Would you give your employer a genetic sample or would you prefer to pay the penalty of several thousand dollars?

The government is not requiring employers do this, ex, only allowing them to ask that employees voluntarily do so.  Technically, by giving the employees the option of refusing and paying a penalty (or more for their insurance), it is indeed "voluntary".   

There it is.  thank you Boz

I don't consider that voluntary, but I know many do. Thanks Boz :)

An employer-employee relationship is a contract entered into voluntarily, no one is required to work for a particular entity.  Other employers require things, periodic drug testing or polygraphs say, where the employees only choice is to comply or lose/quit their job.  That choice does indeed make compliance "voluntary", though.

While I would not choose to work anywhere that made such tests mandatory as a requisite for employment, I can at least understand the why behind those tests in certain work environments.  I cannot see a single, justifiable reason for any employer needing an employee's DNA, however.  I do find it rather chilling that anyone in Congress felt such a thing needed to be addressed by statute when, to the best of my knowledge, it has not been an issue.     

The issue I would take up with this is that the state cannot grant the employer the authority to demand something from an individual that even the state lacks the authority to demand. This shouldn't result in the firing or loss of job any more than unionization should in right to work states.  And it goes back to exactly what you mentioned, the justification behind such a request. While it may be necessary to request evidence of sobriety from those operating machinery that belongs to a business, our bodies are not the property of our employers simply because we use them to perform our duties, you know?

Of course, I don't believe that our employers should be required to insure our bodies either, so that bear noting as well. This is one of many ridiculous byproducts of a system that mandates purchases. jmo

This post was edited by ForkNdaRoad at March 11, 2017 4:40 PM MST

I understand what you are saying, but this doesn't grant employers the right to demand anything.  It is still a voluntary contract between the employer and the employee.  If the employee does not wish to submit a sample, they have two options:  pay the penalty or quit/refuse the job.  I may disagree with any employer having need of an employee's DNA, and absolutely disagree that they have any "right" to it at all, ever.  And I do distrust the motives behind both employers that request it and Congress addressing it, particularly since I am unaware of it having been an issue anywhere.  (Perhaps I will look into that when I have time.)  

And if this applied only to new hires, I might be obliged to agree. But this would be a hellish policy to impose on someone who has worked for a company for say, 30 years.

That's a good question, let me know if you find something.

I'd say it's a BS policy regardless, and do not in any way support or condone such a requirement.  I was just pointing out that it isn't an unconstitutional search.

To clarify, I believe the vast majority of federal laws are, in and of themselves, unconstitutional.  

Will do. This post was edited by Bozette at March 13, 2017 1:58 AM MDT

Hello B:

If there's a penalty for NOT doing it, it's a requirement... They can twist the language to pretend it's NOT a requirement, but it clearly is..  And, they can pretend it's NOT the government who's doing it, but if there's a LAW that allows it, the government IS doing it.  And, finally, they can PRETEND it's NOT a search, but it is..

The above is NOT to say that judges will agree with me..  Some will and some won't..

excon

An employee-employer relationship is a contract between the two parties, and there are many laws on the books that address such relationships.  Neither a company making something a requirement as a condition of employment, nor the government allowing the company to do so, makes that requirement a government mandate.  Even if one did not have the option here of choosing to pay a penalty rather than submit to DNA testing, they still have the option to not work for that employer.

Many employers already have requirements that amount to "searches", such as drug testing and polygraphs.  No one is required to take such a job, however.  

While I dislike any such requirements, those are at least understandable in certain work environments.  I cannot see any justifiable reason for an employer having need of any employee's DNA.  I oppose the law based upon that...but that in no way makes it "unconstitutional". This post was edited by Bozette at March 11, 2017 12:26 PM MST

Hello again, B:

Seems like the argument turns on the whether the law gives employers the RIGHT to take samples, and I think it does..  Otherwise, they wouldn't NEED a law..  There isn't a law that allows an employer to require drug tests.  The government isn't involved at all in those decisions..  But, when the government passes a LAW giving a company the right to search its employees, it's a GOVERNMENT sanctioned search and needs a warrant..

Now, if companies, ON their OWN, required a DNA test, just like they require a pee test now, there's no law or Constitutional protection against it..  The KEY is government INTERVENTION.. 

excon This post was edited by excon at March 11, 2017 12:37 PM MST

The law gives employers the right to request a sample, not take a sample without the employee's consent.  

There are laws, both state and federal, regarding drug testing...including ones that mandate the testing of certain employees.

http://employment.findlaw.com/workplace-privacy/drug-testing-at-work.html

I do not like the proposed law, ex, and I do wonder what prompted its introduction...but twist it and turn it as you will, it can in no way be construed as an unconstitutional search by government.

HA HA HA!

That is technically a 'sample'. lmao

Yes'sum.