Pro\'s/Con\'s of Random Drug Testing

Pro's/Con's of Random Drug Testing of Employee's

Drug Testing

Pro's/Con's of Random Drug Testing of Employee's

In this paper, we shall argue against random drug testing within employment practices. Drug Testing plans are the latest endeavors to tackle the menace of extensive substance abuse and its outcomes. During the initial part of 1960s, urinalysis was employed to test for the presence of drugs only in methadone maintenance, in rehabilitation programs of drugs, and in other medical environments. During 1960, the Department of Defense in U.S. started compulsory urine testing to identify heroin abuse among the military workforce returning from Vietnam. Moreover, during the later part of 1970s, the law enforcement agencies has started initiating urine testing in jails to check and control criminal activity of drug-dependent people. It was only in 1980 that the earliest mass testing program was initiated by the military services. This program was aided by the development and modification of cost effective, smart methods to identify a spectrum of drugs found in a single specimen of urine sample that led to apprehension in the military that pervasive drug use would come in the way of functional preparedness and security. (Coombs; West, 1991)

An identical apprehension among the U.S. government and employees of private sector has resulted, of late, to the addition of compulsory random drug testing in offices. However, all these testing go against the natural principle of freedom, or esteem for individuals, people must be permitted to find out their self path of action in keeping with their value systems and plans. For instance, proficient and educated individuals possess the right to arrive at decisions regarding their own physique and well being and can decline to undergo tests and treatments suggested by their physicians. Therefore honoring freedom of individuals is a powerful ethical duty and constitutes the bedrock of a secular moral community. Besides, principles like privacy, freedom, individuality, and autonomy are strongly entrenched in civil society of USA. (Coombs; West, 1991)

Despite the degree of complexity of the procedure of random testing, it establishes the presence or otherwise of drugs in urine. Several issues are required to be handled once a positive urine test has been confirmed. For instance, the source of the drug, its unusual outcome from something the person consumed or gulped down, whether it has been the outcome of the abuse of suggested medicines or the consumption of an unethical drug, the quantity of the drug and its usage pattern. The achievement of a urine monitoring program within an organizational environment will be found by the quality of the drug-testing policy which must be developed and implemented before launching of the testing. In the absence of a properly thought policy, drug testing will, at the least turn out to be an ineffectual and at maximum, bring about severe problems for the organizations as well as those who are put to test. (Coombs; West, 1991)

Random drug testing are done with two broad goals in mind (i) to minimize the occurrence levels of substance abuse within industry, and thus (b) enhance job performance, lower absenteeism, enhance employee morale, and an overall impact of the functioning of the organization in an encouraging way. The efficiency of methods for minimizing the occurrence of drug use is generally not understood, as the bottom rates of drug abuse in the workplace are not confirmed so far. A possibility that needs drug testing as a prerequisite of employment will put some impact in the casual user; nevertheless the power and period of this impact ought to be calculated in case the merit of such a policy is ever to be found out. In case an establishment just decides a zero tolerance program so as to lower the rate of occurrence, then it might happen that ordinary methods entailing restricted testing might work as thorough testing procedures. However, one vital duty before the practitioners who give specialized knowledge to organizations is to remain synchronized with the speedily developing knowledge realm associated with drug abuse and drug testing. For instance, novel testing methods to treating addictions are being shaped and these might have insinuations for the manner in which organizations structure and make use of drug testing programs. (Murphy; Saal, 1990)

The Random Drug Test is seemingly the most contentious of all drug tests. Company bosses have the authority under statute to invoke a random drug test regardless of them having justifiable suspicion or not. Majority of companies have put a policy in place of completely random testing of drugs. This is almost similar to a game of chance in which if a particular employee is chosen for random drug testing, then he might have little or no forewarning in these situations. It is observed that employers more often than not invoke their privileges to implement random drug testing as a means to find out if the employee is a drug user or not. This is because employers feel that drug use in the workplace has been the reason for absenteeism, health problems and accidents at the job site. Employers have a prerogative of choosing the method of random drug testing if they feel it is necessary, but supporters of privacy rightly advocate that random drug testing is a violation of an employee's right to privacy. (Sofsian, 2008)

Drug testing constitutes an insidious method that might result in an applicant being dismissed from the job who is otherwise accomplishing his duties to the satisfaction of his superiors. Thus testing in the public sector crops ups vital constitutional problems regarding employees right to privacy and the subsequent processes. On the other hand, the private sector is at liberty to execute testing programs as it is not needed to undertake employment practices to safeguard the constitutional rights of employees. Nevertheless, courts have found out that some major limitations attract to the manner in which private employers might put to test and use the findings of the outcomes. Moreover, public sector as well as private sector employees are subject to the provisions of civil rights. (Klingner; O'eill, 1991)

In the last few years, there has been proliferation of workplace drug testing, especially urinalysis. Notwithstanding popular support for biological testing, research indicate that not every drug use lessens performance and that testing might be unsuccessful in preventing the most possibly detrimental substance abuse. No concrete empirical confirmation exists which corroborates that drug testing is linked with better organizational efficiency and safety standards, and reports that workers who fail in drug tests are second-rate employees. Besides, as drug testing identifies abuse of a particular drug, but is unable to judge a person's capability to perform, it is an improper measure for reviewing the fitness of employees or applicants. Drug tests might infringe present and eventual employee's right to privacy and if a popular body of writing is to be believed, might badly impact their attitude towards work and behaviors. (Comer, 1994)

