Issue of Workplace Drug Testing

Abbey and Redel (1991) state that the courts have been asked to settle these matters and have tried to decide the constitutional issues involved. The courts have tended to enamor a difference between the issue for private employees and open employees. The courts have determined that drug testing is a bodily search in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, and probable wee-wee requirements are mandatory under the Fourth Amendment except in exceptional circumstances. The critical issue in each wooing at that placefore becomes whether a search is unreasonable under the quaternate Amendment. The Supreme hook has found that blood, breathalyzer, and urine tests are alone Fourth Amendment searches. The Court has found that the suspicionless testing of employees who apply for onward motion to positions directly involving the interdiction of drugs or where there is a demand to carry firearms is reasonable--this applies to employees of the U.S. Treasury, for instance. Current and prehire employees thus could be subjected to testing if there is a compelling government interest, and habitual employees in legal philosophy enforcement or public safety can thus be tested. Mass or random drug testing for public employees is a different issue and has been prohibited by well-nigh court decisions.

For private vault of heaven employees, the issue is different, because constitutional rights do not apply to the actions of private parties, only to the actions of the government. The private employer is not co

Meyers, J.F. (1994, Summer).

Hill v. NCAA: California adopts a new standard for invasion of silence. Employee Relations Law Journal, pp. 73-84.

Abbey, A. and C. Redel (1991, April). "do drugs testing in the workplace: Public and private sector employers and the courts." Labor Law Journal, pp. 239-246.

Lipman, I. (1995, January 1). Drug testing is vital in the workplace. USA Today Magazine.

In 1994, the California Supreme Court decided the case of Hill v. NCAA and upheld drug testing for athletes, stating that the privacy of the athletes had not been invaded because a drug test was no more intrusive than the common awareness of physical matters between take and athlete, advanced notice was given, and the athletes consented to the test (Meyers 1994).

Fine, C.R., T.Z. Reeves, and G.P. Harney (1996, January-February). Employee drug testing. Public brass instrument Review, pp. 30-37.

Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.