Drug Testing and Ethics Essay

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).

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.

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

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.

In one federal case, the Tenth Circuit rejected a challenge to a policy that required employees to disclose their prescription drug use at the time of a drug test for illegal drugs. The company said it was necessary to assure the accuracy of the drug test. The court ruled that since the information was not disclosed to others, it represented an "insignificant" invasion of privacy. See- Roe v. Cheyenne Mountain Conference Resort, D. Colo. 1996) 920 F. Supp. 1153. However, in a California case, the court ruled that an employer's requirement of disclosure of prescription drug use as part of a medical exam for applicants and promotion candidates was illegal. See- Loder v. City of Glendale (1997) 14 Cal.4th 846 [59 Cal.Rptr.2d 696, 927 P.2d 1200].

although hair drug testing is significantly more expensive than urine, sweat or saliva testing, many employers consider the benefits to outweigh the costs. employers are often pleased with the fact that hair follicle drug testing is less intrusive, is generally more sensitive to detecting drugs and can detect them up to twice as far back as other methods, and can show whether or not the employee has ceased to use drugs recently in an attempt to cover up usage. it is also more difficult to

Oakland Athletics pitcher Brandon McCarthy "lives in fear," because his employer has become aggressive with random drug testing (cited by McCauley, 2012). McCarthy is clean; he says he is "legitimately nervous knowing you're 100 per cent clean," because of the possibility of sabotage or a freak false positive (cited by McCauley, 2012). Surely, a personal rights-based ethical framework needs to be taken into consideration when applying anti-drug policies universally to every profession. The right to privacy also needs to be taken into account, especially with regards to employees like Sue Bates, who was fired from her job with no consultation or warning. Her employer, Dura Automotive Systems, suddenly altered their policy of drug testing to include prescription drugs legitimately prescribed by doctors and not bought off the street for recreational use (Zezima & Goodnough, 2010).

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

Additionally, the prevalence of drug-testing policies tends to differ by industry type. For example, employers in the transportation and nuclear power industries are required by federal law to conduct drug testing for all their

     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

One of the issues in favor of the anti-drug testing position is that sometimes persons are falsely accused due to poor testing methods or unreliability of those tests. Tests which measure impairment and alertness are the methods most commonly cited as unreliable. According to an article appearing in Business Week Magazine (1991), companies that use a test known as "Factor 2000" are finding that drug and alcohol use are not the most common reasons for failure. Fatigue and illness are the most common reasons for failure, not substance abuse. Lewis Maltby (1986) of the Drexelbrook Controls Company clarifies this by stating that drug testing does not tell whether an employee is impaired, but it does tell whether they have a substance problem. It is very hard to find evidence that positively identifies poor performance due to drug use. There are too many variables involved to pinpoint the exact reason, but labeling it as a drug related problem is not only incorrect, but is a dangerous assumption. The results of a drug test should not be used to assess job performance.

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

Drug testing in the workplace started happening in 1988 and till this day is still continuing. Not until 1991 did they start drug testing on employees who work on aviation, trucking, railroads, mass transit, and pipelines. Today, mostly everywhere you apply for a job a drug test is mandatory. Which is reasonable because if illegal drugs are involved, drug use can affect workplace concentration and judgment which could put the employee at risk. But should a drug test be required only for those in public transportation sector jobs? Although a drug test shows whether if a person has done drugs recently or not, there are many ways that people can beat a drug test. So how does one truly know if the person is still doing drugs after he/she passes the test? Drug tests should not be required whether it is for any or public transportation sector job because it does not prove whether if an employee has fully stopped using the drug therefore making no justification to the drug test at all. The most common drug screens that employers request are the five panel. The five panel which tests for the five most common street drugs, such as marijuana, cocaine, phencyclidine (PCP), amphetamines and opiates. All the drugs listed affect a person in a negative way but some are worse than others.

According to Joseph Desjardins and Ronald Duska’s Drug Testing in Employment, administering a drug test before and during employment may be popular but is mostly unnecessary and a

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.