Drug Testing at Workplace Raise

Drug testing at workplace raise serious privacy concerns. Even the most innocent of employees may have something to hide and they have the right to be "left alone" if their work performance is fine. However drug testing has been in place since 1996 in many organizations. Usually they are seen as a violation of employee privacy as they may indicate drug or alcohol use during non-office hours (Shaw, 2007). Employees may not wish to disclose that information especially if they are always sober at work. But there are still some professions where drug testing is done to enhance safety of others. For example school bus drivers need to be tested for drug use because they are responsible for the safety of small children on daily basis. The question that arises then is should privacy be relinquished in favor of more safety and security for everyone.

Some important ethical theories can be used to analyze this dilemma and reach a suitable conclusion.

One important theory is utilitarianism which states that if an action maximizes the happiness of the majority than it should be considered a right action. Drug testing is a privacy concern for many, but at the same time, it ensures safety of a large majority in some professions. In professions such as public and school bus drivers, medical and nursing staff, law enforcement personnel, and construction workers etc., it is very important that drug testing be allowed and privacy concerns ignored. The reason for this is that while not in all professions, drug testing is an absolute necessity in some occupations because people are directly responsible for safety and security of many and a mistake by them due to drug use can jeopardize the life of another person. And thus in order to maximize the benefit of many, the concerns of few can be ignored. Hence from utilitarian view point, drug testing would a better choice and should be preferred over privacy issues.

Kantianism is another important theory based on the principle of categorical imperative. It says that an action is right for you if you would want it to become an absolute law for everyone under the same circumstances. For example, if a person has his driving license suspended because he came very close to killing two people on the curb then this action would considered just and right if you would want this to happen to everyone in this situation. Thus this would become a universal law. For drug testing to be just and fair, it is important that a law be created so that testing would be an absolute necessity under certain conditions. If a bus driver is tested for drugs after he crashed into a pole, then it should be the law for every bus driver who gets into accident while on duty. Then drug testing would be considered fair.

Libertarianism is one of the most widely known theories and it has two main aspects. For one, for an action to be correct, it must not violate the laws of liberty for the person involved in action and secondly, if the action is taken, then it should also uphold the liberty and rights of others involved. In the case of drug testing for example, an employer has the right to test an employee if a) the job requires it and b) the employer wants to keep his workplace free of drugs. 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 doesn't know that it is a personal issue and that his employer is trying to have this policy implemented in his organization. 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.