| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING WORKPLACE": |
|
|
Psychological Testing in the Workplace, 2002.
A discussion of the application and effectiveness of psychological testing in the workplace.
2,067 words (approx. 8.3 pages), 10 sources, MLA, $ 65.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how workplace psychology is a relatively new dimension within the industry of psychology, and within this new field is a list of important motivational reasons for the administration of psychological testing to both existing employees and potential employees. It shows how the motivation for the application of psychological testing within the workplace can range anywhere from the desire to apply psychological science to work style varieties and, therefore, job descriptions, to assessing the psychological health of workers in potentially stressful roles. It also looks at how other reasons why psychological testing may occur within the workplace may include use as a tool for the recruitment of new employees or as a tool to assess productivity or workplace problems some associated with social issues and some associated with nonsocial problems.
From the Paper
"It must be made clear to the employee that the responses and results of the testing are not conditional to their continued employment and that changes made to benefit them and the workplace are the intended results of any assessment. An employee must understand that it is his or her work that will determine continued employment and not his or her answers on any survey. Whether problems are associated with a social situation or a logistic situation may be assessed through the tools of workplace psychology. It is important with this type of psych testing to make clear to all employees through a wide distribution of the assessments that everyone will have an interest in the results. Employees must not feel singled out as if the results of the test that only they take will determine his or her continued employment."
| |
|
Drug Testing in the Workplace, 2002.
This paper discusses whether the costs for drug testing in the workplace are greater than the benefits.
1,080 words (approx. 4.3 pages), 10 sources, MLA, $ 37.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper introduces drug testing 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 drug testing is a necessary evil, regardless of the invasion of privacy issue. The paper shows that the goals of employee drug testing include improvements in workplace safety, productivity and product integrity, however, as a decline in the use of drug testing by companies would suggest, drug testing programs did not meet these goals. This research supports the theory that drug testing 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 Drug Testing
Does Drug Testing Improve Productivity?
The Costs of Drug Testing
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."
| |
|
Drug Testing in the Workplace, 2006.
Examines the ethical and logistical issues surrounding drug testing in the workplace.
3,024 words (approx. 12.1 pages), 8 sources, MLA, $ 88.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
While the majority of Americans polled are in favor of drug testing in the workplace, there is still the question of personal rights, as well as the unreliability of the testing now offered. This paper presents an overview of the subject and shows the problems involved in testing employees for drugs in the workplace.
Paper Outline:
Introduction
Different Employers, Different Rules
Legalities and Problems
Accuracy of Testing Paraphernalia
Conclusions
Works Referenced
From the Paper
"Drug testing in the work place should not be an adversarial confrontation, as it seems to be in many places. After all, an employee is hired to create profitability through efficiency and innovation for the employer, in which case everyone benefits. If that employee, whether a senior manager or a new hire, fails to contribute because of drug use, then the contractual obligation between employer and employee is broken, even if that obligation is a verbal one upon being hired."
| |
|
Drug Testing in the Workplace, 2002.
Privacy and moral justifications for drug testing in the workplace.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 1 source, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper takes the position that drug testing in the workplace is always coercive because the entire workplace is based on a contract. However, drug testing is justified under certain conditions.
| |
|
Drug-Use Testing in the Workplace, 2002.
Why drug testing is important in the workplace.
1,150 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 4 sources, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the importance of drug testing in the workplace. In the United States drug use in the workplace is common which leads to decline in employee performance and this is why Drug-free workplace Act was passed in 1998.
| |
|
Drug Testing in the Workplace, 2002.
The importance of drug testing in the workplace.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 3 sources, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the importance of drug testing in the workplace. In the United States drug use in the workplace is common which leads to decline in employee performance and this is why the "Drug-Free Workplace Act" was passed in 1998.
| |
|
Drug Testing in Workplace, 1991.
This paper discusses drug testing in the workplace: Pros and cons, testing procedure, error possibilities, punishments, legal rights, case examples, pre-employment and post-employment tests and alternatives.
2,250 words (approx. 9.0 pages), 11 sources, $ 79.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"This paper will be concerned with the issue of drug testing in the workplace. In 1986, President Reagan began encouraging federal employers to test their employees for drug use. In particular, Reagan wanted such tests to be made on employees in jobs involving sensitive information or public safety. Today, the federal government continues to maintain its policy of requiring drug testing "for its employees and the employees of federal contractors.". In addition, many companies in the private sector have followed the lead of the federal government and have also begun to test their employees for drug use. The majority of the companies who conduct routine drug tests do so at! the pre-employment level. In this way, an effort is being made to screen and reject drug users before they are employed in the first place. Statistics show that "more than half of all midsize and ... "
| |
|
Drug Testing in the Workplace, 2002.
