Abstract This paper explains that statistics show that drug abuse and alcoholism are real problems in the American work force. The author points out that many employers value drugtesting before employment so that potential drug abusers will be eliminated as part of their workforce. The paper relates whether or not employers should require drugtesting before hiring employees and the degree to which D the outcome of drugtesting should affect the decisions managers make in the selection of employees.
From the Paper "U.S. Depart. Of Labor statistics show that one in every 12 employees uses illegal drugs and one in 10 has an alcohol problem" (Gillian 46). Should employers require drug testing before hiring employees? Why? Why not? Does the outcome of drug testing affect the decisions managers make in the selection of employees? These are logical questions that many employers face in the selection of new employees. Managers are affected by the results of pre-employment drug testing and often they base their decisions on who to hire based on these results. What Is the Importance of Drug Testing? Why should managers care if people use drugs or alcohol as long as they do not use them at work? Why should managers use drug testing in choosing whom to hire?"
A look at the growing practice of drugtesting in the workplace and the legal issue raised by this practice concerning the individual's right to privacy.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 2 sources, 2006, $ 35.95
Abstract Drugtesting in the workplace became a growing practice in the face of information showing the prevalence of drug use, especially for certain sensitive positions and dangerous industries. The practice increased with the belief that preventing drug use would have a business benefit by reducing potential medical problems, liability, lost work days and so on. This paper discusses the increasing use of drugtesting in the workplace and the concerns raised about privacy, especially the privacy of those who weren't using drugs but were tested just the same.
This paper discusses the arguments made for requiring drugtesting in the marketplace as presented by Joseph DesJardins and Ronald Duska in "Drug-Testing in Employment".
675 words (approx. 2.7 pages), 1 source, 2005, $ 26.95
Abstract This paper presents the reasons that Desjardins and Duska state for rejecting drugtesting in the workplace. The paper points out that, for some people, drugtesting in the workplace may be a way to avoid the adverse effects caused by illegal drug use, such as theft and decreased proficiency on the job; however, Desjardins and Duska rejects the validity of this statement. The author of this paper accepts this rejection.
From the Paper "Drug testing prior to and during employment is becoming an ordinary aspect of the workplace. Desjardins and Duska indicate that it is commonly believed that this testing does not violate privacy, as long as a contractual need is met by such testing. However, Chapter Four argues that it is rarely justified to test any applicant or employee, in any job capacity. Refuting the First Argument The first argument for drug testing in the workplace is that it may be a way to avoid the adverse effects caused by illegal drug use. Some of these effects include cost increases due to theft and decreased proficiency on the job. The first argument, according to Desjardins and Duska, is not valid because only a certain level of performance to which employers are entitled."
Abstract The debate over the drugtesting of employees presents us with competing rights - the right of the employee to privacy vs. the right of the employer to test employees for drug use - that shape our determination of the ethics involved in such cases. This essay argues the thesis that drugtesting is ethically justifiable only in the most narrow of conditions, and then only in certain occupations.
Abstract The question of the ethical issues involved in employer's applying drugtesting in the workplace is complicated by the employee's right to privacy. This essay argues that the employee right to privacy radically limits the range of employer options in regard to drugtesting quite apart from other considerations such as effectiveness and legality. However, in sensitive jobs where potential harm to others is an issue, the moral right to privacy of an employee may itself be limited.
Abstract For the regular employee any use of drugs is considered an immoral act and therefore, deemed reason enough to negate their right to privacy. To that end, this essay argues that there is no justification for violating an employee's privacy in favor of drugtesting because the relevancy of the information is determined by the employer's profit motive which is used to determine the ethical grounds for testing.
From the Paper "For the regular employee any use of drugs is considered an immoral act and therefore, according to Michael Cranford, provides the employer with justification to collect and use that information and as such, has been deemed reason enough to negate their right to privacy (112). In contrast drug use by athletes is viewed a potentially profit enhancing behavior. While not conclusive examples, these ideas certainly identify a vast chasm between interpretations of what justifies an employer's rights based on two different types of employees."
