Molotov

Drug-Free Workplace Bill
Introduced by Representative McNamara, Nebraska

Placing a requirement on Federal grantees and contractors to certify that they maintain a drug-free workplace, and spread awareness of the dangers of drugs within their organisation.

• Requiringcertain Federal contractors [for contracts which are i) worth $100,000 or more; ii) not procurement or purchase orders; and iii) performed in part or in whole in the Mountain States.] and all Federal grantees to certify their workplaces are free of illegal drugs as a precondition for receiving a contract or grant.
• Recognising the terrible toll that drug abuse has on many MS American communities, and the need to take a hard line on drugs and the organised crime that narcotics fund.
• Necessitating all organisations covered by the bill to make clear to their employees the dangers of illegal drugs, informing them that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensation, possession or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the covered workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken against employees who violate the policy..
• Require a pledge from that organisation to continue to stand as a drug-free workplace after the relevant dealings with the Federal government.

Representative McNamara, R-NE wrote:Representatives of the Mountain States of America,

The dangers of illegal drugs to the wellbeing of our republic are well-publicized. In this house over the years we have seen many initiatives to curb their influence, to limit their spread. But we are fighting a battle that is increasingly difficult; and increasingly organised crime has gained a strangehold on the drugs trade in our country.

This bill is part of that battle. It is not intended as the be-all and end-all for this Congress's efforts against drugs; rather, one should see it as a first volley and an indication of intent. It may seem surprising that such an obligation, as presented in this bill, does not already exist. Congress, I urge you to support this bill and for the Federal government to make clear that there is a zero-tolerance of illegal drugs from this Congress.

Representative Carpenter, R-OK wrote:As co-sponsor of this bill I welcome the words of the Representative for Nebraska. We must make clear to the drug barons that the MSA will not let this dangerous menace corrupt many of our countrymen. Equally, we must make clear to businesses that the Mountain States as a whole must take this strong stand, united, and I truly believe across the aisle that this bill can be well-received and welcomed.

Representative Andrea Hernández wrote: Recent developments and scandals must not and will not impede the Socialist Party's mission and determination to stand up for the American worker and the common people's best interest, and thus we will make our opposition to this bill known and heard.

The DFW Bill, as it stands, is a direct attack straight against the neediest and most vulnerable members of our workforce, who, for many complicated social, economic and cultural reasons, are more exposed to addiction to illegal drugs, and thus would fall victim to this proposed piece of legislation.

The Right-Wing purports that this bill would lead to a "drug-free workplace", when in reality all it would do would be to validate police-like and anti-worker practices on the part of federal contractors, who might very well abuse the language of this law to carry out wanton unjustified firings: at no point on this bill is there any wording to suggest it should fall upon the employer to prove someone working for it is actually using illegal drugs.

We speak of firings and drug use because, once again, the wording of this bill is terribly vague: what does "certify their workplaces are free of illegal drugs" even mean, exactly? Will the government provide inspectors to hand out certifications? Will private enterprises certify each other and themselves? Does "free" mean nobody working there fails a drug screening test? That there are no drugs physically present in the premises? If the latter is the case, we would like to remind the Republican Party that such a situation would already be considered, in fact, illegal, as said substances are, indeed, controlled.

Obviously we've taken the liberty of interpreting this bill as it's likely the Right-Wing and the corporate Oligarchy will read it: as an anti-worker measure to be arbitrarily used to assault the bedrock achievements of the American labor movement, like protections against unjustified firings, compensation, and the basic spirit of collective bargaining.

We suggest future bills purporting to be anti-drugs go out more against actual drug lords and less against the American working class.

Representative McNamara, R-NE wrote:Representatives,

I am at least glad that the Socialist representative for Texas has contributed to this debate. I am glad to answer her points, even if I believe she makes a fundamental mistake in who she views this bill as targeting.

This bill would place the onus on large businesses who gain a contract with the Federal government to confirm that their workplace is drug free. As stated in the third subsection, this would mean:

...all organisations covered by the bill to make clear to their employees the dangers of illegal drugs, informing them that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensation, possession or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the covered workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken against employees who violate the policy.

