An Analysis of Employee Rights vs. Employer Rights

In 1989, a public hospital in Charleston, South Carolina began implementing a policy to randomly test women for drugs who came for prenatal care or delivery without their informed consent. If the women tested positive, they were arrested and not given the opportunity to seek drug treatment. In 1990, the policy was modified to allow the women to avoid being arrested if they entered into a drug treatment program, attended all their counseling appointments, and passed all their subsequent drug tests. Ten women tested positive for cocaine were arrested and responded by suing the hospital and the state. In 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the women because the tests were administered without their consent.

The performance of random drug testing has seen its fair share of scrutiny in terms of cost, test result reliability, and constitutionality. Drug testing has been fraught with controversy for decades by both employers and employees alike and there are three valid reasons as to why the testing is not ideal. One of the main elements that is a cause for concern is an employee’s invasion of privacy. When an employee tests positive, there is a strong possibility and fear that they will be permanently stigmatized. Any explanation given to the employer, whether it’s voluntary or forced on contingency of employment, violates their HIPAA Rights. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, for example, has referred to the practice as a "needless indignity" (DeCew, 1994).

How many people have had an interview for a job, received a call that they were hired, and then heard their future employer say that they will have to do a drug test before they can start this new job? “Although many people think that illegal drugs such as marijuana, heroin, cocaine and other street drugs became a problem for youth in the 1960’s the truth of the matter is that there has always been a drug problem in the United States when it comes to substance abuse”(testcountry.org). This past summer I had an interview at Russel Stover Candies, when they called to tell me that the position was mine, they then informed me that I would have to pass a drug test before I could officially have the job. Although some jobs and people believe that drug testing in the workplace should take place, many people do not believe in drug testing. Opponents of WDT (Workplace drug testing) argue that the process of drug testing amounts to an unwarranted invasion of a person’s private life and their body. Some people believe that the statement “free consent” is impossible to obtain. Drug testing did not come into play in the United States until the late 1980’s as a part of the Reagan administration. Before that, there was no standard way for jobs, schools, and even sports to drug test employees, students, or athletes. People that had jobs working with heavy machinery or people that worked in the Department of Transportation were mainly the ones getting drug tested. The issues with drug

This is not a new technique as it has been around for sometime though in a different setting. Currently, most Americans working in either the private or the public sector must undergo a urinalysis test in order to keep their present jobs or get a new one (The Lectric Law Library par.2). This test is carried out in order to assess whether the worker is using drugs in order to evaluate the job performance of that particular worker. However, this exercise has faced a number of obstacles particularly law suits that have seen many federal courts rule out these practices in the workplaces. They are considered unconstitutional except when there is a reasonable suspicion on a particular individual who can then be forced to undertake the tests. Despite these obstacles many people believe that the employers have a right to assess the performance of their employers in order to safeguard their investments. Moreover, innocent employees need not worry if they have nothing to hide about their personal lives since the tests do not pose any life threatening experiences (The

The issue of drug testing in the workplace has sparked an ongoing debate among management. There are many who feel that it is essential to prevent risks to the greater public caused by substance abuse while on the job. However, others believe that the costs far outweigh the benefits and that it is an invasion of privacy. Putting all ethical issues aside, evidence presented in this paper supports the latter. The costs of drug testing are excessive and only a small percentage of employees are actually found to be substance users. Drug testing in the work place has a negative effect on productivity; contrary to what was originally intended. It actually decreases productivity

“The U.S. District Court jury found for the City of Charleston. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the searches were reasonable as a matter of law under our line of cases recognizing that “special needs” may, in certain exceptional circumstances, justify a search policy designed to serve non-law-enforcement ends. On the understanding, ‘that MUSC personnel conducted the urine drug screens for medical purposes wholly independent of an intent to aid law enforcement efforts,’ the majority applied the balancing test, and concluded that the interest in curtailing the pregnancy complications and medical costs associated with maternal cocaine use overweighed what the majority termed an minimal intrusion on the privacy of the parents. We conclude that the judgement should be reversed and the case remanded for a decision on the consent issue” (Samaha,

employers need to be aware of certain legal issues. One is that an employer has the right to

One thing that caught the court's attention was that “in this case . . . the central and indispensable feature of the policy from its inception was the use of law enforcement to coerce the patients into substance abuse treatment.” In other words, MUSC policies did not directly address different methods of medical treatment for the mother, nor the infant; those different course of treatment were unconsented urine tests. Thus, conducting urine tests made the police a key player in this case. The police were involved throughout the entire development of the policies and aid in enforcing those

Q1 – Understand the purpose of employment regulation and the way it is enforced in practice.

The issue of drug testing in the workplace has sparked an ongoing debate among management. There are many who feel that it is essential to prevent risks to the greater public caused by substance abuse while on the job. However, others believe that the costs far outweigh the benefits and that it is an invasion of privacy. Putting all ethical issues aside, evidence presented in this paper supports the latter. The costs of drug testing are excessive and only a small percentage of employees are actually found to be substance users. Drug testing in the work place has a negative effect on productivity; contrary to what was originally intended. It actually decreases productivity instead of improving it. Drug testing causes a feeling

Everyone agrees that workplace discrimination has no place in the modern business world. But not everyone understands the laws that protect employees against discrimination. In this case, what you don’t know can hurt you, especially if an aggrieved employee files a discrimination claim.

The definition of 'employee' and 'worker' differs slightly from one area of legislation to another, but generally workers have less rights

The aim of this Assessment is to demonstrate an understanding of employment regulation and how it is enforced. Other areas covered include; how to manage recruitment, manage issues relating to pay and working time lawfully and how to ensure that staff are treated lawfully when they at work. Finally it will cover managing performance and disciplinary matters lawfully.

The main purpose of this research paper is to define that the conflicts between employees and employers doesn’t have any solution. Therefore, Marxism is one of the theories that emphises on this conflicts. Firstly i need to define that in Marxism , employers and employees are considered as capitalist class and wage slave class. Therefore, conflicts between Employers and Employees are considered to be conflicts between owners and working class. From the past to now the employees were struggling in order to attain a higher form of human society. In Marxism, it is defined that goods and things are produced mainly for people’s needs.It is obvious that each society has to do this. However, not in each society employers accepting their workers as those who are working not only for the salary but also for the need of society. Marx describe the situation of conflicts between Employer and Employee in competitive capitalism in ways that are similar in fundamental analytic respects. (Rueschemeyer, 1987) From my viewpoint the conflicts between employees and employers occur firstly because employees are exploited under capitalism. This means that, employees are working for their employers,and employers has the power over their workers. This power is not always considerd in a right way.

Imagine walking into work and seeing a new co-worker acting weird, or precisely showing signs of drug use and to have no clue about it. Is it not that person’s right to know that he/she will be sharing the same environment as someone who frequently practices drug use? On the other hand, The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) recognizes that addictions to drug and alcohol are considered ‘disabilities,’ meaning those who practice drug and alcohol use are in their right to not be discriminated or judged based on their ‘disability’ and instead accommodated. This issues remains controversial to this day since every organization or individual has its own situation that emphasis drug tests and their repercussions differently. Some organizations just simply cannot be bothered to spend time and money on drug tests while others have a hard time drawing the line between what are the ethical approaches to positive drug tests. Currently, random testing of current staff in an organization without an approved written drug policy is not legal and will not be upheld by courts in Canada. This was settled by the Supreme Court in June of 2013. However, pre-employment testing of job candidates should be allowed in the workplace and be upheld by courts at any time as it is the utilitarian practice for any organization and its stakeholders.