Mandatory Drug Testing in the Workplace - Research Paper Example

? Mandatory Drug Testing in the Work Place College Mandatory Drug Testing in the Work Place Due to recent advancements in the field of medicine,it is now possible to test for drug use in the workplace. This testing shows recent drug use by a person. However, there is a debate about the presence of drug testing. The government requires drug testing for workers in the transportation and nuclear industries, where lapses in concentration may result in the greatest harm. Most companies in the country have also embraced the concept of drug testing, particularly over the last 30 years (Fisher & Lab, 2010). The main issues arising from drug testing are cleanliness and sobriety in the working environment. The opposition emanates from the civil rights agenda; it is wrong to personal privacy and liberty. In addition, the drug users may be subjected to discrimination. I agree with mandatory drug testing in the workplace but there should be a rationale over choosing against drug testing in the workplace Benefits of drug testing in the workplace Contrary to popular belief, homeless people and the unemployed people are not the exclusive users of drugs. Top professionals such as doctors and pilots are also affected by the problem. In fact, due to their ability to afford the drugs, they are more susceptible to addiction (London, 2011). Use of drugs by these people, especially when they are working, presents problems in the quality of work output as well as risking the safety of the people around them. For this reason, drug testing at the workplace benefits both the workers and the employers. Here are a few advantages of drug tests in the workplace: Identification of employees in need of help: some people who venture into the use of drugs have genuine problems and need help. For example, problems at home or even in the workplace inspire the use of drugs (Barkan & Bryjak, 2011). Through testing these people could be identified and helped to overcome their problems. Without the testing and discovery, drug use tends to escalate to the point where it ruins the career of the person involved (Karch, 2008). For this to work, testing and evaluation have to be objective. Many organizations tend to dispose their workers upon the slightest indication of drug use. When this happens, things only get worse for the person involved. Instead, the process should be objective and open-minded. There is a course to discover the inspiration of the addiction before the workers are dismissed. This way, the organization may deal with the problem of drugs while also motivating its workers at the same time (Fisher & Lab, 2010). Greater responsibility in the workplace: drug users sometimes suffer from lapses in concentration. In addition, most drugs impair the judgment of the users (Karch, 2008). The implication is that presence of drug users poses a danger, both top fellow workers and to the public. Take the example of a driver or a doctor. If they reported to work drunk, they could easily harm the people around them as well as themselves. Testing creates a greater responsibility in the sense that they are more responsible in what they do and they have significantly better output. Pre-employment screening: this is another advantage of drug testing to the employers. Testing prospective employees for drugs before they commence service serves to eliminate workers who are unreliable and whose production is low. It is one of the best methods to ensure reliability of workers. However, there is the problem of unreliability (London, 2011). Most people will make sure that they are free of any kind of drugs before they take the tests to increase their chances of securing jobs. Therefore, there has to be follow up and random tests in order to increase the efficiency drug testing to the employers. Deterrent to prospective drug users: testing acts as a barrier to prospective drug users. This is because the presence of testing induces fear in the workers and therefore raises the risks involved in taking drugs (Barkan & Bryjak, 2011). A rational worker may perceive the risk involved in taking the drug is greater than the benefits of using, and therefore abstain from drug use. This is a good motivational strategy because it is indirect. To be effective, the tests have to be regular and unpredictable. In this way, the worker cannot prepare for the tests and they never know when they are going to be tested. This not only improves the quality and accountability of work at the work place, it also serves as a service to the community. Drug addiction is one of the greatest problems facing the modern society. It also fuels crime because most drugs funds most criminals in the streets (Fisher & Lab, 2010). Enhancement of health and safety at work: drug use leads to deterioration of the health of the users. For example, using alcohol may lead to liver and kidney problems for the users. In addition, impairment of the ability to make proper judgment implies that a drug user may fail to perceive risks and therefore put themselves and fellow workers in danger (Karch, 2008). Therefore, testing ensures that workers do not develop health problems resulting from use of drugs as well as well as ensuring the safety of the people around them. Take the example of an alcoholic truck driver. Their presence on the road is a hazard to all other road users as well as to the driver himself. In addition, the money spent on drugs may be useful to the users in the sense that they may spend it to improve their diets and thus boost their health (London, 2011). Reduction of business liability concerns the employers. When