Drug Tests

Proposal to check unemployed needs more work if it is going to fly

It’s not uncommon for workers in the private sector to face initial drug testing before they are hired. And some companies follow through with random testing.

But should we be testing the unemployed for illicit substances? At least one Arkansas lawmaker thinks we should. Recently, State Sen. Jeremy Hutchinson, R-Little Rock, filed a bill requiring that all new applicants for unemployment benefits undergo a drug test. Those already receiving compensation would be subject to random testing.

Hutchinson says his bill is designed to ensure those on unemployment are in the best position to land a job.

“The purpose is to deter people from getting on drugs while they are seeking unemployment benefits, so they can get a job. If one of the conditions of receiving unemployment is that you’re working on securing employment, you can’t very well claim you’re able to do that if you can’t pass the drug-testing requirement,” he told The Associated Press.

Hutchinson added that he doesn’t think there is a big problem here, but that some employers in his district had contacted his office and said they had otherwise viable job candidates unable to pass a drug test.

The bill has drawn fire from state Sen. Stephanie Flowers, D-Pine Bluff. She says the legislation is so broad that it would most likely be ruled unconstitutional in court.

But it may not get that far. Flowers decided to throw a little monkey wrench into the works.

She added an amendment to the proposal that would require random drug testing for all Arkansas elected officials and all state employees—including the governor, members of the Legislature and judges.

“If we’re going to do this, let’s be fair. It doesn’t make sense to me that you would be suspicious of those people who are unemployed and not be suspicious of those people who are actually working and in public jobs,” she told the AP.

“I’m just trying to equalize what’s often required in private workplaces with what’s required of public employees,” she added.

Hutchinson said that while he doesn’t oppose drug testing for public employees, Flowers was just playing politics in a effort to derail his bill. No doubt. It will probably work, too. This is one of those bills that the public likes to hear about, but which seldom make it out of committee. It would be costly to implement and would certainly be challenged in court, sending more tax dollars down the drain.

A better alternative would be to toss anyone off unemployment if they have the opportunity to get a job but fail an employer’s drug test.

That would be challenged, too. But since the focus is narrow, it has a better chance of holding up. And it would save the state the costs of administering all those tests.