity tests go to businesses and say "if you pay us a hundred dollars a pop to test your employees pee then your productivity will go up" the employer just says to his workers "well you won't mind pissing in this cup while I watch unless you're a drug user. You're not a drug user are you?"

Seriously, there should be laws agianst this sort of invasion of privacy. Not just drug tests, but checking your credit and any other personaly information that has nothing to do with your credentials. There was a law passed that said that employers can't check your credit rating without your permission, but all that does is let you know that you can't get a job without signing your privacy away.

Others have already addressed the main question.

1. The 5th Amendment is only a limitation on government (or "state action") and does not apply to a private company.

2. Applying for a job is a voluntary exercise on your part, so you are not being compelled to do anything. (A slight oversimplification but accurate.)

Since employment is a private contract between the employer and the employee, only those who can show a prima facie case of discrimination against them as a member of a legally protected group have any hope of winning a lawsuit. Screening all prospective hires for a specific job ( or for all jobs at a particular firm ) for drug use does not qualify.

If you could show that only members of a protected group ( females, minorities, the disabled, those over 40, veterans ) are screened for drug use and that you belong to the protected group being screened, then you might ... might have a case.

Generally correct, but I want to clarify a couple of points. (Which I am not raising to disagree with you, but to take the opportunity to correct some common misperceptions.)

It is not really members of a "group" that are protected.

It is that certain classifications are suspect or prohibited.

We sometimes look at it as a protected group as a shorthand.

Thus, discrimination on the basis of gender is prohibitied -- whether against men or women. Discrminations on the basis of race or ethnicity is prohibited -- whether against those of Asian descent, African descent, or European descent (or any other race or ethnicity).

Ironically, the most clearly "protected group" is the one people find least objectionable -- veterans. Even there the primary prohibition is against discrimination on the basis of whether one is or is not a veteran. (Veterans also benefit from forms of affirmative action, but that is a different issue.)

it's a company's right to do it, but i still don't like the fact that by doing this they're willing to stick their noses into what people do in their free time...

now if I come to work drunk or high, i should be fired.

but if i want to go out on a Friday night, they shouldn't try to infringe on that freedom.

my time is my time

Um ... not quite! Everyone in the US is subject to the Constitution, as well as all laws passed by Congress.

Not to pick on you, but I'm going to be all technical and correct you.

The Constitution is a limitation on government. It can only be violated by "state action." (The line of what is and is not "state action" can be very complicated at times, but is usually straightforward. We would go into the the murky for now.)

The principles of the Constitution -- particularly the Bill of Rights -- ought to be honored where applicable, but there is no obligation for private citizens to do so unless they are also enshrined in a statute.

You are, of course, correct that everyone in the US is subject to laws passed by Congress. Some protections of the Constitution are echoed in statutes that provide similar protections.

For example, the 14th Amendment provides for equal protection under the laws. The government cannot discriminate. Other laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibit discrimination by employers or a certain size, certain public businesses, etc. (Of course, these are simplifications of the statutes and the application of the 14th Amendment.)