The Arguments for and against Workplace Drug Testing - Case Study Example

Drug Testing in the Workplace Introduction There was a time when in our history when employers had all the right to interfere in the life of his or her employee. Interestingly, the term “life” here includes both on the job and off the job life. Despite the fact that it sounds absurd, that how can someone have the right to interfere in anybody’s private and personal life but employers did it to the highest possible extremes. Your boss had the right to know about your family, spouse, political and religious affiliation, likes, dislikes, and others. However, as we moved towards formation of unions, liberalization and extensive legislation foe employee rights this trend reversed and employees enjoyed freedom that they totally deserve (Potter & Orfali, pp. 41-46). However, quite recently, employers concern over their employees’ performance has once again turned the tables around. Quite understandably, it is the world of competition, ruthless, aggressive and brutal competition. Productivity and output is all, which bosses want from their employees (Sherman, pp. 1). Anything and everything, which is acting as hurdle for bosses to achieve the same, they take no time in eliminating them. Drug abuse is one factor, which recently has come on the scene as something, which is a cause of decreased productivity, high absenteeism, high turnover, fatal injuries, workplace conflicts and others (Sloboda, & Bukoski, pp. 56-58). Therefore, many companies in the United States these days test their employees for drug abuse. Moreover, it has also become an integral part of the screening process. Since its advent, there has been quite a lot of buzz in the market about drug testing in the workplace. This paper is an attempt to look at the same. This paper would present and analyze the arguments of both sides, for and against of workplace drug testing in an attempt to check its overall effectiveness. Discussion Quite understandably, using drugs would always have negative impact on any person job productivity and performance. Companies and their human resources departments have been working hard and doing their homework to attract the best possible talent and motivate them to provide the best results. Obviously, it would be quite frustrating for them to know that their “best talent” is working far under his or her potential just because of drug abuse (Sloboda, & Bukoski, pp. 56-58). These people in fact, become a liability for the organization because not only they do not perform to their best but also end up producing and creating conflicts and fight at the workplace. Therefore, it becomes important for the employers to select people carefully, who do not use drugs so that they do not become a liability for the organization (Knudsen & Studts, pp. 230-235). Understandably, one cannot tell without any scientific or medical evidence that whether one has any intake of drugs or not? The best way for the same is “random drug testing” (Heathfield, pp. 1). Statistics show that this procedure has been effective for organizations to fix job performance related problems. Research studies show that substance abusers are more than 33 percent less productive as compared to other workers. Moreover, they are three times more likely to report late at work, four times as likely to hurt them or their colleagues in both major and minor injuries, the chance of their suing other or compensation is five times higher and they are ten times likely to miss work due to their drug abuse (Fay, pp. 15-19). Even more interesting are the facts and numbers provided by the state of Ohio. When they introduced drug testing, they found out that the overall absenteeism rates fell down by almost 91 percent. Besides, the problems regarding fights and issues with supervisors fell down by almost 88 percent and on the job injuries that was a big problem previously for them, dropped by more than 97 percent (Sloboda, & Bukoski, pp. 56-58). Wisconsin cardboard factory had been long facing the problem of many workplace injuries. Since the company and the workers were insured, therefore, it was a matter of big concern for the company but it certainly was a disturbing factor for the insurance company. The insurance company advised the company to use random drug testing. In juts one year, the number of fatal injuries decreased by 72 percent and they days that were lost due to the same decreased by more than 80 percent (Fay, pp. 15-19). Furthermore, the need for alert and drug free people becomes even more important when we talk about important and crucial jobs like drivers, scientists, train operator, pilot, financial experts, doctors, nurses and many others (Karch, pp. 69-72). Who would want to sit in a car whose driver is drunk? Who would want a financial expert taking decisions after having cocaine and even he does not know what is he doing? In addition, there has been quite a lot of buzz in the market regarding drug abuse of the doctors therefore that seems to be the most important and sensitive of all issues. According to some statistics for the United Kingdom, around 37 percent used cannabis; around 14 percent admitted that they use cocaine, amphetamines, barbiturates, magic mushrooms and others (Rand, pp. 12-19). Around 12 percent of the female doctors accepted