The Arguments for and Against Drug Testing in the Work Place Sample Essay

AbstractionThe issues of whether society should allow the concern sector to prove for the presence of illegal drug usage by the employees. is one in which apparently converting statements can be proposed to back up it. every bit good as every bit converting statements against the construct. In this paper.

I will research the contention from several different positions. analysing the most of import statements both for and against allowing concerns to prosecute in employee drug proving. I will get down this paper by first sing the statements for allowing concerns to prosecute in drug-testing employees for illegal substances.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Then I will see the statements against allowing drug-testing. Summarizing up the paper. I will make up one’s mind who has the best statement for their beliefs and explicate a possible principle for those beliefs.
On current tendencies within two old ages it will be about impossible for recreational drug users to acquire a occupation with larger companies. Drug proving at work is likely the individual most effectual arm we have against grownup substance maltreatment. It is a proven.

low cost scheme which identifies those necessitating aid. reduces demand. cuts accidents and ill leave. improves attending and increases productiveness. ( Cross. 1997 ) Yet drug testing is extremely controversial. harmonizing to Cross. it penalizes users with positive drug trials that can bear small or no relation to work public presentation.

encourages knee-jerk dismissals and favoritism at interviews. It costs money and invades privateness. Despite all this. about nightlong it has become stylish to speak of proving 1000000s of people at work for both intoxicant and drugs.

Perkinson provinces. “The government’s ain Forensic Science Agency carried out over a million workplace drug trials last twelvemonth. with a haste of involvement from conveyance. building.

fabrication and fiscal services industries” ( 1997 ) . This stampede to prove follows dramatic drug proving success when many had declared the mega-war against drugs all but lost. The drugs industry histories for eight per centum of all international trade harmonizing to the United Nations. Education.

imposts. constabulary. harvest devastation and prison sentences have failed to present so drug testing has become extremely attractive. even at the cost of civil autonomies. Eighty per centum of all big companies already spend over two million a twelvemonth proving for drugs at work. impacting 40 per centum of the US work force. In 2010.

up to eighty per centum of all workers will be covered by drug trials ( Hock 2009 ) . The Arguments for 4 Every office. mill. train operator.

air hose. building company and infirmary is affected with serious hazards to public wellness and profitableness. Workplace drug proving in America is being forced on employers for economic and safety grounds. Drug companies that don’t trial will travel bust.Their insurance premiums will travel through the roof. US surveies show that substance maltreaters ( including intoxicant ) are 33 per centum less productive. three times every bit likely to be tardily.

four times every bit likely to ache others at work or themselves. five times every bit likely to action for compensation. and 10 times every bit likely to lose work ( Cialdini 2003 ) . Cross besides explains that when the State of Ohio introduced random drug proving they found absenteeism dropped ninety-one per centum there were 88 per centum less jobs with supervisors and 97 per centum lessening in on-the-job hurts.

These consequences are so dramatic that many companies are now testing occupation appliers. The American Medical Association’s ain figures suggest up to ten per centum of all physicians may mistreat either alcohol or illegal drugs. including cocaine. cleft and diacetylmorphine. That’s about 10. 000 physicians.

handling possibly 200. 000 patients every twenty-four hours. In an operating room with one anesthesiologist.

a adviser and two junior physicians there is a 50 per centum hazard that one of the squad is a substance maltreater. ( Bernbach 2007 ) Other statements for proving are that drug testing is inexpensive.Breathalyzers cost 40 dollars with virtually no running costs while urine trials costs twelve dollars for drugs. They merely have to be carried out on a few to be effectual. Positive trial rates have fallen from 13 per centum to five per centum in a decennary. Harmonizing to Cialdini. “This is a method that works.

” He besides explains that random testing is barbarian unless introduced sensitively as portion of a comprehensive bundle of instruction and entree to confidential intervention. The primary purpose should non be to assail the employee. but to deter the drug usage. offer aid and handle the person. The most effectual plans are those where the work force approves a humane. compassionate and just anti-drugs policy.

There are many statements against drug proving from the high cost to conflicting on a person’s rights. When it comes to existent drug trials many of the statements surround the inaccuracy of the trials instead than the cost.Kurdek stated that.

”There are many unsolved jobs with proving: for illustration hemp trials are about useless with positive trials hebdomads after usage. What blood degrees are acceptable for illegal drugs? Who should be tested? How frequently and what action should be taken ( 1998 ) ? Some argue for trials merely where public presentation is hapless. But by so a fellow worker may hold lost an arm. a leg. an oculus or a manus – a patient her ain life. The purpose of proving is to forestall errors. non to apportion incrimination after the event.

It is unjust to coerce workers who are non even suspected of utilizing drugs. and whose occupation public presentation is satisfactory. to “prove” their artlessness through a degrading and unsure process that violates personal privateness. Such trials are unneeded because they can non observe damage and.

therefore. in no manner heighten an employer’s ability to measure or foretell occupation public presentation ( Perkinson 1997 ) .Employers have the right to anticipate their employees non to be high. stoned. rummy.

or asleep. Job public presentation is the bottom line: If an employee can non make the work. employers have a legitimate ground for firing them. However. urine trials do non mensurate occupation public presentation.

Even a confirmed “positive” provides no grounds of present poisoning or damage ; it simply indicates that a individual may hold taken a drug at some clip in the yesteryear.Urine trials can non find when a drug was used. they can merely observe the “metabolites. ” or inactive remnant hints of antecedently ingested substances. For illustration.

an employee who smokes marihuana on a Saturday dark may prove positive the undermentioned Wednesday. long after the drug has ceased to hold any consequence. In that instance. what the employee did on Saturday has nil to make with his or her fittingness to work on Wednesday.

