Homework Writing Help on Random Drug Testing: Petersen v. City of Mesa

Case V

Case study 1

            According to the labor standards of 1938, states are to compensate their employees’ overtime through compensatory time, which enables the employees to take time off work yet get the entire pay (Supreme Court of the United States, 2000). In case, this comp time is not taken, then the employees are guaranteed cash compensation. In this case, both parties are limited, as the judgment does not resolve the problem.    The employer needs to honor the employee when compensating them within the given period after the request has been made. This is on condition that the time given will not interrupt the operations of the employee. This rule also gives the maximum level where the employee can be compensated in terms of time. Moreover, the employee is also at liberty to get the entire cash payment upon termination of the employment (Supreme Court of the United States, 2000).

 Therefore, this time should not be used to deny the employee the right of using the time earned as desired. The employee on the other hand should not force the employer to pay what is unrealistic at the given period. Hence, before the employer can agree to pay the comp time to the employees, it is needful for them to set the limit hours, which they are able to pay. Therefore, both needs ought to agree on the application of these rules when there is need to utilize the accrued time yet there are insufficient funds. The employers must treat the employee with due respect to allow for the law only in cases when the employee has agreed to use the alternative means. Moreover, the employee is only at a position to use the comp time only when this would not result to operations of the public agency. This is in accordance with the rights and privileges of the greater society in relation to the rights and privileges of an individual.

Case study 2

Drug testing is in almost every state in America. This is part of the union’s bargaining agreement with the employer. The main objective is to reduce the cases of drug addiction among fire fighters. Some of the departments like in my state are not demanding for the testing every now and then. In my state, the employees are at liberty to go for the drug test. Therefore, there is no fear of losing jobs in cases when they fail to honor this demand (Arizona Supreme Court, 2004). This is because; these employees undergo strict scrutiny, which prevents them from getting addicted to drugs. Nevertheless, the random choice of drug testing to the employees is essential as it prevents the employees from making irresponsible decisions during emergencies. This helps to keep them alert during their shifts and facilitate other ways of solving personal problems they may be undergoing. Drug abuse is dangerous to health and therefore should be avoided at all times. Therefore, this testing should rather not be random-based but should be from the top management to the least person in the fire department. This should facilitate equal treatment of people and not target at any one.

The main reasons as to why the state departments are not enforcing this policy to a law are due to the cost of maintaining the exercise. There are other policies, which ensure that employees are not addicted to any form of drug, and the challenges in running the program majority of the employees feel their rights being violated when they are frequently required to submit to the tests (Arizona Supreme Court, 2004). Since it is expensive for the departments to carry out these tests frequently, the program should be incorporated as part of the department’s policies. In as much as the test is significant, first time offenders should be given as lighter punishments as warning. Moreover, there is need of the departments to come up with other ways of managing the problem in the lives of the employees. This should incorporate counseling and rehabilitation programs other than retrenching them.

References

Supreme Court of the United States. Christensen, E. vs. Harris County. 2000. No. 98-1167

http://www. supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/529/576/case.html

Arizona Supreme Court No. CV – 03 – 0100 – PR. 2004. Random Drug testing: Petersen v. City of Mesa, 83 P.3d 35;

 https://www.courtlistener.com/ariz/5rSY/petersen – v – city – of – mesa