This would take the form of a policy statement by the company to their employees, and making very clear to them that anyone involved in the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensation, possession or use of a controlled substance would be violating company policy. Now, it is open to the business what those actions would in truth mean: but as the Representative rightly points out, such actions would already be illegal, and a business already well in their purview to consider action. I am happy to answer any further questions regarding how the bill would work in practice.

The government must not condone drug use in any workplace, let alone one receiving American taxpayers' money.

But if I may return to the more general point of the purpose of this bill, because with the greatest respect, Representative Hernandez seems opposed to the bill because it is an, I quote, "anti-worker measure". I do not believe that ensuring Federal contractors maintain a drug-free workplace is anti-worker. It is simply anti-drugs. This is not the final bill I intend to bring to Congress on the subject of narcotics and battling the drug lords. As I said, this is an indication of intent - for it is surprising that such an obligation does not already exist.

Representative Hernandez has herself done good work on questioning the infiltration of organised crime into MS American territory - we all listened with interest to the SOCAL investigation hearing. I am therefore happy to cooperate on further bills the Republican Conservative caucus intends to bring forward. But she will recognize, that to combat the drug lords requires actions not only against them directly but against drugs in general. There is nothing morally more upstanding about a small-time "working class" drug dealer in comparison to the richest, wealthiest drug dealer: they both ruin lives, livelihoods, communities and health. We should not excuse drug use as not being in the vast majority of cases, the responsibility of the individual. I sincerely hope she can see the good sense behind this bill.

12 Conservative Republican votes IN FAVOR

Representative Andrea Hernández, TX wrote: Much as we'd all like to live in the Right-Wing's fantasy world, where the use and spread of controlled substances is simply a matter of "personal responsibility", that is simply not the case: we live in a complicated reality, one in which the working class is simply more prone and vulnerable to fall into addiction to illegal drugs than their more privileged fellow citizens.

Representative McNamara says that this bill is not "anti-worker" but "anti-drugs". Again, his position is terribly simplistic. One cannot develop public policy directed against a concept, even one expressing a real social phenomenon, such as "drugs", as those who have to live with the consequences in their own lives and in society at large are, indeed, actual living breathing people whose day-to-day reality will be affected by the decisions we make here. The point isn't that the Republicans make a rhetorical effort to present this as "anti-something", as all laws we pass here are necessarily "anti-someone" as much as they are "pro-someone", and the Socialist Party has already made clear its position as to whom this bill would benefit it passed.

As much as the Right-Wing may quote its inane addendum regarding "making clear" to the workforce the dangers of illegal drugs (terribly kind of you, by the way, to inform people already immersed in communities ravaged by this problem of what these drugs might do), they forget the very first aspect of their own bill. Here, we'll quote it for you:

Requiring certain Federal contractors [for contracts which are i) worth $100,000 or more; ii) not procurement or purchase orders; and iii) performed in part or in whole in the Mountain States.] and all Federal grantees to certify their workplaces are free of illegal drugs as a precondition for receiving a contract or grant.

So, we ask once again: how exactly are they to "certify their workplaces are free of illegal drugs"? Will the premises be inspected? Will the workers be subject to drug tests? Will a positive result on the drug tests be taken as an excuse for the worker's termination? What do "the actions that will be taken against employees who violate the policy" entail, anyway? Are we talking about firings here? Fines? This bill is thoroughly anti-worker and, in true Republican fashion, represents an attempt to capitalize on a real living human tragedy for political and economic gain. As a long-time community organizer and someone who has seen firsthand the effects of dangerous drugs on the working poor, I can tell you that what we need in this country is more protection for the most vulnerable members of society, not less, and certainly not in a way that hands even more power over to the employers.

