Essay On Hair Follicle Drug Test

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.

Drug abuse has always been a very delicate question as it always it deals with the health, well-being and even lives of human beings belonging to any country. Many people have argued that mandatory drug testing is a violation of their civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment grants you the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, otherwise known as a person's right to privacy. However, employers have the right to know whether or not the people working under them are stable to do their jobs. Indeed, for safety of all the humans randomly drug testing is the best way to maintain the quality of the employees.

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 most noticeable effects of methamphetamine are the change in the skin’s appearance. Some users have been known to feel insects crawling beneath their skin. “He picks and picks and picks at himself, like there are bugs inside his face,” the mother of one methamphetamine addict told The Spokesman-Review (Pbs.org, 2011). Some users are covered in small sores, the result of obsessive skin picking caused by hallucination of having bugs crawling beneath the skin, a disorder known as formication. While methamphetamine makes users feel more confident, attractive, and desirable, the drug is actually making them unattractive, sores take longer to heal, and the skin loses its luster and elasticity.

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

     There are different testing categories, and each comes under its own legal questioning. The first and by far the most common type of drug testing is pre-employment testing. This usually takes place when a company has decided to hire an employee, but makes that prospective employee pass a drug test before any sort of employment agreement is settled. Second, there is random drug testing that can involve two different policies. The first, simply being that random employees names are picked to undergo the testing. The second requiring all employees to take a drug test on a random day that can either be pre-announced or not. For example, my high school conducted drug testing on random students and on random days in a month. The third type of testing allows employers to test when they have reasonable suspicion to believe

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

This initial test is given in the form of a survey. Those being surveyed can respond as honestly or dishonestly as they want. After the surveys are reviewed, those who have met certain requirement are asked to take a drug test. If they do not comply their benefits are not given. Those willing to take the drug test are notified of the date of their test a few weeks prior to the appointment. Many illegal drugs (amphetamines and barbiturates) are out of a human’s urine within 4 days (Larson 3). This allows people to work around the system. Because of this, random drug testing is the only way to

You're correct that drug tests and credit checks are yet another tool employers can use to determine the worthiness of an applicant (Kinicki & Williams, 2013). Depending upon the profession, both forms of candidate screening can assist companies with protecting customer information, preventing employee theft, and maintaining a safe work environment. Particularly as it relates to drug screening, I'm hard pressed to identify a medium or large sized business, regardless of the industry, that doesn't drug test applicants prior to officially extending a job offer.

In many professions, drug testing is the norm. When a company hires an employee, they may be required to be drug tested (Deschenaux, 2015). Throughout the duration of the employment term, drug testing may be required, rather this is a surprise test or not. It would be my opinion that drug testing, for the most part, be used.

Drug testing can improve employee morale and productivity and decrease absenteeism, accidents, downtime, and theft. Thus, improving the business, customer satisfaction rates depending on the business and overall

There are two different type of ways to drug test someone. There is random testing and reasonable cause testing. Random testing is only for students who take part in athletics. They are selecting people using a random process and then they are being tested. When the topic of a random drug test comes

For example, a background check is often required by companies, and a background check is simply a test to make sure a potential employee did nothing incriminating in the past. Similarily, a drug test is simply a test to make sure a potential employee is doing nothing incriminating in the present. As can be seen, there is no reason to believe that a drug test is different from any other “quality control” measure a company might take.

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

Single drug tests are made to screen and detect only one kind of drug, like Cannabis. Multi drug tests are made