Abstract This paper examines the high cost to employers of employee workplace substance abuse. The author points out the need for effective substance abuse prevention programs and challenges such programs present. The paper evaluates the effectiveness of drugtesting as a policy.
From the Paper "Due to absenteeism, accidents, medical-liability and healthcare expenditures, substance-abusing employees cost employers more than ... billion annually Obviously, substance-abusing employees represent a major problem.
Tags:drugtesting, drug-free workplace, employees, employers, ACLU, privacy, substance abuse, health care, public policy
This paper discusses drugtesting, its ethical and legal implications and the role of employers and educational facilities to ensure high ethical standards.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 2 sources, 2006, $ 35.95
Abstract The paper contends that ethical and legal implications of drugtesting must be considered by employers and educational facilities prior to mandating drugtesting within the organization. This is evident due to the various types of testing that can be administered and the reliability factors that may affect each type of test. The paper maintains that these issues must be addressed and evaluated appropriately before the organization can make a determination regarding an individual's employment or a student's treatment in order to maintain high ethical standards. Furthermore, the paper explains that legal implications for the employer or organization that insists upon the accuracy of testing and takes adverse action against an individual that is drug free, are immense.
Abstract In this article the writer discusses mandatory drugtesting for athletes in sports. The writer examines the issue of whether there is a valid reason that the courts can use to justify mandatory drugtesting of student athletes. Further, the writer discusses the matter of privacy rights.
Abstract This paper argues that students in public schools should be subjected to randomized drugtests. It explains that drug screening would be useful in providing a safe, healthy and appropriate environment in which students can excel in academics and learn character building.
From the Paper "One of the most highly contested issues on school campuses during the past decade is that of testing all students in public schools who participate in extra-curricular activities for drug use. This paper argues both for the legality and the usefulness of such ..."
Abstract The paper introduces drugtesting in the workplace as a controversial issue. There are those who hold the position that it is an invasion of privacy. On the hand there are those who believe that in today's society drugtesting is a necessary evil, regardless of the invasion of privacy issue. The paper shows that the goals of employee drugtesting include improvements in workplace safety, productivity and product integrity, however, as a decline in the use of drugtesting by companies would suggest, drugtesting programs did not meet these goals. This research supports the theory that drugtesting in the work place does not improve productivity, and that it costs more money than it saves for companies. The author makes use of illustrations and graphs to support his argument.
Table of Contents
The Reliability Issue
Trends in DrugTesting Does DrugTesting Improve Productivity?
The Costs of DrugTesting Conclusion and Recommendations
From the Paper "Advocates of drug testing in the work place would have us believe that the benefits far outweigh the costs. They paint a picture that would lead us to believe that America is a country made of substance abusers, who regularly endanger innocent citizens through their impairment caused by substance abuse. It has achieved this through sensationalizing a few accidents that could have been caused due to operator substance abuse. However, the facts do not support this picture, as illustrated by the low number of positive results obtained. Drug testing costs approximately $2000 per employee tested."
Abstract In this article, the writer introduces, discusses and analyzes the topic of drugtesting. Specifically, it discusses drugtesting in the workplace, including the origins of such testing. The writer looks at reasons why this testing is used, where it is applicable, and also discusses the different types of drugtesting. The writer notes that drugtesting is a fairly recent workplace innovation, and as such it has faced opposition, legal challenges, and criticism from a variety of groups who cite evidence testing is counter productive and does not aid in decreasing drug use or employee effectiveness. The writer concludes that this issue continues to be contentious and deliberated in courtrooms and boardrooms across the nation.
From the Paper "Workplace drug testing owes its roots to the U.S. military. Initially, drug testing procedures were tested and developed by the military to test American service men and women returning to the States from Vietnam in the late 1960s. Drug usage was high among military personnel during the Vietnam War, and the military devised their tests because of this. Their official reason was worry over operational readiness and safety issues if military personnel drug use became too widespread. Testing also was used to test Olympic athletes and in drug rehabilitation clinics, such as methadone facilities, along with prisoners in many of America's penitentiaries. During the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan approved the use of drug testing for federal employees, and the practice mushroomed after that, becoming commonplace in the workplace up to the present. One of the reasons drug testing has become so prevalent is because of new testing technologies developed in the late 1970s that allowed for testing vast numbers of specimens with reliable and quick results."
