Drug Screening Bill SB 21 Williams, Essay Example

Introduction

Bill SB 21 submitted by Williams et al. (2013) calls for making drug screening mandatory for certain people applying for unemployment benefits. The welfare system has come under attack several times in the past few years, and public anger over people claiming benefits while not looking for a job has increased as well. Building upon this public anger, claiming that the bill would make the system “fairer” and potentially save 15 million dollars in five years, compared to its introductory cost of $670,455. The below analysis of the bill, proposal will look at the political and social debate that surrounds the idea. Human rights issues, welfare legislation and health issues need to be considered, when analyzing the pro and con arguments.

Background

Bill SB 21 was submitted to the Senate by Williams et al. Economic Development on 3/12/2013. (Ken Lelger Act) Since the submission, several amendments were introduced and accepted, mainly to clarify the procedures related to the bill.

The purpose of SB 21 is to ensure that all unemployed individuals are fit and ready for work, and if not, they are provided state support.

Ayes: 5 ayes — J. Davis, Bell, Isaac, Murphy, Workman

Nays: 4 nays — Vo, Y. Davis, Perez, E. Rodriguez

Rule-making authority: Texas Workforce Commission

Impact: The bill would impact individuals applying for unemployment benefits in Texas after the 1^st of February, 2014.

Budget: According to the Legislative Budget Board, the estimated two-year negative impact of the bill on the revenue related funds would be $670.445. An extra 3.4 state employees would need to be allocated for administering the policy and procedures. Meanwhile, the estimated savings of the Unemployment Trust Fund associated with Bill SB 21 is $13,700,580 over five years.

Digest

Existing Law. According to the  Unemployment Compensation Act, (Labor Code, ch. 201), individuals are entitled to a benefit that is based on their wages they received while in employment. The criteria for entitlement is determined by chapter 207 of the same code. However, according to the Controlled Substances Act (Health and Safety Code, ch. 481) determines the list of controlled substances.

This bill. The new Bill would mean that entitlement determined by the Labor Code would be restricted and subject to drug-screening assessment. The proposed bill would require a written questionnaire to determine whether or not the applicant used controlled substances. If there is an evidence, a test would be carried out. Appropriate actions are determined by the Bill for instances when applicants fail the drug test. Individuals would also be provided with adequate support to start drug treatment, and if they agreed to this, their benefits would not be stopped. The bill would only apply to applicants who file for unemployment benefits after the legislation has passed. Currently, the status of the law is delayed, according to Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst (2014)

Comments

Several amendments were submitted and accepted during the law’s committee meetings. The Senate Committee Report. The clarification of the vague “certain individuals” in the bill’s text was a positive change. The amendment was accepted with 7 “Yeas” votes and reads as follows:

“The commission shall adopt rules for determining the type of work that is suitable for an individual for purposes of this subsection”. Further, amendments were made to ensure that the rights of benefit applicants and recipients are protected by law and the program that is designed to administer drug screening. Further, the Senate did make sure that the legislation is not backdated and only applies to individuals submitting a claim after the 1^st of February, 2014.

Further, as mentioned before, the timetable for implementation is not completed because the legislation lacks the outline of required parameters to be determined by the United States Labor Department. This delay would possibly mean that the total budget of the Bill would be inflated, according to Bill Hammond (Rocha, 2014) At the time of the article, (Rocha, 2014) 13^th of January, the Workforce Commission was discussing the questions to be included in the pre-screening questionnaire. Indeed, this aspect would be problematic, as people’s dignity and privacy rights need to be considered, while ensuring that the pre-screeing is as effective as possible.

Issues Covered

While the final text of the bill covers the main areas of screening, testing and procedures, it is argued that the administration of the system would create an extra burden for the legislative bodies. Indeed, data protection analysis, entitlement and legal issues need to be covered in order to ensure the fairness of the bill. Procedures of testing and privacy issues, appeal procedures were covered during the amendment discussions.

Supporting Arguments

1. Many supporters say that the bill would enable individuals to become drug-free, self-sufficient and ready to take on an employment. Supporters say that people who would fail their drug test are not ready to work, and would certainly not be employable by several companies, applying the same procedure of drug screening.
2. After four weeks, upon taking on a drug treatment program, individuals would be able to reapply for unemployment benefits.
3. Other states have already passed similar legislation.
4. Supporters also state that the bill is designed to protect and enable the most vulnerable individuals on the job market.

Opposition Arguments

Wright (2013) summarizes the arguments against the bill. She quotes residents’ views, and Senator Davis’ arguments.

1. Drug testing requirements would add to jobseekers’ insult to injury, who lost their employment.
2. There is no statistical proof that there is a trend that unemployed people are using more controlled substances.
3. Opponents also claim that only a few roles require pre-employment drug screening, therefore, changing the legislation for these companies would be a waste of money.

Comments/Questions

While the legislation addresses privacy issues of individuals, it does not state which other agencies the test results would be shared with. It is important to ensure that people’s rights to privacy are protected. The anger of the press based on the debate around the bill is based on the perception that individuals would be humiliated by being made to take a drug test. Indeed, the bill looks as if the individual had to prove their “innocence”.

Legislators should look for ways of improving the clarity of the bill in order to prevent legal challenges arising. According to the Congressional Research Service’ latest document (Carpenter, 2014), drug screening laws have been challenged in court previously. The author mentions two cases related to Florida and Michigan legislation in federal courts. The challenges were based on Fourth Amendment grounds. Therefore, in order to succeed with delivering the purpose of the bill, it is important to test it in the light of the cases: Lebron v. Secretary, Florida Department of Children and Families and  Marchwinski v. Howard. (Carpenter, 2014. p. 8-9)

The question is whether or not it is considered a controlling behavior of the state government to subject individuals to a compulsory drug treatment in order to provide benefits? And this is when many arguments end up with a human rights issue. Has the citizen of the state got the right to choose whether or not they want to use drugs? And is the state obliged to provide welfare benefits to all individuals, independent of their behavior, personal preferences or addictions?

Another question is whether the questionnaires are suitable for delivering truthful answers? People who know that they are screened for drug use would be aware of the consequence of their positive answers, Therefore, how many individuals would admit that they were late from work due to having a party and using recreational drugs? It is likely that only those who are actively seeking help would admit to drug use, however, they would find support in churches, through charities on their own, without the intervention of the state.

Suggested Amendments

Several amendments to the bill were submitted and accepted. Watson requested clarification of drug treatment enrollment requirement and determined this as “no longer than the seventh day of the initial notice”. Further, the same author suggested that instead of using the expression “enrolls”, the bill text would say “enrolls and attends”. This further clarified the requirements related to re-applying for unemployment benefits. Privacy and procedure-related subsections were also added by Davis, who clarified the procedure in case of determining false positive tests and appeal, notification procedures.

References

Carpenter, D. (2014) Constitutional analysis of suspicionless drug testing requirements  for the receipt of governmental benefits. Retrieved from: <https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42326.pdf>

House Research Organization (2013) Bill analysis SB 21. Retrieved from:  <http://www.hro.house.state.tx.us/pdf/ba83R/SB0021.PDF>

Rocha, A. (2014) Unemployment drug-testing law delayed. The Texas Tribune. January 13, 2014.

SB-21. (2013) 83(R) SB 21 – Enrolled Version – Bill Text. Retrieved from: <http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/>

Wright, L. (2013) Drug testing bill spurs heated exchange between senators. Texas Monthly. March 14. 2013