At the same clip. a worker can snort cocaine on the manner to work and prove negative that same forenoon. That is because the cocaine has non yet been metabolized and will. therefore. non demo up in the person’s piss ( Bussee 2004 ) .

Innocent people do hold something to conceal: their private life. The “right to be left alone” is. in the words of the late Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis “the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilised work forces. ” It is unjust to coerce workers who are non even suspected of utilizing drugs to “prove” their artlessness through a degrading and unsure process that violates personal privateness ( Berbbach 2007 ) .Analysis of a person’s piss can unwrap many inside informations about that person’s private life other than drug usage. It can state an employer whether an employee or occupation applier is being treated for a bosom status. depression. epilepsy or diabetes.

It can besides uncover whether an employee is pregnant ( Bussee 2004 ) .The drug screens used by most companies are non dependable. These trials yield false positive consequences at least 10 per centum.

and perchance every bit much as 30 per centum. of the clip. Experts concede that the trials are undependable. Although more accurate trials are available. they are expensive and infrequently used.

And even the more accurate trials can give inaccurate consequences due to laboratory mistake. A study by the National Institute of Drug Abuse. a authorities bureau. found that 20 per centum of the labs surveyed erroneously reported the presence of illegal drugs in drug-free urine samples. Unreliability besides stems from the inclination of drug screens to confound similar chemical compounds.

For illustration. codeine and Vicks Formula 44-M have been known to bring forth positive consequences for diacetylmorphine. Advil for marihuana.

and Nyquil for pep pills ( Bussee 2004 ) .Actually. there are no clear estimations about the economic costs to industry ensuing from drug usage by workers. Advocates of drug proving claim the costs are high.

but they have been hard pressed to interpret that claim into existent figures. And some who make such claims are makers of drug trials. who evidently stand to gain from industry-wide uranalysis.

Many province and federal tribunals have ruled that proving plans in public workplaces are unconstitutional if they are non based on some sort of individualised intuition. Throughout the state. tribunals have struck down plans that indiscriminately tested police officers. fire- combatants. instructors.

civilian ground forces employees. prison guards and employees of many federal bureaus. In Washington. D. C. . for illustration. one federal justice had this to state about a random drug proving plan that would impact 1000s of authorities employees: “This instance nowadayss for judicial consideration a sweeping want of the most cardinal privateness rights of 1000s upon 1000s of loyal.

observant citizens… . ” ( Thompson 1999 ) .In 1989. for the first clip. the U. S. Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of proving authorities employees non really suspected of drug usage. In two instances affecting U.

S. Customs guards and railway workers. the bulk of the Court held that urine trials are hunts. but that these peculiar employees could be tested without being suspected drug users on the evidences that their Fourth Amendment right to privateness was outweighed by the government’s involvement in keeping a drug-free workplace. Although these determinations represent a opinion. it does non impact all authorities workers.

and the battle over the constitutionality of proving is far from over. The Fourth Amendment says that the authorities can non seek everyone to happen the few who might be guilty of an discourtesy. ( Bussee 2004 )In add-on to California. seven provinces have enacted protective statute law that restricts drug proving in the private workplace and gives employees some step of protection from unjust and undependable testing: Montana. Iowa. Vermont and Rhode Island have banned all random or cover drug testing of employees ( that is. proving without likely cause or sensible intuition ) . and Minnesota.

Maine and Connecticut permit random proving merely of employees in “safety sensitive” places. The Torahs in these provinces besides mandate collateral testing. usage of certified research labs. confidentiality of trial consequences and other procedural protections. While they are non perfect. these new Torahs place important bounds on employers’ otherwise unchained authorization to prove and give employees the power to defy indefensible invasions of privateness. Here in Texas.

they still drug trial both in the pre-employment phases and randomly ( Bernbach 2009 ) .In both state of affairss each instance identified assorted statements for their beliefs. The statement against drug proving holds more touchable grounds than the statement for it. They provided judicial opinions. factual grounds refering to dependability and cogency of the testing processs and true instances back uping their beliefs. One peculiar statement against drug testing. I believe.

holds the best declaration for everyone: Employers have better ways to keep high productiveness. every bit good as to place and assist employees with drug jobs. Competent supervising.

professional guidance and voluntary rehabilitation plans may non be every bit simple as a drug trial. but they are a better investing in America ( Jespen 2002 ) . However. in this twenty-four hours and age the quickest solution is normally seen as the best.MentionsBernbach. J.

( 2007 ) . Job Discrimination II: How to Fight…How to Win. Paris: Voir Dire Press.Bussee.

R. . ( 2004 ) . Employee’s Rights: Your Practical Handbook to Workplace Rights. New York: Sourcebooks.Cialdini.

R. B. ( 2001 ) . Influence: Science and Practice.

Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Cross. S. E.

& A ; Madson. L. ( 1997 ) . “Models of Self: Self-Construals and Drugs.

” Psychological Bulletin. 122:5-37.Hock. R. R. ( 2009 ) .

Forty Studies That Changed Psychology: Explorations Into The History of Psychological Research. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Jepsen. L. & A ; Jepsen. C. ( 2002 ) . “An Empirical Analysis of the Matching Patterns of Non-Alcoholics and Alcoholics.

” Demography. 39:435-453.

Kurdek. L. ( 1998 ) . “Perceived Social Support of Drug Users in Cohabitating Relationships. ” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

54:504-509. Perkinson. R. R.

( 1997 ) . Chemical Dependency Counselling: A Practical Guide. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Thompson. L.

& A ; Walker. A. J. ( 1999 ) . “Women and Men in Marriage.

Work. and Alcoholism. ” Journal of Marriage and Family. 51:845-872.


I'm Sarah!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out