Drug Testing In The Workplace

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

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

There are a lot of companies that require any job applicant to submit a drug test. According to the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 66% of substance abusers age 18 and older were employed. Employers spend between thirty and fifty dollars per test per person. Employees find that substance abusers increase employee turnover which end up costing them more money in the long run because of the cost of training. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration conducted a study in 2007 that said substance abusers change jobs as often as three times a year. Employers that require drug testing saw a 16% decrees in employee turnover rates. Another reason an employer may require drug testing is because people with no substance abuse problems are more productive. People with substance abuse problems are also 2.5 times more likely to call into work. Companies who require drug testing also saw a 50% decrease in workers compensation clams. So in the long run, employers end up saving a lot of time and money by drug testing all job applicants.

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

Major corporation's require drug tests for people applying for a job position. This is a good way for companies to make sure they don't hire employees with substance abuse problems. Hiring people with substance abuse problems is common in the NFL. This is concerning because the NFL requires a drug test for all players entering the league. Collegiate players entering the draft are tested before they can become eligible for the NFL. If a person applying for a corporate position gets caught with drugs in his system, they will be dismissed

Workplace drug testing has become a growing trend throughout organizations in the United States. According to the American Medical Association (AMA), 67 percent of U.S. corporations have drug-testing policies. Also, approximately 97 percent of Fortune 500 companies have implemented drug-testing policies, according to the Institute for a Drugfree Workplace (Cadrain 42). These statistics clearly demonstrate the importance to employers of maintaining a drug-free workplace. Furthermore, research indicates that organizations tend to differ in the way they implement their trust drug-testing policies according to company size, industry type, and occupation. Research demonstrates that there is a strong, positive relationship between the size of a company and the prevalence of a drug-testing policy (Hartwell et al. 36). In other words, large firms are more likely to use a drug-testing policy than small firms.

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

Read the Ethical Dilemma on page 305 entitled "To Test or Not to Test?" Answer all the questions in the book and also make an argument both for and against adopting the drug testing policy.

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

Literature implies that employee drug use in the workplace may create high costs to firms in the form of lower productivity, increased absences, and an increase in workplace accidents. As a response to these costs, employers have implemented a variety of policies and programs to decrease employee drug use. Educational programs and standards such as “Zero Tolerance” policies, employers have turned to drug testing programs more in the past decades. About 46 percent of American workers report that their employer conducts drug testing, although other sources indicate that 90 percent of Fortune 200 companies use some type of drug testing (Flynn 1999). The factor behind workplace drug

It was an eleven dollar an hour PRN job. If you do not know what PRN is it basically means that you work as needed. It was a perfect fit for me during classes. It blew my mind that something I did a week ago in another state could completely ruin it for me. This got the conversation started in my head of whether drug testing is really necessary in the workplace. During my research, I came upon an article by Joseph DesJardins and Ronald Duska, Drug Testing in Employment. This article focuses on the why drug testing isn’t completely necessary at work. They break down the arguments for drug testing and bring up alternate solutions. While reading the article the first thing that stood out to me was their case against the productivity argument. Many people say that drug testing increases productivity in the workplace. DesJardins and Duska challenge this by bringing up the point that employers are not entitled to optimal performance from employees. They talk about how there is a line between acceptable work and the performance that falls under that. They speak about how not all employees are going to be amazing at their job. So just

In order to keep organization ethical as it relates to drug testing, the U.S. Supreme Court has approved four methods for drug testing. The organization can request a blood, breath, hair, or urine tests. These tests will not harm the job candidate or employee. The company will send the job candidate or employee to an off-site medical

Drug testing is becoming more and more prevalent in today’s society. Dr. Ozminkowki claims that “Over 80% of the large employers in the United States use some form of testing to detect drug use” (Ozminkowski et al. 151) Ever since drug testing was introduced in the 1980’s, there has been a debate over its use. Before this is discussed in detail, I will begin by defining drug testing. According to dictionary.com drug testing is “any test administered to detect the presence of drugs, esp. from a blood or urine sample and esp. for illegal substances.” This definition in hand, I will now elaborate on the four main different types of drug testing commonly performed. The four main types are pre-employment testing, random drug testing, post-incident drug testing, and diagnostic screening. The only types of drug testing this paper concerns is random drug testing, the process of randomly selecting a portion of employees to be drug tested, and pre-employment drug testing, the process of testing new applicants for drugs prior to hiring. The main purpose of random drug testing is deterrence. This is supposed to work because the drug test could happen at any time; the drug user does not have enough time to eliminate all the drugs from their body as with a pre-employment test. Although there are concerns with the cost, invasion of privacy, and security of drug testing, drug testing should be done to deter workers from drug use because drug use is a major health concern and costs

There has been much debate over employers drug testing their employees. There are pros and cons to both sides of this debate. However, not drug testing employees has many very important positive affects on the employees. Not only is drug testing in the workplace unethical, it also reduces productivity and lowers workers moral.