The first condition of libertarianism is thus fulfilled. Now we come to the second part. If an employer chooses to have his employees tested, he should have made it absolutely clear when hiring them that they would be tested. It was then up to them to decide whether they wanted to work for his firm or not. If the employer decided to have a new policy of drug testing implemented in the company, then he must give his employees at least a period of six months to decide whether they wanted to continue working or not. In case they were on drugs before, this six-month period will give them a chance to give up the habit and become cleaner. Thus no one's liberty and rights would be hurt and everyone would get a fair deal. (Shaw, 2007)
John Rawls came up with a rather interesting theory of ethics and justice. According to this theory, an action can only be deemed just if it was decided behind the veil of ignorance. If a person puts himself in the original position where he is not aware of his place in the world but has all the necessary knowledge then he can make the most just and correct decision. In the case of drug testing, the employee would need to put himself behind a veil of ignorance and decide if this is a good and just practice. In such a situation, the employee would know why drug testing is important, he knows the privacy concerns of people but he is unaware of his own place in the situation. He...
The employee would then decide if drug testing is right or not. The same theory can be applied to employers who can then decide if they should proceed with drug testing policy or not.
Egoism is probably the simplest and yet the least effective of ethical theory. It says that an action is right if it makes you happy. If doing something feels right to you or makes you happy then the action should be considered right. When applied to drug testing, this theory has obvious errors. All employers would think drug testing is good because it keeps their workplace clean and help them spot people involved in undesirable activities. Similarly most employees would not want it because a) they may have something to hide and b) even if they have nothing to hide, drug testing may seem too invasive.
Drug testing is a controversial subject. It can however be resolved if we look at the benefits of testing in some specific professions. Courts in California for example would decide drug testing cases by weighing employee rights against nature of job and then rule in favor of compelling interest. This is a correct approach and can be employed nationwide.
Reference:
Shaw, W.H. & Barry, V. (2007). Moral issues in business. (10th ed.). USA: Thomson Wadsworth
