Random Drug Testing vs Employees' Privacy Rights Essay

Privacy, as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary, is the quality or condition of being secluded from the presence or view of others, and the state of being free from public attention or unsanctioned intrusion. Interestingly, the Constitution of the United States does not expressly protect a person 's right to privacy; there are however some provisions to privacy within the Bill of Right and the Amendments to the Constitution. Among them are the first amendment, that ensures the privacy or belief, the third amendment, that ensures the privacy of home, and the fourth amendment, that ensures the privacy of person and possession.

A U.S. citizen's "right to privacy" was first discussed in an 1890 Harvard Law Review article in which two Boston lawyers, Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren, defined it as "the right to be let alone." Since then, the right to privacy has provided the basis for a stream of revolutionary and controversial constitutional interpretations by courts across the United States, culminating in the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. Although decisions have come down in favor of a right to privacy, they are largely based on a broad and disputed interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. With the plethora of privacy issues that confront courts and policymakers in the current information

While there is no “right to privacy” explicitly mentioned in the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court believes that several of the Amendments embody this right; specifically the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments [6]. The First Amendment protects the privacy of one’s beliefs [6]. The Third Amendment protects the privacy of the home against it being forcibly used to house soldiers [6]. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches [6]. The Fifth Amendment protects the privacy of personal information [6]. The Fourteenth Amendment provides for a right to liberty in the areas of family, marriage, motherhood, procreation, and child rearing [6]. And lastly the Ninth Amendment is a “catch-all,” declaring that just because a

Thesis statement: Administering a drug and alcohol policy can be challenging, but it can also be beneficial to the manufacturing company.

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

Do pre-employment drug test infringe on personal privacy rights? I think it doesn’t infringe on personal rights because I feel that It is important for employers to conduct drug test for background screening and rescreening because workplace drug use and abuse can come with serious consequences for business owners. Workplace drug testing is very important because it can reduce the likelihood of drug related deaths. I also feel that it is important because drug use can impair a person’s judgment and increase safety risks. This is especially concerning in certain industries, such as construction, in which using drugs or alcohol at work could cause an injury or even a fatality. Employee drug abuse causes as much as 50% of all on-the-job accidents. Plus, drug testing can improve the quality of life of employees and their families.

Drug testing originally began in the U.S. as a prevention strategy during the Vietnam War. In 1982, the U.S. Navy began randomly drug testing all active duty personnel following a tragic accident on the carrier Nimitz which was due to impairment from illegal drug use. Shortly thereafter random drug testing was extended to all active duty military personnel. Later on, because of concerns about public safety, the Federal Government expanded drug testing to workers in safety-sensitive industries in the late 1980s. At that time drug testing became standard for many private and government employers. Due to these positive improvements in the workplace, public and private schools, since 1995 have incorporated random drug testing into their comprehensive

In this essay contained is an investigation, discussed and, which is within scope of this essay, in the provision of answers to this question Do drugs tests violate employees’ right to privacy?’ The answers are given by the presentation and the analyzing different views evident in literature so as to build an argumentative case against or in support of, lastly drawing the conclusions set. This is made possible concentrating on a scope which considers the ethics existent in normative theories. It means that theories of a higher philosophical calling considering whether the employees violate the right of privacy of their employees by doing drug tests on them lie outside the scope of the essay. Lastly, the scope of this essay is to be

Many high schools across the country have brought much attention to the idea of giving random drug tests to students in high school. The newfound interest in student drug testing may be as a result of recent polls, which have shown an increase in drug use among high school students. Many teachers, parents, and members of school comities are for the drug testing, while most students and some parents feel that this would be a violation of students rights as Americans, which is true.

Therefore, there is a way to find solutions to these negative effects of drug use test. The way that the employers and school staffs have to follow is not doing a drug use test for all employees or students, but only to request the test of the use of drugs from people who are suspected of using drugs. This leads to create a suitable atmosphere in work or study and to achieve the rights of both student and employee on the one hand and the employer or teaching staff on the other hand. This test may also be used on employees in certain areas, such as in the military, because it requires physical effort and for its great responsibility to the country and the people as well. Instead of using a drug use test, schools can raise awareness among their

The right to privacy was not established as a constitutional doctrine until after the result of the Supreme Court ruling in the 1965 case of Griswold vs. Connecticut. The court decision was based on the interpretation of several amendments within the Bill of Rights. Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly state anything about the right to privacy, a combination of its sections was used as the framework for establishing the right (“Griswold v. Connecticut (1965),” 2007).

from thirteen percent to five percent in a decade. According to Cialdini, “This is a method that works.” He also explains that random testing is barbaric unless introduced sensitively as part of a comprehensive package of education and access to confidential treatment. The primary aim should not be to attack the employee, but to discourage the drug use, offer help and treat the individual. The most effective programs are those where the workforce approves a humane, compassionate and fair anti-drugs policy.

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.

I define the meaning of privacy as a basic human right to be able to keep one’s personal information, activities and communication protected against public observation. Oxford English Dictionary defines the meaning of privacy as: “The state or condition of being alone, undisturbed, or free from public attention, as a matter of choice or right; seclusion; freedom from interference

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.