Chris Argyris supported a type of organization in which managers would give scope in favor of employee satisfaction of need and creative expression. He held that acknowledging people and nurturing their ingenuity and inputs would resultantly benefit in attaining the goals of an organization. Likewise, McGregor in 1960 informed managers that in a situation where employees are taken into confidence to discover and use their independent strategy in performing their task, they would endeavor in a responsible manner to attain organizational goals in the absence of direct monitoring and instructions. Besides, Likert in 1961 also gave importance to the requirement for organizations to cheer, not censor the contribution of individuals and distinctive singular achievements. It might not be out of place to mention here that an entire cohort of theory and research in organizational behavior and human resource management has been intelligible of this concept that valuing employee is not just a rightful entitlement of the employee, but a rather functional strategy in organizational management. But it is regrettable to note that in the past few years, nevertheless, needs at the individual level have been more and more compromised by workplace programs of testing for drug use, especially urinalysis for the consumption of illegal substances. (Comer, 1994)

Truly, the American Management Association has stated that more than half of its surveyed members undertake some nature of drug testing which is a 200% rise. Those in favor of drug testing assert that it helps in minimizing non-attendance, pilferage, errors, and mishaps and spending on medical bills. It was McDaniel, who in 1988 through the use of self-report data regarding the drug consumption of applicants for military service, made an observation that people who at no point of time were under the influence of drugs prior to their enlistment were less suitable to have been discharged for disappointing performance in the space of four and half years following their application. but, hierarchical regression analyses show that, following control for the effects of individual and job aspects, drug use exclusively play a role just a small part of the difference in these behaviors. (Comer, 1994)

There is no denying of the fact that drug and alcohol abuse among employees puts a heavy toll on employers in terms of decreased efficiency, http://www.checkyourassignments.org/images/spacer.gif exposure due to liability apart from increased premiums of employees compensation. Employers possess a http://www.checkyourassignments.org/images/spacer.gif self-interest while maintaining a workplace which http://www.checkyourassignments.org/images/spacer.gif free from drugs meant for the security as well as interests of staffs and bosses alike. But this is far from the complete picture. Debate comes to the fray when bosses either inexpertly or through force enforce drug testing in a way which infringes individual or privileges granted by the constitution like 'Right to Privacy' or the safeguard from illegal investigations as well as arrests. Although almost all states allow employee testing of drugs, nevertheless no state mandate http://www.checkyourassignments.org/images/spacer.gif

In case of particular bosses who execute testing programs of drugs, it is vital that the http://www.checkyourassignments.org/images/spacer.gif adhere to procedure stipulated under the state and federal laws so as to guarantee protection of employee rights and privileges. ("Drug Testing," n. d.)

Coming to the constitutional provisions, the U.S. Constitution does not ban employee drug testing. But in the 1989 Treasury Employees v. Von Raab, 489 U.S., 656 of the U.S. Supreme Court case, the verdict announced by the High Court was that staffs are required to show urine specimen that comprised an investigation under the purview of the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment. Thus, every test of that nature must comply with the justification necessities of the Fourth Amendment that safeguards the countrymen against "unjustified" investigations as well as arrests. Besides, the Court too gave a ruling that tests which are positive cannot hold good in forthcoming prosecutions of criminal nature in the absence of employee's consent. One more constitutional http://www.checkyourassignments.org/images/spacer.gif of drug testing of employees entails the Fifth Amendment which is applicable to the states by the Fourth Amendment that bans life denial, freedom or assets in the absence of permissible legal procedure. ("Drug Testing," n. d.)

As the bulk of the private-sector employees in the U.S. leaving http://www.checkyourassignments.org/images/spacer.gif employees under the union regarded as employees who work under will, a boss is not liable to express a cause for job dismissal. but, under certain conditions, the rejection job, or the rejection of ongoing employment dependent on drug tests might call upon "due process" issues, like the staying in force of the results of the test, the rights of the staff to react, or any necessary note to a staff. Eventually, identical terms under the Constitutions, persons possess a basic right to self-privacy as also his assets. Testing of drugs might come under the ambit of constitutional challenge in case testing outcomes are revealed in an arbitrary manner, in case the methods for obtaining the personal specimens fail to honor the right to privacy of the individual http://www.checkyourassignments.org/images/spacer.gif or in case the experiment is needlessly or greatly forced upon. ("Drug Testing," n. d.)

Random drug tests do not constitute a surefire measurement of job performance. Rather, random drug testing policies on employees wrongly allow bosses to embark on eavesdropping private, outside the job personal performances and practices of employees which are beyond the scope of employers' business. It is been rightly pointed out that employees should be evaluated by the quality of their work, and never by the quality of their urine. If the federal data are any indication, just a small portion of the American working population ever consumes an illegal substance and even fewer consume any illegal drug. but, random workplace drug testing program consider every employees responsible for unlawful activity till the moment their urine report says on the contrary. On this accord, random employee drug testing is considered as a degrading, persistent practice that functions against the long-term American ideals of due process and assumption of innocence. (Armentano, n. d.)

Through the practice of random drug testing, it employees are forced to submit proof against themselves and surrender their privacy rights as an essential requirement for employment. Instead of considering their workers guiltless of illegal activity as statistically, the vast majority are the execution of employee drug testing assumes the whole employee strength accountable till the moment they prove to the contrary. According to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the preventive outcomes of drug testing have at no point of time been proved. There have been no convincing scientific proof from suitably controlled researches that random drug testing program in workplaces extensively do not encourage drug use. Moreover, it has been conjectured by many that doubtless drug testing programs might, in reality be damaging to the occupational setting as they build an environment of lack of trust between employee and employers, and in some instances, might result in overuse of hard drug by urging workers to changeover from the consumption of marijuana which can be detected to a comparatively longer period following use, to drugs that are excreted from the body rather speedily, like cocaine and heroin. (Armentano, n. d.)