Representative Milton Murphy, TX wrote: I agree with the positions brought forward by Representative Hernández and propose that the Republicans make their true intentions clear regarding this bill, as I can't help but also notice that it could potentially put a great strain on small contractors working with the federal government, mandating measures and possibly examinations that could only be successfully covered by large companies. Sure, they stick the 100 thousand figure there, but what about companies who depend on those 100 thousand in full to pay their employees?
This goes back to the McDonnell issue: why is legislation always so inclined against small businesses and in favor of large corporations? Shouldn't the federal government try to benefit local businesses as much as it can in its dealings with the private sector? Is leaving small business owners destitute a matter of public policy for the Right-Wing?

In fact, looking closely at that first part, I can't help but notice this bill exempts contracts for "procurement or purchase orders". Covering for McDonnell again, aren't you? Why should "procurement or purchase orders" be any different than other contractors? Are drugs less illegal when the contractors are your friends, McNamara?

Representative McNamara, R-NE wrote:I shall continue to maintain a level-headed approach to dealing with even the more obscure claims, insinuations and questions being posed by the Socialist party. While I appreciate their rapid fall from grace has given birth to some rather fantastical conspiracy theories regarding the Republican Party, I can only ask that they respond in kind.

As I stated, the onus would be on the contractor or grantee to confirm that their workplaces are drug-free, and to provide the relevant proof. The response to any violation of this by their employees would require either rehabilitative moves, or disciplinary action. I do not see why penalizing somebody who has broken the law on the premises of their workplace seems to irk the representative so - narcotics are illegal, whether you are an employee or employer. It adds not an iota more power to the employer, as disciplinary action or dismissal for such a reason would be eminently justifiable under current laws. What this law does is that it adds a responsibility on large contractors and grantees to be clear and decisive on drugs in the workplace. The American people do not want their tax dollars going to a workplace with drugs.

The question of oversight, though unusually put, is quite reasonable: at this moment it is not envisaged that it would add any significant pressure on the resources of government departures, as the oversight need not be intrusive. We are talking about putting the onus, as I said, on the company and the employee, not the government. This would not infringe upon the rights of employees except their non-existent to all but the Socialists right to do drugs.

On the final point regarding the size and type of contracts being raised, I am unsure if they truly believe a company gaining a government contract worth more than one hundred thousand dollars is a small business. I am not averse to altering the number in the bill if consensus in the House is that it is too low, but if I contractor is gaining $100'000 worth of taxpayer money, it is no great responsibility on them to affirm their commitment to having a drugs free workplace.

As for the type of contract, I do not believe it appropriate or helpful for such a law to apply to businesses who merely supply schools, government administration, or the military with pens and paper. Representative Murphy is, I fear, clutching at straws. If he truly wishes to speak on defense, perhaps he should comment on the Republican proposal on a defense review for the MSA following the tragic events of the past month.

Representative Andrea Hernández, TX wrote: The Right-Wing's courtesy is duly noted.

We shall ask again, slowly this time, so the Republicans understand us: How will the contractors provide the "relevant proof"? What is the "relevant proof", even? Who will certify that this proof is, indeed, truthful? Laws, McNamara. We're making laws here and not slogans.

The Republican insistence on the onus being on the employer means...what? That the company will certify itself? Hardly much oversight there, then, I'm afraid. That private companies will certify other private companies? What's the point of the government interfering then? While we're at it, what's the point of this law, even? As Representative McNamara has pointed out, all the targeted behaviors are already illegal, so the only conceivable use of this law is to go over established labor protections and provide employers yet another excuse to hound their workers and police their behavior, effectively privatizing law enforcement and giving private corporations dangerous attributions.

The Republicans say we defend a supposed right to do drugs, or that we would defend the workers who break the law. This again reveals how little the Right-Wing truly understands the situation: the working class and the poor are more exposed to addiction to illegal drugs, not to mention that many are literally threatened into collaboration with criminal gangs. This bill not only doesn't go against the big drug lords but it strikes directly against their biggest victims. And all in the employers' favor. Or, if not, then this law would be completely useless and just for show, benefiting the Republican Party with anti-drugs posturing while failing to have an effect on the actual problem.
Or, if it has, again, it will be to the detriment on those who need help most.

