Arguments Against Workplace Drug Testing

In 1987, a Conrail engineer, who had been smoking marijuana, caused train collision in which 16 passengers were killed and 176 people were injured. Also, in 1989 the Exxon Valdez accident, Captain Joseph Hazelwood announced the worst oil spill in US history. There was huge loss of animal life and destruction to economic and social fabric in Alaska. Alcohol was partly responsible for this tragedy. Such accidents caused the Department of Transportation to test employees in safety sensitive transportation jobs for drug and alcohol use. It was a good idea because workers who abuse drugs are more likely to injure themselves and put other people at risk. Thus, the workplace drug testing has developed because of the growing use and abuse of drug and alcohol in modern society. Workplace drug testing has a lot of advantages. Even though some people argue that the process is both unfair and unnecessary, some classes of prospective should be tested. Workplace drug testing has become more prevalent in
As a result, cases of workplace substance abuse have dropped significantly. There are few justifications for employer drug testing. First, federal and state laws require drug tests for certain workers and companies. If the employers do not comply with certain laws and contract requirements, they lose the contracts. For example, the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 requires private employers to have comprehensive policies designed to prevent drug abuse when the federal contracts over $25,000. Thus, the main justification is complying with the law. Second, drug testing has beneficial results. Insurance costs will be reduced and productivity will increase. Third, some business owners claim that the introduction of drug testing in the work environment has actually improved the morale of the larger workforce because the majority of employees are more interested in making sure that their workplace is a safe and productive one. Fourth, even though