( - promoted by Carnacki)
It's good to be back on Blue after a long and grinding legislative session. I entertained writing a whole post about the Bills this session that both impacted civil liberties and had traction. However, given that I am still coming out of my post session funk (it happens to all of us) I have decided to focus on one Bill at a time for the next several days. All things considered, civil liberties did very well at the Legislature this year in that none of the really bad bills made it through, yet (i say 'yet' because there is talk of resurrecting some bills during the extended session late next month). However, one suspect piece of legislation did make it through both chambers, so that is where we will start today. It is an interesting political experiment that pairs pre-employment and random drug testing with an unusual ally-Organized Labor. House Bill 2771 was an initiative to expand the West Virginia Alcohol and Drug Free Workplace Act. Under the originial law, passed just last year, anyone who wants a shot at a State public improvement contract must prove that they have a drug testing program in place that not only provides pre-employment drug testing, but also subjects employees to random tests. HB 2771 goes even further by mandating that all political subdivisions (counties, cities, boards of public works, etc.) must do the same with their public improvement contracts. This legislation had an unlikely ally in that the Trade Unions (Affiliated Construction Trades) were the number one proponent of the Bill's passage. Granted, most construction work can fall under the category of 'safety sensitive' and therefore justify pre-employment and random post-employment testing. However, there are a couple of things here that need to raise some red flags. First, at the Senate Judiciary committee hearing when this was taken up, the representative from the state labor department couldn't comment on any results the orginal law had rendered. Additionally, he more or less admitted that the state had not been really enforcing the law and had no examples to give the committee. What is a municipality to do if they ask the state how to enforce this properly? They will not be able to give any examples, because they don't really have any. Second, the original Bill was passed just last session. It would make sense to let that law settle in, see if it is working, find any bugs in the bureaucracy, and iron them out before massively expanding the law to include every political subdivision in the state. Third, this law is a blatant attempt to squeeze out small contractors from bidding on public improvement contracts. Plain and simple, most small contractors do not have the resources to engage in pre-employment and post-employment random drug testing. It's just too expensive. Given this Bill's prooponents, it is accurate to say that this legislation is a way to leverage small contractors out of the picture when it comes to public improvement contracts. Finally, the mechanism by which this legislation presents itself is most troubling. Essentially, what we have is a law that says 'if you want to do business with the state, you have to drug test.' What HB 2771 does is pull more people into that law. What's next, including public defenders under the West Virginia Alcohol and Drug Free Workplace Act? How about Social Workers? See where this could go? We tried to beat this one, but the backing of Labor shot it through the House like a rocket, and given most of Labor's Bills did not do so well in the Senate this year, my instinct tells me that this one was passed out as sort of a consolation prize. Ultimately, I do see this one headed for litigation. Someone who gets a window washing or landscaping subcontract on a public improvement project is going to tell the man to get lost when a cup to pee in is place in front of him/her. More tomorrow. |