Thank you, McNamara, for being so kind as to point out how utterly useless this bill would be if it weren't so anti-worker.

Milton Murphy, TX wrote: Classy responses, as always, from the Right.

McNamara has said, and I quote: "I do not believe it appropriate or helpful for such a law to apply to businesses who merely supply schools, government administration, or the military with pens and paper." Well, then. I am...baffled, really, as to why drugs are a problem for other contractors but not for these. Are these not businesses which take place in a workplace? Would taxpayer dollars not go to a workplace with drugs if there were drugs in their warehouses, offices or vehicles? There's no rhyme or reason behind this response. The simple fact is that Republicans want to regulate and have oversight for businesses other than their known friends in the private (aerospace) sector.

Also, if the oversight "need not be intrusive"...well, what are we even doing then? This would all be cleared up if the Republicans would just say how this intended oversight is supposed to actually work. Until they do that, we have no option but to assume their actions are, once again, directed at squeezing the working class and small business owners for the benefits of megacorporations.

As for their final proposal, we would advise the Right-Wing to finish trying to capitalize on one tragedy before jumping onto another. We the People can only be so disgusted.

Representative McNamara, R-NE wrote:I see it is taking some time to explain. Allow me to go through it step by step.

Compliance on the part of business would be checked as part of normal Federal contract and grant administration and auditing procedures. As I am sure you are aware, such administrative and auditing procedures are quite thorough, therefore there would be no requirement for excessive intrusion.

These requirements coexist with the collective bargaining process. Compliance with the requirements of the bill would be a condition of receiving a Federal grant or contract. The Act and regulations do not claim to compel any change in labor-management agreements. Of course, labor and management cannot, through a collective bargaining agreement, nullify a grant or contract condition based on Federal law. Federal agencies are not compelled to provide grants or contracts to organizations that fail to comply with a statutorily imposed grant or contract condition, for whatever reason.

However, the regulations provide discretion about the mode of compliance with the regulations - an employer may either take disciplinary action against an employee convicted of a criminal drug offense resulting from a violation occurring in the workplace, or refer the employee for rehabilitation - labor and management may determine the mode of compliance through collective bargaining if they so wish.

Finally, to answer - again - the representative for Texas's claims - he should know that defense contracts, generally, already have such measures. As a businessman, I had thought he might be aware of this. To answer, again, the claim this squeezes small business owners, I have stated already that $100'000 was judged a significant enough amount.

As to his final remarks - I would urge the Socialist Party to refrain from such remarks and see this bill as being anti-drugs, pro-morality, and eminently sensible in an environment where drugs are seeping into younger generations. I trust that both my fellow representatives, and this House, shall see the argument for this.

Representative Andrea Hernández, TX wrote: So, in closing, the Republican Party still maintains that it can legislate on abstract concepts, goes step by step as to how useless this bill would be, thus evidencing that it is just for show, and ends with a cheap shot at sentimentality, raising the question of whether we should look into all these children working with federal contractors first.

Let's make that "if they so wish" a permanent part of the law, and maybe then the discussion can continue.

Representative Milton Murphy, TX wrote: Indeed I know that these measures already exist, which is why neither I nor my colleagues in the Socialist Party can help but point out the opportunistic nature of this useless bill. Unless, of course, as we have pointed out, it's in reality an anti-worker and anti-small business jab hidden under the guise of fighting drugs.

such administrative and auditing procedures are quite thorough, therefore there would be no requirement for excessive intrusion.

This statement makes no sense: what are you proposing, sir? How are you going to certify these conditions? If the government does it, then that's a new expense. Federal auditors are not trained to find drugs or fight crime, who is going to do these searches, then?

And finally, are the workers going to be subject to drug screening tests or not?

Representative Andrea Hernández, TX wrote: Are the bosses going to do drug tests, too?
What about the Representatives and Senators here in KC? Are they ever going to be screened for drugs?

