Workplace Drug Testing: Review of Psychological, Financial and Legal Implications

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

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.

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

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.

Workplace drug testing has become a growing trend throughout organizations in the United States. According to the American Medical Association (AMA), 67 percent of U.S. corporations have drug-testing policies. Also, approximately 97 percent of Fortune 500 companies have implemented drug-testing policies, according to the Institute for a Drugfree Workplace (Cadrain 42). These statistics clearly demonstrate the importance to employers of maintaining a drug-free workplace. Furthermore, research indicates that organizations tend to differ in the way they implement their trust drug-testing policies according to company size, industry type, and occupation. Research demonstrates that there is a strong, positive relationship between the size of a company and the prevalence of a drug-testing policy (Hartwell et al. 36). In other words, large firms are more likely to use a drug-testing policy than small firms.

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

“Welcome to our team Mr. Dave Matthews. Here at Vandalay Industries, we take pride in hiring the highest caliber of workers such as yourself, and to ensure the safety of all our employees in the latex factory, we ask that you pee in to this plastic cup.” While this may not be the best way to bring about a company’s drug testing policy to a new hire, the fact remains that in most every position today, if no urine sample is given, it translates into “no job for you!” Drug testing, a once rare and uncommon policy, is now among many employers a requirement for any new or existing job position. Although seen by some as an infringement on one’s constitutionally granted rights, companies who have adopted these policies say that it works

In modern times, more and more people are developing addictions to drugs. Onlinecollege.org’s webpage has twenty case studies that every business student should know. The number one case was drug usage in the workplace. The particular case study presents some dilemmas. A very capable administrative assistant began using cocaine, first only after paydays but then began taking the drug during work hours in the bathroom. She started missing days at work and when she was there, her demeanor changed and she was no longer personable with the clients in person or on the phone. Finally, one of her managers caught her snorting cocaine in the bathroom and confronted administrative assistant about it. The assistant quit on

Drug testing in the workplace is a touchy issue for both employers and employees. Employers who drug test current and potential employees do so for several reasons. There are some industries and tasks which are very sensitive because of the material used, or the processes involved in the work, or because the work concerns matters of national security. There are numerous practical reasons for employers to test employees for illegal or illicit substances as well as legal substances that in excess cause harm to the person taking them and/or those around the person taking drugs. There exists a boundary between drug testing for safety and drug testing as a way to invade the privacy of employees for a number of reasons including excessive control, blackmail, or other forms of manipulation.

A drug-free workplace policy is necessary in order to ensure employees come to work ready and able to work, ensuring they don't endanger others while they are working .Drug use in the workplace can adversely affect job performance, workplace safety and many other work related activities. According to Delogu (2017), all things considered, the employer must create and implement a policy understanding the steps involved, and how to enforce it. A study by Friend (2017) suggests that employers should communicate the policy to all employees, allowing everyone involved aware of the requirements. Doing so, according to the study, will clearly state what is expected from them in terms of safety, regulations, benefits and prevention. Today,