A discussion of the pros and cons of drug testing current and potential employees.
1,762 words (approx. 7.0 pages), 9 sources, MLA, $ 56.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
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 drug test, 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 Drug Testing at the Workplace
Reasons as Presented by Opponents of Drug Testing at the Workplace
Reasons as Presented by Proponents of Drug Testing 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."
| |
|
Drug Testing in the Workplace, 2007.
A review of an article written by Michael Cranford called "Drug Testing and the Right to Privacy: Arguing the Ethics of Workplace Drug Testing."
1,289 words (approx. 5.2 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 43.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses issues related in an article written by Michael Cranford called "Drug Testing and the Right to Privacy: Arguing the Ethics of Workplace Drug Testing." 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."
| |
|
Drug Testing in the Workplace, 2005.
This paper discusses the arguments made for requiring drug testing in the marketplace as presented by Joseph DesJardins and Ronald Duska in "Drug-Testing in Employment".
675 words (approx. 2.7 pages), 1 source, $ 26.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper presents the reasons that Desjardins and Duska state for rejecting drug testing in the workplace. The paper points out that, for some people, drug testing 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."
| |
|
Drug Testing And The Workplace., 2002.
2,400 words (approx. 9.6 pages), 10 sources, $ 89.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This is paper is on the topic of drug testing and the workplace. There are many disputes about the legality of drug testing in the workplace and the rights of privacy vs. the safety of employees at the workplace.
| |
|
Drug Testing in the Workplace, 2003.
This paper discusses issues involved in mandatory random drug testing of employees.
2,300 words (approx. 9.2 pages), 8 sources, $ 79.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
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 drug testing 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.
| |
|
Drug Testing in Workplace, 1997.
Argues for testing. Looks at the origins of this practice and the types available (urinalysis, blood, saliva). The paper also examines court rulings, benefits to corporations & public, privacy issues, economics and policy recommendations.
4,500 words (approx. 18.0 pages), 25 sources, $ 135.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
" DRUG TESTING IN THE WORKPLACE
Introduction
On August 28, 1991, a Manhattan subway train jumped its tracks, killing five passengers and injuring 200 others. A blood test administered after the accident revealed that the blood alcohol level of the train operator was twice the legal driving limit in New York state. The train operator was charged with five counts of second degree murder. Further investigation revealed an empty crack cocaine vial in the train operator?s compartment. Within hours of the accident, the disaster was cited as compelling evidence for expanding Employment Drug Testing (Solomon, 1993, p. 73).
The problem of employee drug usage is growing in America. Public and private sector organizations have been struggling with..."
| |
|
Drug Testing in Workplace, 1999.
Examines the need for this action and discusses it in terms of legal issues, rights of workers, court decisions, types & reliability of tests, union aspects and private vs. public employees.
2,700 words (approx. 10.8 pages), 14 sources, $ 95.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
" INTRODUCTION
Drug testing in the workplace is an issue because of the fact that drug abuse by American workers endangers their coworkers, reduces productivity, costs the company and eventually the consumer money, and contributes to health problems which are then paid for either by the company or the public in some fashion. Many employers have introduced some form of drug testing program in order to reduce costs and offer help to drug abusing employees. There are concerns that such testing violates privacy rights and could lead to employees being disciplined or even fired, and employers are concerned about lawsuits over errors, privacy issues, violation of rights, or unauthorized disclosure of test results. There are also concerns that the testing is not adequate or accurate and that innocent employees.."
| |
|
Drug Testing in Workplace, 2001.
Purpose, rights of privacy & other issues; problems; court rulings.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 10 sources, $ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"Drug testing in the workplace has been undertaken by employers who are concerned that drug use by employees poses a danger to coworkers and the public, reduces productivity, costs the company money, and contributes to health problems which adds further to company costs. Drug testing in the workplace conflicts with our view of personal privacy and raises questions about how far employers can go in analyzing personal habits of employees. Workers are concerned that such testing might lead to employees being disciplined or fired, and employers are concerned as well that instituting testing might lead to lawsuits over errors, privacy issues, violation of rights, or unauthorized disclosure of test results. Some feel that the testing itself may not be adequate or accurate, contributing to such problems. The courts have been called in to adjudicate.."
|
|
|
