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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

The big controversy right now within the government and high schools is whether or not random drug testing should be legal in schools. There are many reasons why it should not be legalized, one reason being it goes against the fourth amendment. Why should we have testing in schools when many major health organizations oppose it? All it will do is make teens turn to other illegal and counterproductive things. These are many reasons why drug testing should not be allowed in high schools.

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).

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.

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

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

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.

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.