Heavy Hitters!

"We are taking a stand that says this is unconstitutional. That we have very few rights left," said Fred Albert, president of the Kanawha County AFT chapter. "That we are not all guilty and have to prove ourselves innocent."

Boy that is the stupidest statement I've ever read.

Oh sure. And they prove it every day by taking drugs, getting themselves arrested for everything from child abuse to robbery, but we are just supposed to keep paying them and turning our heads...

Every person who takes a dime from the taxpayers should be subject to drug testing. No exceptions, no excuses.

afan wrote:Every person who takes a dime from the taxpayers should be subject to drug testing. No exceptions, no excuses.

Including anyone on welfare, recieving foodstamps(EBT) or living in Government subsidized housing. NO Exceptions!

TimeEnuf2 wrote:

afan wrote:Every person who takes a dime from the taxpayers should be subject to drug testing. No exceptions, no excuses.

Including anyone on welfare, recieving foodstamps(EBT) or living in Government subsidized housing. NO Exceptions!

Absolutely! Everyone. Every member of the military is subject to it now. Why shouldn't Senators be also? Why do teachers think they are more special than our warriors?? (You know, the professional ones like the docs and engineers!)

Of course, everyone getting payments, like welfare moms and gubmint contractors, should be tested. The only exception I can think of retirees. No longer on the payroll, not much point in drug testing...

In total agreement, afan.

Funny personal story about drug testing: Won the lottery one day and was scheduled for the periodic test. In the military at that time, we would receive the news that it was our turn at roll call, then had to wait in a closed room for the actual test. I had had recent knee surgery, was still on crutches. The doc decided that they would use my specimen as a test of the lab, knowing that it should show an opiate. They later contacted me to make sure that I had actually taken the pain killer. The test results showed an extremely small amount in my system. They were pleased to discover that I had taken a half dose several days prior and only had the prescription in my pocket in case it became necessary after reporting for that first day back on duty...

Another Challenge
MetroNews
Charleston, Kanawha County

The court hearing on an attempt to block the Kanawha County School Board's drug testing policy is set for Wednesday.

Two other groups, though, have also now filed suit.

The West Virginia Education Association and the American Civil Liberties Union have filed a lawsuit challenging that policy which would subject all teachers and school workers to possible drug tests.

Those groups argue that such tests would violate the Constitutional rights of the employees.

Judge Duke Bloom will hear arguments from the WVEA and the ACLU.

It is the second such lawsuit.

The first filing came from the West Virginia American Federation of Teachers. The hearing on that group's request for a preliminary injunction is set for December 10th.

Judge Herman Canady will hear the AFT's arguments.

The Kanawha County Board of Education approved the new policy back in October. Attorneys for the Board argue that teachers and school workers are in 'safety sensitive' positions and that's why they should face the possibility of drug tests.


(I went ahead and posted the whole article instead of just a link as the site will remove stories after 2 days.)

And just think of all the money that's going to be spent fighting this......whether you think the testing is a good thing or not, surely you don't think the money going into lawyer's pockets for this cause will be a good thing instead of being spent in the classrooms.

You are certainly correct there, sasha! Tell that to your unions and the ACLU. Drug testing has been upheld for employees from McDonald's to the military and every other kind of employee. Why school employees think they are more special than the rest of us us is just amazing. They simply cannot justify their drug use at our expense.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=6502032

Something that I suggested a while back is being tried in Hawaii.

It still seems like a good idea to me, other than the teachers wanting there cake and eat it too.

The one thing that I fail to understand in this whole debate............ what makes teachers think that they are so special?

Why do they feel that they shouldn't be held to the same standards of someone working at Lowes or GoMart?

Every teacher should have a pay raise.......... after a drug test.

What is unfair or wrong with this concept of handing out pay raises?

TimeEnuf2 wrote:The one thing that I fail to understand in this whole debate............ what makes teachers think that they are so special?

i have a problem with the GOVERNMENT testing me. The government should be held to a higher standard ensuring the Constitution is upheld without any blemishes.

