Conducting Drug Testing 'For Cause'

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

The Institute of HeartMath is an internationally recognized nonprofit research and education organization dedicated to helping people of all ages reduce stress, self-regulate emotions and build energy and resilience for healthy, happy lives. HeartMath tools, technology and training teach people to rely on the intelligence of their hearts in concert with their minds at home, school, work and play.

Some people may say that mandatory drug testing is a violation of the athletes’ Fourth Amendment right. According to some people, these tests are unnecessary and therefore violate these rights. The author of “Mandatory Drug Testing Violates Rights” believes that drug testing is a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution; “Courts have ruled that drug tests are a search. A search is a privacy issue, and there has to be a reason for the search.” This is true. Drug tests are a search, and in some cases they may violate the rights of some citizens. Professional athletes, on the other hand, do not get their rights violated by this. This does not violate the Fourth Amendment because the athletes have already agreed to the rules of participating in the sport. Deborah Lee and Ann Griswold, authors of “Point: Athletes Should be Tested for Drugs” explains that “in none of these cases have athletes’ Constitutional rights been abrogated because the participation in athletic events is always voluntary and never mandatory. The ‘mandate’ only comes into play after the athlete has agreed to participate, thereby voluntarily agreeing to obey the rules of the sport.” This explains how the athletes have agreed to the rules of the activity, which in most cases prohibit the use of many performance enhancing substances, so since they have agreed to these conditions, the mandatory drug testing of athletes is not a violation of their rights. An athlete’s rights are not being violated by

Drug testing welfare applicants is unconstitutional under the fourth amendment doctrine, but changing the welfare program to require consent to testing may be constitutional under the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions. The doctrine of unconstitutional conditions applies to benefits that the government permits but is not compelled to provide in which receipt of the benefit is conditional. The recipient the benefit must have free choice to participate and may be required to perform or forego an activity to receive the benefit. The condition must be connected to the benefit in some way that is typically known as germaneness.

Determining the Blood typing, Hematology of the blood and levels of alcohol, along with the anatomical positions of the human body.

If an employer is suspicious regarding a current employees' status, they are allowed by law to request or give a random drug test. In general, most courts do not need to hold a suspicion to randomly drug test unless there is a risk of damage or human injury involved. Although, in some state laws, there are private employers which are given the right to randomly test any employee without a reason. According Specifically to the Florida law, "An employer that conducts drug testing must give its policy to employees in writing, and employees must have at least 60 days’ notice of the policy".

In many years, companies adopted many programs to monitor substance abuse in the workplace. The implementation of drug testing by companies grew in recent years. American workers have seen a dramatic increase in the use of drug testing in the previous years. Drug testing is implemented to assure safe workplaces for American workers. Drug testing can reduce the company’s health care and insurance costs. Even though drug testing has become common in the workplace, there is little research that exists regarding this matter. Overall, drug testing affects the decisions of workers by adopting a “zero tolerance” policy. Experienced users try to beat these tests by using drug to cancel the tracking of the drug itself. These workers attempt to avoid the detection of drug use for long periods (Borack, 1995).

Random Drug Testing for Everyone at Hendrix: Is it a Good or a Bad Idea?

I do not think the introduction is really effective at all. I say this because at the end of the paragraph I am confused as to which side he is taking on the argument and I really feel this way throughout the whole paper. In the first paragraph you should develop your idea and share your standpoint while establishing a thesis. In some spots the author hints at a side but it is not until near the end of the paper until I really saw he was against the drug testing.

One sunny summer morning, in a town called Pebble Walk. There was a boy named Wyatt he’s 13 years old. Wyatt lives in a neighborhood that has huge houses. But, Wyatt’s house isn’t huge like the rest of the houses. Wyatt has a loving Mom, and a caring Dad. The things that get in Wyatt’s mind are about how his family is not “rich”, don’t have a huge house, and how his parents don’t spend a lot of time with him. Wyatt’s parents work 7:30.A.M to 10:30.P.M. So, no one is around the house really.

Drug testing is one action an employer can take to determine if employees or job applicants are using drugs. It can identify evidence of recent use of alcohol, prescription drugs and illicit drugs. Currently, drug testing does not test for impairment or whether a person’s behavior is, or was, impacted by drugs. Drug testing works best when implemented based on a clear, written policy that is shared with all employees, along with employee education about the dangers of alcohol and drug abuse, supervisor training on the signs and symptoms of alcohol and drug abuse, and an Employee Assistance Program (EAP) to provide help for employees who may have an alcohol or drug problem.

However, many workers giving the Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory test are inexperienced. A study showed that eighty percent of states in 2002 assign the test to welfare caseworkers instead of mental health specialists like it is supposed to be (“Mandatory Drug Testing” 3). This means the people giving the test do not have the training that is required to properly administer it. Other studies showed that the workers received less than the necessary eight hours of training needed to hand out the tests. Workers who are unqualified and inexperienced are giving tests that can be used to decide whether someone keeps or loses their families welfare benefits. Being on welfare can determine whether you can live or just scrape by on a day to day basis.

There has been great controversy regarding the topic of drug testing in the workplace. Employees fear the thought of being tested, while employers use it as a tool to make decisions. Arguments concerning the legality of drug tests has sparked many political debates. However, employers receive reinsurance of safety and health issues with implemented pre-employment drug testing as well as randomized or ongoing drug tests.

When first implemented in 1986 (Zeidner), pre-employment drug testing was a topic of hot controversy. Drug testing for employment is a good predictor of employee satisfaction and work performance.

in determining whether companies are morally justified in using drug testing or polygraph testing I argue that Companies are not morally justified in using drug test or polygraph test if the confidential information is not relevant to a jobs performance. The company should not be able to legitimately expect it or require it. normally confidential information is irrelevant to a job's performance. the employer could not ask applicants or employees about their drug use.