Final Research Paper
Topic #2: Explore the legal, moral and practical implications of mandatory workplace drug testing.
This research paper discusses the legal, moral, and practical implications of mandatory workplace drug testing. Drug testing is used to find any presence of drugs or alcohol while an individual is in the process of pre-employment or during ongoing employment. In order to descend into these implications further, one must understand what the moral and ethical issues of mandatory workplace drug testing are. There are different viewpoints on whether drug and alcohol testing are either positive or negative within the workforce. Some may be in favor of mandatory workplace drug testing as it can allow a safe and productive environment and also prevent liabilities in the workplace. However, some may oppose mandatory drug testing as it can invade a person’s privacy, create discrimination, or make the workplace environment non-approachable. Many companies in the U.S. have been implementing policies of mandatory drug testing for decades. Specifically, companies have an urgency to test their employees. This is due to the problems listed above. Moreover, employers use the “employment-at-will” principle, which allows a huge discretion in disciplining employees. It also lets employers take control of the environment of the workplace. With an increase in technological advances, drug testing is more accessible to employers. They have an ease in requiring employees to go through mandatory drug testing, which can be called upon at random. This is simply done to keep a standard working environment. Though, it leaves legal and ethical implications onto the employer and employees.
Those in favor of mandatory workplace drug and alcohol testing want to be able to have a workplace that is safe and productive. A number of studies have found that employees who are users of drugs and alcohol are more likely to have an increase in occurrences of absences from work. This leaves employees to use their benefits such as sick-leave because of the outcome of using drugs and alcohol (Raskin, 1993). Another study was conducted with users of cocaine and marijuana usage. They recorded that absenteeism was at an alarming 50% higher than individuals who are not users of cocaine and marijuana (Karch, 2008). The U.S. expenditure on the treatment of drug abuse alone is more than 200 billion dollars, which also ties into the loss of productivity at work. Employers want to implement strict and mandatory drug testing as it affects the cost of health insurance coverage. It is also important to note that this is simply on drug usage and not alcohol usage. In other countries, however, they show an increase in alcohol abuse which causes a 60% decrease in productivity in the workplace (Pidd and Roche, 2014).
This may be very alarming to see, but the main question of whether mandatory drug testing is ethical in the workplace is still an ongoing issue. Individuals who show drug and alcohol abuse should be given a fair chance to get the proper help needed instead of being blamed for something they cannot control themselves. Employers are also in favor of mandatory drug testing as it leaves the risk for liabilities for the workplace. Employers are straying away from being responsible for their employees’ actions. They do not want to be at fault for these actions and would rather implement the drug testing to set standards in the workplace. A workplace must show a safe working environment which includes the safety other employees that are exposed to other workers under the influence of drugs.
Furthermore, there are many individuals who oppose the mandatory workplace drug and alcohol testing. This is simply due to an employee’s invasion of privacy and its employer-controlled environment. Many studies have found that the primary goal of mandatory drug testing is to create a positive, drug and alcohol-free workplace, but the motion to do this causes an alarming invasion of an individual’s privacy. For example, urine samples used to analyze if the individual tests positive for drug and alcohol usage is considered assault without proper consent. If a company requires an employee, either during pre-employment or ongoing employment to take a urine analysis test, they should not be fired or dismissed from the hiring process as it goes against the civil liberty of that individual (Thompson, Riccucci, and Ban, 1991). Workers should not be placed under harsh tactics, in which their own body is used as a way to see if they are competent enough for the job.
This also engages an issue where an individual cannot show that they are actual under impairment if their test shows up positive for drugs and alcohol. It does not allow any presumptions about the “carry-over effect” at a later time or a chance to prove that the individual is not a threat in the workplace. According to Safety Science, “the ability to predict whether an individual can perform specific tasks is minimal; impairment depends on the dosage and on other psychological and physiological factors” (Marques, et al., 2014). More research on this has proven that some individuals actually have a better productivity level while dependent on certain drugs at a moderate rate. A positive drug test does not mean that the individual is a chronic user or is alcohol-dependent, but that it maybe assists them in daily functions. With these notions, it causes unnecessary discrimination in the workplace. For instance, one may see that drug and alcohol testing can implicate discrimination in the workplace. The process of how the testing is done and specifically who is targeted to participate in this testing are primary examples of discrimination. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, drug and alcohol abuse and dependence are increasingly being viewed as a disability, even though they are not always defined as such in anti-discrimination and other protective legislation.
Overall, the legal and moral implications show a massive variance of how users of drugs and alcohol usage are shown in the disability provisions of the anti-discrimination legislation, as well as in employer policies and regulations. In these policies and regulations, drugs and alcohol dependence are left out, which does not help individuals who are struggling in the workplace. Drug and alcohol dependency should be incorporated with disability. Such approaches do not recognize, however, that denial is a major component in substance dependency. An important ethical issue that should be addressed is the privacy and disclosure of the worker’s drug and alcohol test results. The laws show that there are jurisdictions that provide that the tests are not included as a medical examinations. This allows the management to receive the test results, which risks the individual's information to be revealed and may impact the employment status of the individual. Ultimately, the laws still void most legal, moral, and evidence-based implications of testing issues.