accidents happen, the insurance companies first establish the liability before they can pay off any claims. In the event that the person involved in the accident has traces of drugs in them, then they are absolved from all liability. This implies that the affected organization has to pay for all the damages resulting from the accident as well as deal with the unwanted public attention that may be attracted by the case. This serves to use revenue and discourage clients. This is a particular point of concern because studies show that between ten to twenty percent of people involved in deadly accidents in the country are under the influence of illicit drugs (Fisher & Lab, 2010). However, there are also several disadvantages of drug use testing in the workplace. They include the following: Testing may fail to indicate the mental health problems of the drug users. Instead, when the tests are positive, there is an assumption that the person ventured into drug for leisure or pleasure. The truth is that a big percentage of all users get into the vice due to a degree of inability to deal with their problems (McCall & Tankersley, 2011). Most motion pictures tend to show that resorting to drugs to deal with social and economic problem is acceptable. This may influence people to seek refuge in drug use. Victimization of these people is counterproductive because it only escalates their problems and thus gives them more reasons to go deeper into drug use. There is also a degree of subjectivity in the test result (Karch, 2008). When entire careers and reputations rest upon the results of a drug test, it is only fair to give the subjects a chance to explain a positive result. The result is not subjective, they are either positive or negative. A positive test could be a result of a spiked drink, a smoking roommate or even a prescription of over the counter medicine. Therefore, using the tests to fire people, as is often the case, is a misuse of the results (Fisher & Lab, 2010). Sometimes, the use of drugs is inspired by the nature of work the employee is hired to do. Take the example of an undertaker; it cannot be easy to deal with dead bodies for a living. To cope with the occupation, the person may resort to using drugs to ‘calm their nerves’. While this is not the acceptable course of action, it is understandable to a certain degree. Testing is also a violation of the privacy of the employees (McCall & Tankersley, 2011). People have the right to the in privacy, and to live their lives the best way they see fit. However, these tests interfere with their ability to engage in leisure activities. For example, alcohol is legal in the country. Having a few drinks with friends in the evening may result in a failed drug test and loss of employment. This is not fair to the workers (London, 2011). Unless the drugs are induced in the work place, or unless the person turns up to work under the influence, their use of drugs should remain personal. However, in their defense, the employers claim that it is unethical to drink in the working days due to the effects of drinking on the work performance of a person. Most people get ‘hangovers’ the morning after heavy drinking. This may interfere with their productivity. Clearly, there is a need to improve his tests and their purposes because the disadvantages are not the tests themselves, they arise from the uses of the results (Barkan & Bryjak, 2011). That test is the best way to determine drug use is irrefutable. In situation where the employer has a responsibility over the safety of others, they have to use the tests to ensure sobriety of workers. However, to reduce the amount of negativity attributed to the tests they have to follow some ethical principles in the administration of the tests: Informed consent: the worker must know that they are expected to be sober at all times if they take their new positions (Fisher & Lab, 2010). In this way, they get to decide whether to take the job or not based on their lifestyle. There is also the need for confidentiality. The test results must not be shared without the prior knowledge and consent of the subject. There should also be reasonable expectations. Workers forced to work in traumatizing conditions, for example involving caring for sick people and witnessing their death, should be assessed. Their ability to deal with these situations should be determined before they are hired to prevent drug related problems. There should also be repeat tests and chances to explain the positive result in addition to rehabilitation facilities (McCall & Tankersley, 2011). In addition, to prevent negative effects of the tests on the morale of employees, there should be a justification of the tests. This way, they appreciate the need for sobriety in their line of work. Though the tests are necessary to ensure safety and accountability in the workplace, they lose their purpose when they are used to victimize workers. Therefore, the application of the tests should be ethical and justified before they are conducted. References Barkan, S. E., & Bryjak, G. J. (2011).Fundamentals of criminal justice: a sociological view (2nd ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Fisher, B., & Lab, S. P. (2010).Encyclopedia of victimology and crime prevention. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications. Karch, S. B. (2008). Workplace drug testing. Boca Raton: CRC Press. London, M. L. (2011). Maternal & child nursing care (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Education. McCall, R. E., & Tankersley, C. M. (2011).Phlebotomy essentials (Fifth ed.). Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer. Read More