the same. However, it is important to note that the original percentages would be much higher since these were only those who were ready to accept and admit (Normand, Lempert & Charles, pp. 51-56). These were unofficial figures however even the British Medical Association in their own survey accept that more than 10 percent of the doctors in United Kingdom use alcohol or other illegal drugs like cocaine, heroine, marijuana and others. They also add that this 10 percent means more than 10000 doctors each day who treat more than 0.2 million patients (Rand, pp. 12-19). Imagine the treatment that those 0.2 million patients would be getting. Therefore, for professions, which are sensitive and have great degree of influence on the society, drug tests became extremely important like in the case of doctors (Fay, pp. 15-19). However, as mentioned earlier in the paper that there is another side of the picture as well which indicates all the loopholes, problems and ineffectiveness of drug testing at workplace. Logically speaking, there is no strong correlation between drug abuse and job performance (Sherman, pp. 1). Urine tests cannot measure job performance. Employees should select, hire and fire employees based on job performance and not based on what they take and use off the jobs in their personal lives. A positive urine test does not mean low job performance; neither a negative urine test means that the person would perform better (Normand, Lempert & Charles, pp. 51-56). Moreover, whole process is quite humiliating and degrading. This is an extract from the letter sent to American Civil Liberties Union by an employee after going through a drug test. She wrote, "I waited for the attendant to turn her back before pulling down my pants, but she told me she had to watch everything I did. I am a 40-year-old mother of three: nothing I have ever done in my life equals or deserves the humiliation, degradation and mortification I felt" (Tunnell, 7-11) In addition, these drug tests fail to tell that when was a particular drug used. This creates a great degree of confusion, ambiguity and injustice. For example, on Thursday during random employee tests an employee may positive on smoking marijuana since he used it on Saturday night while partying with his friends. However, that did not affect his performance either. Moreover, an employee may use cocaine in the morning before coming to work and still test negative in the drug test because it takes time for the remains to become a part of the urine (Knudsen & Studts, pp. 230-235). Therefore, these tests fail to differentiate between occasional and habitual usage of drugs. Conclusion Lastly, it is also important to note that drug testing is not being used properly. If an employee fails to pass the drug test that does not mean that, his boss should fire him straight away. However, it means that employee needs counseling, help and emotional support (Potter & Orfali, pp. 41-46). However, that does not happen. Moreover, these urine tests just not reveal drug usage but can reveal many things about your personal life. They can reveal pregnancy status, diabetic levels, depression and others. In fact, the police department of Washington D.C. revealed in 1988 that they used the urine samples of the female respondents to find out that whether they are pregnant or not without the knowledge of the respondents (Knudsen & Studts, pp. 230-235). Even the experts agree to the fact that there is around 5-30 percent chance of error in these tests (Tunnell, 7-11). Considering the huge amount of people subjected to these tests every year, the number people who would have lost their jobs due to these errors would be in millions. In conclusion, the paper has discussed and analyzed different aspects of drug testing in the workplace, and it is anticipation that further research in this regard will be more beneficial for students in better understanding of the topic. Works Cited Fay, Calvina. Drug Testing In the Workplace: An Historical and Economic Examination. The Journal of global Drug Policy and Practice. Volume 3, Issue 4 Winter 2010, 15-19 Heathfield, Susan M. Develop a Drug-free Workplace. Retrieved on April 3, 2010. Retrieved from http://humanresources.about.com/od/healthsafetyandwellness/a/drug_free.htm Karch, Steven B. Workplace Drug Testing. CRC Press, 2007. Knudsen, Hannah K., & Studts, Jamie L. The effectiveness of Drug testing. Journal of Substance abuse Treatment. Volume 38, Issue 1, April 2010. Pp 230-235. Normand, Jacques, Lempert, Richard O., & Charles P. OBrien. Under the Influence? Drugs and the American Work Force. American Journal of drug and Alcohol Abuse. Volume 2, Issue 1, 2010. March 2010. Potter, Beverly A., & Orfali, Sebastian. Drug testing at work: a guide for employers. Ronin Publishing, 1998. Rand, Beau Kilmer, the Future of DIRECT Surveillance: Drug and alcohol use Information from Remote and Continuous Testing. Journal of drug policy analysis. Volume 1, Issue 1, 2008. Sherman, Andrew J. Drug Testing in the workplace. Retrieved on April 3, 2010. Retrieved from http://www.entrepreneurship.org/drug-testing-in-the-workplace.html Sloboda, Zili, & Bukoski, William J. Handbook of Drug Abuse Prevention. Springer, 2006. Tunnell, Kenneth D. Pissing on demand: workplace drug testing and the rise of the detox industry. NYU Press, 2004. Read More