Patrick Dixon's 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

For example, while receiving a drug test a potential employee may have to urinate in the presence an aide (209). Not only is it demeaning, it highlights the implied untrustworthiness of these employees, and in fact results in less productive workers (128). Furthermore, there are "personality tests". Companies are not satisfied with only having workers labor they need to also have access to their "innermost self", as Ehrenreich puts it (59). Both drug testing and personality testing are very profitable for the people pushing them as necessary, at two billion dollars and four hundred million dollars respectively (128, 59). Although personality tests can easily be cheated—as Ehrenreich had done— and it takes thousands of dollars to detect a single drug user, and they are still routinely performed despite their negative effects on workers, and their extenuating costs and minimal benefits (127, 128). By bringing up this issue Ehrenreich tackles the questions of morality that plays into this equation, while also providing factual evidence to backup these moral wrongs, again creating a sound

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

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 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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

Imagine walking into work and seeing a new co-worker acting weird, or precisely showing signs of drug use and to have no clue about it. Is it not that person’s right to know that he/she will be sharing the same environment as someone who frequently practices drug use? On the other hand, The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) recognizes that addictions to drug and alcohol are considered ‘disabilities,’ meaning those who practice drug and alcohol use are in their right to not be discriminated or judged based on their ‘disability’ and instead accommodated. This issues remains controversial to this day since every organization or individual has its own situation that emphasis drug tests and their repercussions differently. Some organizations just simply cannot be bothered to spend time and money on drug tests while others have a hard time drawing the line between what are the ethical approaches to positive drug tests. Currently, random testing of current staff in an organization without an approved written drug policy is not legal and will not be upheld by courts in Canada. This was settled by the Supreme Court in June of 2013. However, pre-employment testing of job candidates should be allowed in the workplace and be upheld by courts at any time as it is the utilitarian practice for any organization and its stakeholders.