Worker Rights/Working Conditions - Essay Example

WORKING CONDITIONS Is drug testing an unwarranted invasion of employee privacy? Which is more important--getting drugs out of the workplace or protecting the privacy of the employee? Drug testing is a sensitive issue, for the obvious reason that narcotics abuse is a felony in most jurisdictions. Therefore, the widespread or random compulsory testing thereof, in the absence of probable cause to suspect drug abuse, may possibly yield results that would tend to incriminate the test subject. In some jurisdictions, the law considers suspicionless drug testing as a manner of search without a warrant, but makes an exception in cases “where the ‘search’ is performed for a ‘special need’ that outweighs the privacy rights of the person being tested” ("Drug Testing.

" Current Issues: Macmillan Social Science Library, 2009). Legal issues aside, drug testing should not be considered an unwarranted invasion of employee privacy. Drug abuse is in all instances and under all circumstances considered harmful both for the individual user and society as a whole. More than other forms of substance abuse, such as alcohol or tobacco, drugs have such pernicious effects, and tend to spread quickly, target the youth in particular, and spawn the commission of other felonies including organized or syndicated crimes.

Because of the particular mischief drug abuse can bring, it should be seen as different from other forms of substance abuse which have less widespread repercussions. A person, even if he takes drugs in private, poses a threat to the safety of his co-workers and neighbors, and thus is not entitled to the right of privacy in drug abuse. Utilitarianism espouses the greatest good for the greatest number. In this case, a utilitarian point of view would tend to favour the application of drug-testing either on a compulsory or random basis.

Since the control of drug abuse is beneficial to both the individual being tested and society, only good could come of the results of the test. In this context drug testing is not an invasion of privacy, because drug abuse is not a private act. As was mentioned, it has such widespread and harmful effects that are not confined to the individual. This is particularly true of the workplace. Constant, and most likely even increasing, drug use costs organizations as much as $60 billion a year, amounting to about 10% of annual payrolls (Ibid).

Furthermore, drug use affects also the health and safety of co-workers and customers, particularly (but not exclusively) for safety-sensitive jobs such as airline pilots, policemen and health workers. An additional consideration is that employers are advantageously poised to ensure the effectiveness of drug-testing programs as deterrents to drug abuse. SmithKline Beecham Laboratories noted that among the workplace drug tests it has conducted, the number of workers who tested positive for drug use fell from 18% in 1987 to half, at only 9% in 1992.

(Drug Testing Is Vital in the Workplace," USA Today magazine, January 1995)What about other health-threatening activities, i.e. smoking outside of working hours, unprotected sex, etc. Should employers be allowed to use polygraph tests to "screen" out potentially costly employees who may engage in any of these activities? Other so-called “health-threatening activities” are of a different class than drug abuse. Smoking outside of working hours, for instance, when done in a smoking-permissible area would affect the welfare of only a few people and a small area, does not pose a great threat to the safety of others, and while it does adversely affect the physical health of the user, does not affect his mental well-being or personality in the way drug abuse does, which is the reason why a drug user would pose potential harm to those around him.

As for unprotected sex, the danger posed by this to persons other than consensual partners is limited to them. Besides, the sexual act is of such personal nature that suspicionless intrusion into this area is a definite invasion of privacy. It is readily apparent that these activities, while health threatening to the actor, are different from drug abuse in that they are not illegal activities. The general welfare is not seriously compromised or threatened even if individuals engage in these activities in private.

Even if it were done in public, such as smoking, other individuals are seldom powerless to take steps to prevent harm to themselves. Furthermore, the resultant evil feared as a result of such activities is usually of doubtful certainty, and is seldom of immediate or acute gravity. From the utilitarian point of view, therefore, or rather corollary to it, since other such “unhealthy” activities do not tend to pose a grave or uncontrollable threat to the greater number of people, polygraph tests to screen out such potential employees should not be undertaken for purportedly cost-reduction purposes.

As mentioned, the potential harm pertains to the actors themselves, and do not appear to be of significant cost to the operations of the employer. Polygraph tests given to employees to determine their engaging in these “unhealthy” activities outside of work place and time would tend to invade into the employees’ individual privacy, cause prejudice to them and their job security, without any great and commensurate benefit to the employer or co-workers. Better to leave the issue alone; at least, left to his privacy on these matters, the worker will be afforded some good, while the effect on the employer, co-workers, or others remaining indifferent.

REFERENCESBaldas, Tresa. "Heat rises over no smokers hired policy."  The National Law Journal. (Jan 24, 2005): NA. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Empire State College SUNY. 9 Mar. 2009 .Chamberlain, J. (2005) “The growing problem of fattism at work” (Employment Law), Personnel Today, Reed Business Information UK, Ltd."Drug Testing." Current Issues: Macmillan Social Science Library. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2003. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Empire State College SUNY. 9 Mar. 2009 .Fryer, B.; Kirby; Weyers, H.

; Solovay, S.; Roehling, M.V. and Wilensky, A. “Fat Chance” (HBR Case Study), Harvard Business Review, Harvard Business School PublishingLipman, Ira A. "Employee Drug Testing Reduces Drug Abuse." Opposing Viewpoints: Drug Abuse. Ed. Jennifer A. Hurley. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1999. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Empire State College SUNY. 9 Mar. 2009 .Springen, Karen. "Light Up and You May Be Let Go.(workplace smoking rules)(Brief Article)."  Newsweek. (Feb 7, 2005): 10. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Empire State College SUNY. 9 Mar. 2009 .

Sullum, Jacob. "Workplace Testing Has Not Been Proven to Reduce Drug Use." Opposing Viewpoints: Drug Abuse. Ed. Tamara L. Roleff. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Empire State College SUNY. 9 Mar. 2009 http://find.galegroup.com.library.esc.edu/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010127254&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=esc&version=1.0Tebo, M.G. “A Matter of Some Weight” (The National Pulse), ABA Journal, American Bar Association