News (Media Awareness Project) - US WA: Editorial: ACLU Is Off Base On City Drug Tests |
Title: | US WA: Editorial: ACLU Is Off Base On City Drug Tests |
Published On: | 1999-02-19 |
Source: | Seattle Post-Intelligencer (WA) |
Fetched On: | 2008-09-06 13:05:06 |
ACLU IS OFF BASE ON CITY DRUG TESTS
Although we often share the moral high ground with the American
CivilLiberties Union, we part company on the subject of mandatory drug
testing for job applicants in the public sector. We're for it, the
ACLU is against it.
So far the loyal opposition is batting .500. After filing a lawsuit
claiming that universal testing is unconstitutional, the organization
persuaded the Seattle City Council to overturn its 18-month-old policy
and limit the screening to applicants for sensitive jobs, such as
public safety or operating motor vehicles and heavy equipment.
In its second turn at bat, the ACLU wasn't as successful. Last month
King County Superior Court Judge R. Joseph Wesley upheld the city's
revised testing policy.
The city "carefully crafted a program significantly tailored to
address specific, documented concerns over drug use by potential
employees," Wesley said. In other words, the decision to screen
applicants for unwanted behaviors that would negatively affect city
government wasn't a knee-jerk invasion of privacy by overly suspicious
bureaucrats.
That's well-grounded. City personnel managers who had supported
universal testing reported the nascent policy had cut accidents by 70
percent in the Seattle Conservation Corps and reduced sick-leave time
among those with commercial driver's licenses. According to the
National Institute on Drug Abuse, drug-using employees are more than
three times more likely to be involved in a workplace accident and
five times more likely to file a workers' compensation claim.
Neither state nor federal constitutions prohibit Seattle from drug
testing because it is within the city's legislative purview, the judge
added. In other words, it is within the council's power to respond in
a legal manner to a taxpaying public that doesn't want to subsidize
additional health care costs, property damage and lost worker
productivity associated with illegal behaviors.
The ACLU plans to appeal the ruling. We think the organization should
declare its work here finished and give it up.
Although we often share the moral high ground with the American
CivilLiberties Union, we part company on the subject of mandatory drug
testing for job applicants in the public sector. We're for it, the
ACLU is against it.
So far the loyal opposition is batting .500. After filing a lawsuit
claiming that universal testing is unconstitutional, the organization
persuaded the Seattle City Council to overturn its 18-month-old policy
and limit the screening to applicants for sensitive jobs, such as
public safety or operating motor vehicles and heavy equipment.
In its second turn at bat, the ACLU wasn't as successful. Last month
King County Superior Court Judge R. Joseph Wesley upheld the city's
revised testing policy.
The city "carefully crafted a program significantly tailored to
address specific, documented concerns over drug use by potential
employees," Wesley said. In other words, the decision to screen
applicants for unwanted behaviors that would negatively affect city
government wasn't a knee-jerk invasion of privacy by overly suspicious
bureaucrats.
That's well-grounded. City personnel managers who had supported
universal testing reported the nascent policy had cut accidents by 70
percent in the Seattle Conservation Corps and reduced sick-leave time
among those with commercial driver's licenses. According to the
National Institute on Drug Abuse, drug-using employees are more than
three times more likely to be involved in a workplace accident and
five times more likely to file a workers' compensation claim.
Neither state nor federal constitutions prohibit Seattle from drug
testing because it is within the city's legislative purview, the judge
added. In other words, it is within the council's power to respond in
a legal manner to a taxpaying public that doesn't want to subsidize
additional health care costs, property damage and lost worker
productivity associated with illegal behaviors.
The ACLU plans to appeal the ruling. We think the organization should
declare its work here finished and give it up.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...