4 Republican Liberal votes IN FAVOR.

Representative Freeman, TX wrote:The Progressive administration has ignored the rising crime epidemic that is destroying our country. Instead of protecting working Americans from crime that is moving into our country, the Left prefers to protect criminals from recieving punishment of their crimes. They claim that these people are part of the working class, when they hardly work at all and prey upon hardworking Americans The Left also says that "one cannot develop public policy directed against a concept," yet they are committed to a war against poverty. We wholeheartedly agree with this stance, but the war on poverty must be waged on two fronts. The first from sound economic policies, the other from moral policies.

5 Neo Conservative votes IN FAVOR.

Representative Andrea Hernández, TX wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen, what we are seeing here today is another attempted travesty directed against the American working class for the benefit of a privileged few. The reasons for these are quite clear and have been explained at length by the Socialist Party, though now we'd like to center our attention on the Right-Wing's false pretense of a moral high ground. You see, even when the Republicans say they're doing the "right" thing they are being either deeply hypocritical or sorely mistaken.

Mostly, we believe they fall into the former category.

The Republicans insist that this bill doesn't target the working class, yet their arguments always go back to how a working class criminal is no better than a rich one. Interesting that they should be so defensive on that front when they claim to not care about it. The fact of the matter is that this bill plays on anti-People, anti-worker prejudice when it comes to drug crime, paying no heed to the absolutely rampant issue of drug use among America's business and political elite.

The evidence of this is all around us, even though the corporate media has conveniently forgotten to string it into a coherent narrative like it has with working class drug use. Such is the case of Michael O'Donnell, a Louisiana state representative, arrested for driving under the influence, possession of marijuana, and drug paraphernalia in 1972. Or what about Gerald Bishop, the Secretary of State for Iowa who was caught in possession of cocaine with intent to distribute? To distribute, ladies and gentlemen. A public servant. And a Republican, also.
There's also the affair of Diane Case, the Secretary of the Treasury for Missouri (there's the Right-Wing's much-lauded tax money), who was arrested for also being a cocaine enthusiast. She, too, belonged to the Republican Party.
Finally we have the case of Robert Holmes, a member of this very House of Representatives. His charge? possession of marijuana and tax evasion.

These are just the examples of politicians unlucky or unskilled enough to get caught red-handed and have no way of making the problem go away. These are the big clients for the drug networks, the ones who consume the high grade stuff in large quantities, and yet they get to live large and, in the immense majority of the times, consequence-free while at the same time brandishing draconian and crackdown rhetoric against the communities who suffer the most so these decadent agents of the Oligarchy can have their repulsive fun.

This, Republican colleagues, is where your entire moral argument falls apart. How easy it is for the political mercenaries of McDonnell and others to demonize and hound the working class while turning a blind eye to drug use among the wealthy elite. The Socialist Party strongly believes that any legislation directed at fighting the problem of drugs should first take aim at white collar criminals, the key players of the criminal networks, be they money launderers at the service of the mob, or these sorts of eminently respectable individuals who lead a live of vice and pretend to make honest hardworking Americans pay for it.

A state representative, a Secretary of State, a Secretary of the Treasury, and a Congressman, Republicans. And you dare accuse us of class bias. For shame.

Representative Olivia Pina wrote: Socialist obstructionism has seen a spike, following the disaster that was their presidency. However, unfortunately as much as the Socialists attempt to encourage class warfare and obstruct any idea, however credible it is, that is presented by any Republicans, we are here to create laws not blindly blame any class for supposed crimes against another.

This is fundamentally not a bill against any class, this is a bill in benefit of the American people, for both the working class and the business owners will benefit from a drug-free workplace. As such, I am in full support of this bill.

12 Republican Moderates vote IN FAVOR

Representative Thomas Higgins, KS wrote:After careful deliberation, and listening to the debate that has happened here, we have reached a decision. While Hernandez raises some valid objections, it is my belief that they are for the most part invalid, and if there are unforeseen complications then they can be corrected at a later date

10 Progressive Moderate votes IN FAVOR