Pre-Employment Drug Testing Infringe On Personal Privacy Rights

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.

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 strongest reason for opposing drug testing however, is the invasion of privacy. This occurs primarily in urinalysis, the most common drug screening process. Not only does this violate a person's private life, it can open up, and reveal a number of other ailments that the employee may be suffering and which that individual wishes to hide and keep it to himself. A urinalysis for example can make public such diseases as an employee's heart condition, depression, epilepsy, diabetes, and for women the same test can also confirm whether she is pregnant or not. Each of these conditions is a private and personal manner, and the employer has no right to involve itself in these matters.

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

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.

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

     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

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

Both Desjardins et al. and Cranford used George Brenkert’s formula of a right to privacy which states: Privacy involves a relationship between a person A, some information X, and another individual Z. A’s right of privacy is violated only when Z comes to possess information X and no relationship exists between A and Z that would justify Z’s coming to know X. Desjardins argues that drug testing (X) being sought by an employer (Z) is a violation of A’s privacy on the grounds that the collection of X is irrelevant to the contractual relationship between A and Z (Desjardins et. al 1987). Cransford’s view is quite the opposite where he explains that an employer (Z) is justified in obtaining X to assess A’s capacity and satisfy the terms of the employee contract.