Essay On Employment Drug Testing

Is drug testing an unwarranted invasion of employee privacy? Which is more important--getting drugs out of the workplace or protecting the privacy of the employee?

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

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?

Drug testing is the evaluation of a urine, blood, hair or other type of bio. 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 illegal drugs logical sample to determine if the subject has been using the drug or drugs in question. There are many circumstances

The method supports employers comply with the federal law, and prevent further disputes. Although there are protests against drug testing due to personal privacy, the testing method is appreciated by several politicians and law agencies. While drug testing may reveal personal privacy, the benefit behind this method is that employer ensure their employees are not engaging with illegal drugs, the safety of employees, and legal issues in the future.

Since drug testing will continue to be implemented around some type of consistency should be established. A company should only be allowed to drug test in the following circumstances; pre-employment, reasonable suspicion or just cause, post-accident, randomly among all of the entire staff force, periodically with jobs who carry weapons or are in charge on saving lives, like doctors and nurses, and when an employee, who took a leave of absence to seek help for a drug abuse problem. With more and more states legalizing the recreational use of marijuana the states and federal laws need to be re-established. Do some companies allow the use of marijuana while others do not? There needs to be consistency across the board for every employer, whether it be a government job, private employer, and part of a union. People who are in jobs that carry weapons, operate large machinery, or are in a health care field should always be tested for drugs periodically and randomly. Their job duties entitle them to work with other and around other people. A person’s negative life choices should not have a causality on other civilians. If a police officer is on LSD and pulls his gun and starts shooting it, there is a major problem. It is important that these people are not impaired while working on the

Although there are some additional provisions from government employers due to security and safety, the legal framework allowing for drug testing is not all that dissimilar with greater concentration on a balance of privacy, dignity, and reputation with respect to safety, security, and operations. The case citations that justify private employer drug testing are vast, which allows for the practice prevalently today. Some key factors to consider here are a secure collection method (Mollette v. Kentucky Personnel Board and Kentucky Transportation Cabinet) and (Coleman v. Town of Hempstead), collective bargaining agreements, and privacy.

The benefits of a properly planned workplace drug testing program outweigh the risks. The main risk is violating the law. There are legal issues connected with workplace drug testing and employers who decide to test must follow applicable state and or local laws. Before go on with a program, it is imperative that you understand the history of drug testing and be aware of the current legal, medical, and risk landscape. Claims an employer could face include unlawful treatment, capture of privacy, or violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. A comprehensive, well-thought-out workforce drug testing program which addresses who should be tested and when is essential to protecting the company. Researching and implementing a workplace drug

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

The use of work place drug testing has always been an issue in the law world and the corporate world. Work place drug testing is used to make sure whether the current or potential employees are not under any influence of illegal drugs on the job or during their time off of their jobs. Drug-free work programs can have a lot of short-term and long-term benefits as well as disadvantages for the employers as well as the employees.

Drug testing may be one of the most argumentative issues faced by companies struggling to develop fair programs to deal with the penalties of substance abuse in the workplace. Although there are many arguments that are supportive of testing, this section will be focused on the legal issues of drug testing and how it affects the workplace.

I believe that drug testing is a useful way to ensure the safety of the workplace and the health of employees. It can lessen the impact of drug abuse in the workplace, including tardiness, absenteeism, turnover, attitude problems, theft, decreased productivity, crime and violence. No company wants to make its employees feel uncomfortable or untrustworthy, but there is also a need to make sure the environment that they work in is safe. Using pre-employment drug testing, a business can check potential candidates to make sure they comply to the safe standards of the organization without doing anything that could seem out of the blue or unnecessary.

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

My main opinions about compulsory drug testing in the workplace is that it should be mandatory before an individual is hired for employment. The first positive aspect of drug testing in the workplace is to identify those employers who come to work under the influence putting their co-workers as well as themselves at risk by being involved in a preventable accident. In my opinion this is probably the most important as well because it could potentially save many lives to include the abuser. Secondly, drug testing in the work place can identify those employers who may be addicted and in need of professional help of course the employee may not voluntarily ask for help however, through random testing they are identified and offered the professional