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
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).
Drug use by employees is an epidemic that can cause many expensive problems such as, injury, lost productivity and an increase with insurance claims. Additionally, some other risks include, higher turnover, illegal activities,
The most obvious and one the most discussed disadvantage to the drug-testing systems is the invasion of privacy it presents. Despite most of the court of laws have held that the drug-testing system should be mandatory in a corporate world, some people still think it to be an invasion of privacy. There is a notion that most of the employees have towards their employers, which is that by drug-testing systems the employer is trying to judge the employee based on what they do in their personal time and finds that this system violates their privacy on various levels. They feel this way, because according to the employees, these activities should have no impact on their performance and that this diminishes their personal privacy, which leads them to judge their employers. In some cases, the employer may think that performing such drug-testing on them not only diminishes their personal privacy, but also sometimes is done for a ‘symbol’s case’, which was found in the Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305 (1997), where the Supreme Court found that a Georgia statute, that required the candidates for the state offices to certify that they had been tested negative on the drug testing urinalysis, was unconstitutional. The statute applied in this case was that “Special need for drug testing must be substantial-important enough to override the individual’s acknowledged privacy interest, sufficiently vital to suppress the Fourth Amendment’s normal requirement of individualized suspicion”. The verdict, on the basis of the statute, stated that the law which was introduced by the state to show its commitment to fighting the challenge of drug abuse ‘diminishes personal privacy for a symbol’s sake’, as the state had failed in its endeavor to find a special need, reasonable enough to overpower an employee’s privacy interests. This verdict was
Drug testing in the workplace has become a controversial issue, with many believing that the act of drug testing employees is an invasion of privacy and an infringement upon rights. As more and more states legalize Marijuana there is debate whether employees can still be fired for having this “drug” in their system even though the state government, not federal, has allowed the recreational use of the drug. The “War on Drugs” significantly impacted the way employers, and employees alike perceived drug abuse and created a strong push for law enforcement to crack down on drug users. Troops returning from the Vietnam War who used Heroin also had a large impact on the drug testing protocols we see today. This paper will examine the history of drug testing, explore how testing is affected by legalized Marijuana, explore both the affirmation and the opposition to drug testing in the workplace, and conclude with recommendations for possible changes.
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
Drug testing has become a very big issue for many companies. Approximately eighty-one percent of companies in the United States administer drug testing to their employees. Of these, seventy-seven percent of companies test employees prior to employment. Even with the commonality of drug testing, it is still a practice that is generally limited to larger corporations which have the financial stability, as well as the human resources to effectively carry out a drug testing program. In the United States, it is suggested that as many as 70 percent of drug users are employed. Now this is a huge chunk, but as a result of drug testing, these big corporations have a significantly lower percentage of the employed drug users on their
Under what circumstances should employers conduct drug testing? Should testing be done on an intermittent, random basis or should they be mandatory, and for whom? Which industries should require drug testing? Does the government mandate testing for any industry? If an employee tests positive, what should the employer do? What does drug abuse in the workplace cost business and industry annually? Which drugs are commonly abused by employees? What are potential ramifications of that abuse for the employer?
Our right to privacy, right to be informed, and our right of protection again illegal searches and seizures are always going to be a top of continuous debate. Schoonmaker is a freewill employee applying for a job with a freewill employer. Schoonmaker always has the right to go elsewhere if he declines to submit to a drug screen. Certainly an agent of such an organization as the Drug Enforcement Administration should expect to be drug free and be willing to verify this through testing; but that isn’t enough. What is enough support for testing, however, is legal president through cases such as Skinner and more importantly in this matter Von Raab. In the case of Von Raab it was found testing to be lawful to insure national security.
Annually in America, billions of taxpayer dollars are spent to pay for the unnecessary expenses caused by drug-impaired employees. Workers whose performances are negatively altered by drug use contribute to losses in business productivity and assist in lowering workplace safety. On average, according to the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA), $100 billion is lost per year due to accidents, decreases in productivity, and other related expenses caused by incompetent, drug abusing employees (“Coalitions”). However, through a thoughtful system, businesses can be protected against the harms presented by deleterious contraband abusers. In an effort to curb staff member drug trends and to protect employee health, public safety,
For my final paper I have decided to choose the topic on the very controversial issue of drug testing for current and prospective employees in the workplace. In the textbook we reviewed the opposing opinions of authors Joseph Desjardins and his co-author Ronald Duska and Michael Cranford. The main issue between these writers is whether drug testing invades an individual’s privacy and in what circumstances should drug testing be permissible. I will first review both Desjardins and Cranford’s views on the issue then offer my evaluation.
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
Throughout recent years, applicant drug testing has become one of the most prevalently used strategies by many organizations to control substance abuse in the workplace. Drug testing is a selection tool used by organizations to determine whether or not an individual has previously used drugs and/or alcohol. Most employers find that drug testing, if done correctly, is a worthwhile investment associated with increased workplace safety, lower absenteeism, fewer on-the-job accidents, improved productivity, lower theft rates, and less medical and workers' compensation expenses (Grondin 142). By identifying and screening out substance abusers, organizations believe that they are also screening out those
Future employers are indirectly involved with the idea of university’s drug testing students because employers hire the students of each graduating class. Employers view their future employees based on their student academic record, which may not be a complete representation of students who use cognitive enhancers. Employers want to hire individuals who can maximize each hourly work, keep focused, stay alert, and drug free, and university drug tests could bring clarity to employers in drug use within the
When an employer pays a person to perform a job, the employer has the right to conduct a drug test. The law requires employers to protect the health information of their employees so therefore, if the results of a drug test are kept private, then the employee’s privacy was not invaded.