If private employer (wal-mart, go-mart, etc) wants to test their employees - that's a little bit different.

When the government is doing the invading --- we should stand firm and insist on following the Constitution.

Now, Sasha, just because you chose to work for the gubmint surely shouldn't excuse you from the same standards a burger flipper must endure! We could resolve that by simply doing away with gubmint schools, I suppose. Or are you saying that if a group of us randomly picked some teachers that they would be more receptive to taking a drug test that we simple citizens demanded instead of the "employer?" In case you had forgotten, it is we citizens for whom you work, not the gubmint...

afan wrote:Now, Sasha, just because you chose to work for the gubmint surely shouldn't excuse you from the same standards a burger flipper must endure! We could resolve that by simply doing away with gubmint schools, I suppose. Or are you saying that if a group of us randomly picked some teachers that they would be more receptive to taking a drug test that we simple citizens demanded instead of the "employer?" In case you had forgotten, it is we citizens for whom you work, not the gubmint...

but the constitution was written to protect the citizens from the Government - whom YOU elect. We work for the elected government and only indirectly for the public.

The framers felt it was more important to protect the citizenry from Government interference and that is what (so far) has been upheld in random drug testing - private employers have long been able to do this but government entities are having a much more difficult time breaking this ground.

If I worked for a private school I'd pee in whatever they handed me. But I work in a public-run-government-sponsored institution - the rules are different.

Fascinating. You trust the gubmint with your SSAN, your payroll, your medical care, your safety and a few other extremely personal things but don't trust them to handle your urine properly? You are aware that they don't actually do anything with it, but have a certified lab take the specimen, do the analysis, and report the results, right? The gubmint doesn't really have anything to do with it other than order the test. I don't quite get how the results of that test could be more sensitive (especially since who gets to see it can easily be restricted to a very limited number of people), yet all the particulars of your health and bank account are widely know to the school system. Oh, well.

Meanwhile, some of us are more than a little bit aware of how the gubmint works. A significant number of us here have worked for various local, state and/or federal bureaucracies long enough to be drawing retirements from them. I would hazard a guess that those of us who never forgot who we worked for (the citizens who paid our salaries) were more responsible employees than the bureaucrats who believe that they work for the "gubmint," as if it is some supreme something that derives power somewhere other than from the citizens who subsidize it.

afan wrote:Fascinating. You trust the gubmint with your SSAN, your payroll, your medical care, your safety and a few other extremely personal things but don't trust them to handle your urine properly? You are aware that they don't actually do anything with it, but have a certified lab take the specimen, do the analysis, and report the results, right? The gubmint doesn't really have anything to do with it other than order the test. I don't quite get how the results of that test could be more sensitive (especially since who gets to see it can easily be restricted to a very limited number of people), yet all the particulars of your health and bank account are widely know to the school system. Oh, well.

Meanwhile, some of us are more than a little bit aware of how the gubmint works. A significant number of us here have worked for various local, state and/or federal bureaucracies long enough to be drawing retirements from them. I would hazard a guess that those of us who never forgot who we worked for (the citizens who paid our salaries) were more responsible employees than the bureaucrats who believe that they work for the "gubmint," as if it is some supreme something that derives power somewhere other than from the citizens who subsidize it.

oh give me a break. There is no other type of job that interacts MORE with the public that we serve than educators. I"m just saying that our "bosses" come from the government - not Mom and Dad from 3 doors down - however, their part in it is their VOTE to create our "bosses".

They have no direct say in our pay, benefits, supervision and so on. It's all indirect via their vote.

As for "trusting the government" with the rest of my life - do I have a choice? Not much of one that I can see. However, as for peeing in a cup - that goes to the heart of innocent until proven guilty and unreasonable search and seizure without PROBABLE CAUSE from which we are all protected.

I have a right to protest that.

Indeed, you have the right to protest anything. We who are paying for it also have the right to laugh at the arguments teachers are using which make them look silly.

Now, can you address the question which several have asked here: why are teachers so "special" that they should be the only folks not subject to drug testing?