Except for employers in different industries that are significantly regulated by the federal government, federal law does not have many provisions concerning employee drug testing. However, a considerable number of states and local governments conduct the drug tests regularly. The rules depend on the interests of employers pertaining to whether to test employees or applicants. However, it is vital to consider that employees just like the majority of citizens take drugs for various reasons, knowingly or unknowingly. In some situations, employees are forced to take drugs because they are driven by the unrealistic expectations of their employers, thereby choosing to use drugs to cope with long shifts or stressful work environments. For whatever reason, drug use endangers the lives of the employers and those of their colleagues due to the negative effects of drugs on their concentration and overall physical and mental performance. One of the agendas at stake is based on civil liberties, which emphasizes the freedoms of individuals, their right to be protected from discrimination, and their right to privacy. This agenda is somewhat flawed since when it is upheld, it might compromise the health and safety of other people since those in positions of responsibility for others have to be clean and sober. Therefore, I agree that employee drug testing should be mandatory in all workplaces.
However, there is a section of the public who are against employee drug testing. One of the reasons for opposing the idea that employees should not be tested based on their right to privacy rests on the idea that the testing encourages responsibility among employees that might harm themselves or other people. It is natural for people to feel uncomfortable when a surgeon operating on them, their driver, or the pilot of their flight is under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. For this reason, workplace safety should be paramount since the threat of drug-related incidences might reduce or even be eliminated when the employees of organizations are clean (Waehrer et al ., 2016). Without the testing, it would not be possible for an employer to identify the employees that might be posing a risk to themselves and others with their drug abuse.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Secondly, high-risk jobs call for mandatory testing. Such jobs include the ones that require employees to operate heavy machinery, handle hazardous substances such as chemicals, or driving for an organization. The federal government significantly regulates employers in the identified industries, thereby making it mandatory for them to engage in employee drug testing (Waehrer et al ., 2016). The mandates are essential for ensuring that the employees are in their right state of mind when executing their duties in their workplaces, thereby leading to the avoidance of freak accidents. In this regard, the drug testing will prevent the employees from working while under the influence, which is a provision that will not only protect the employee from potential accidents but other employees and the public as well.
The need for employees to receive drug testing is also a derivative of the need to avoid the emergence of workplace problems. When an employee persistently uses or abuses alcohol or other drugs, the habit will significantly affect the quality of his or her work (Steingold, 2017). Some of the issues that might also arise include reporting to work late or produce low-quality output because of intoxication. In such cases, having mandatory or selective drug tests will ensure that the employer realizes significant benefits in the long-term. The benefits that might be realized would include saving resources such as time and money that would otherwise be spent on rehiring other employees, retraining, taking care of the medical costs attached to possible injuries from an accident, and compensating the injured employees. The tests can assist the employer to determine whether the employee is fit for duty as a way of avoiding such costs.
There are also possible legal liabilities attached to the need to test employees for their drug use. As identified earlier, alcohol or other drug users in the workplace pose significant risks for their employers. For instance, a workplace-related accident might occur because of an employee that might have been under the influence of alcohol or drugs. When one or more staff members were injured because of such an accident, the employers might face legal liability since they did not focus on maintaining a safe as well as a drug-free working environment for the people in it (Pidd & Roche, 2014). The best way for employers to avoid litigation is to conduct the drug tests, consequently identifying the workers that might risk the safety of any other person because of their drug use and abuse. Therefore, having a workplace drug-testing program is one way through which employers will work towards ensuring the safety of their working environment for every person.
Regardless of the need to ensure that employees are tested for drug use or abuse, it is essential to consider the factors that determine the reasonable basis for the tests. First, when drug-testing programs are implemented, the courts might demand proof of post-employment testing. In this light, the employer has to prove that the testing is necessary since the use of alcohol or other types of drugs while at work might impair the safety of the company, its integrity, or productivity (Steingold, 2017). For this reason, it is essential for employers to outline job-specific dangers that might arise from the use and abuse of drug-related substances while on duty. Apart from identifying the job-specific dangers, visual monitoring can support the need for testing, which can be applicable in randomly selected cases, but it seldom occurs.
Private-sector employees might be reluctant to fire or to take action on employees that refuse to submit to drug testing. The employers might be either relying on the provisions supporting the right to the privacy of the employees, or they might be fearful of being held liable for the employee’s unemployment compensation (Steingold, 2017). The law provides that a discharged employee would not be eligible for unemployment compensation if the grounds for the discharge were misconduct. However, when an employee refuses to obey the rules put in place by the employer, the discharge will constitute misconduct if it was reasonably applied (Steingold, 2017). Even though it might not be possible to identify the courts that have held that drug testing should conform to the civil liberties agenda as reasonable, the courts have found that the tests that do not have supported allegations are unreasonable. For this reason, testing based on suspicious behavior can be reasonable for the courts.
In conclusion, it is necessary to point out that opposing views on whether employees should undergo drug tests have been based on the civil liberties agenda, and the health and safety agenda. Even though those supporting the idea that the Fourth Amendment provides individuals with the right to refuse being tested, there are several compelling reasons for the tests. The reasons attached to ensuring the tests are undertaken on the idea that it is necessary to ensure that an employer makes the working environment safe for the employees (Pidd & Roche, 2014). For this reason, the drug tests are a necessary way for the achievement of this provision. The tests might assist an employer to avoid possible legal liabilities, consequently avoiding attached costs. However, an employee has a right to refuse to test, especially in the private sector, which might make the employer reluctant to take the test to avoid unemployment compensation.
References
Pidd, K., & Roche, A. M. (2014). How effective is drug testing as a workplace safety strategy? A systematic review of the evidence. Accident Analysis & Prevention , 71 , 154-165.
Steingold, F. S. (2017). The employer's legal handbook: Manage your employees & workplace effectively . Nolo.
Waehrer, G. M., Miller, T. R., Hendrie, D., & Galvin, D. M. (2016). Employee assistance programs, drug testing, and workplace injury. Journal of safety research , 57 , 53-60.