Abstract This paper examines how one particular factor that makes every employer curious before hiring an individual is whether the applicant is using any drug not prescribed as medication. It looks at how this practice of finding out whether any prospective employee is using or has been using any drug is usually carried out through a urine analysis, also called urinalysis, and how it has now become a prerequisite for hiring applicants in the public sector, as well as private entities. It analyzes how the use of a drugtest, such as the urinalysis, prior to hiring of applicants may seem to be a precautionary measure on the part of the employer and how it can be degrading to those employees who are already on the payroll of the organizations.
Outline
Introduction
A Discussion on the Pros and Cons of DrugTesting at the Workplace
Reasons as Presented by Opponents of DrugTesting at the Workplace
Reasons as Presented by Proponents of DrugTesting at the Workplace
Concluding Comments
References
From the Paper "One of the major opponents of any sort of drug testing on the present set of employees is the American Civil Liberties Union, (ACLU), who have a number of reasons and points to prove that the drug-testing the present set of employees is both degrading as well as violative of personal privacy. One such reasoning is that the urinalysis for example cannot detect any impairment on the part of the employee, nor can it ascertain or evaluate job performance of the employee, hence the irrelevancy of the urinalysis. Secondly, even it were to be presumed that the employees are not expected to be drunk, stoned, or even asleep, all of which are the after-effects and implications of drug use, the employer would hardly be expected to retain the services of the employee with any of the said habits."
Abstract This paper discusses issues related in an article written by Michael Cranford called "DrugTesting and the Right to Privacy: Arguing the Ethics of Workplace DrugTesting." The paper suggests that employers have two grounds on which to test employees - ethical (in case the employee becomes injured at work) and legal (the test does not infringe on privacy and drug use is costing the company money). The paper discusses these contentions in more detail.
Table of Contents:
One: The Problem
Two: The Issues Related To The Problem Addressed By The Article Three: The Implications Of The Article To All Parties And Society Ramifications If The Problem Is Not Addressed
Tangible Benefits Of Resolving The Problem
Four: Solutions Provided By The Article
From the Paper "If the worker is indeed found to be taking drugs that impair performance, the fact that the company now knows about the drug abuse allows the company to provide "employer-sponsored counseling and rehabilitative measures" (although Cranford doesn't say how many companies would provide rehab versus simply firing the person). So, if there were no drug tests, the employee who is addicted, for example, would have continued using drugs had the test not caught the use and allowed the employer to help the user kick the habit. And moreover, knowing the worker is proven through verifiable testing to be a drug user protects the company from "wrongful termination litigation," if indeed the worker is fired and makes a claim against the company firing him or her."
Abstract This paper examines how, considering the increasing use of drugs among today's youth, drugtesting in schools has become necessary. It looks at how the ramifications of using these drugs are detrimental to both the individual and society as a whole and how drugtesting is meant to protect students from the harmful effects and has been shown to deter drug use in a large percentage of those on whom it has been practiced. It shows how the procedures themselves are non-invasive and result in no side effects and how the United States Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of these evaluations. It also evaluates how the random drugtesting of students involved in extra curricular activities is a positive and beneficial policy and should be mandatory in schools.
From the Paper "The argument that testing is an invasion of privacy and infringes on civil rights is easily discredited. The process of a urinalysis test goes as follows: "a faculty monitor waits outside the closed restroom stall for the student to produce a sample and must listen for the normal sounds of urination to guard against tampered specimens and ensure an accurate chain of custody" (Kozlowski 34). This is considered to be a negligible intrusion of privacy. These tests are compared to standard head lice checks. Katherine Ford, the director of the Florida Drug Free America Foundation says, ?No one claims it is a violation of a child's civil rights to have their head checked for lice."
