Argument: Drug Testing in the Workplace (Against)
Drug Testing in the Workplace
This paper intends to make assertions against drug testing in the workplace especially where the activities of others could be disturbed. No worker wants that his private life is invaded and suspected. You do not want your life to be your boss’s business. Individual and civil rights are the ones that are most respected, giving every citizen the right to keep his life private and not scrutinized. However, with the advent of efficient technological tools, it is difficult for a worker to hide his off-duty activities from the scrutinizers. Pre-employment testing (urinalysis testing) is conducted when a person applies for a job. While this standard procedure may deter habitual users and create an impression of the company being a “clean” workforce, it is a costly procedure (most often for the company), eliminates alcohol usage, which is the biggest problem, and can be discrediting to an applicant who legitimately does have a prescription regime. Random drug testing occurs within the workplace after hiring. This type of drug testing proves to be unfair as it encourages cheating, may create contentious relationships with workers if non-reciprocal as well as fails to differentiate between casual usage and abuse. No worker on any position will want that he is being observed or that whatever he does while off-the-clock is counted as having an effect on his performance on-duty (Hansson and Palm). Courts and judges have also been not very protective regarding privacy issues that arise in drug testing, nor have any laws or policies been designed regarding when to conduct drug testing and what to do after a person shows positive (European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction). Also, the process of drug testing itself is privacy-invasive since a person is required to give his urine sample in the presence of other persons. This makes the process uncomfortable and disrespectful for the employee. Moreover, when a
This paper intends to make assertions against drug testing in the workplace especially where the activities of others could be disturbed. No worker wants that his private life is invaded and suspected. You do not want your life to be your boss’s business. Individual and civil rights are the ones that are most respected, giving every citizen the right to keep his life private and not scrutinized. However, with the advent of efficient technological tools, it is difficult for a worker to hide his off-duty activities from the scrutinizers. Pre-employment testing (urinalysis testing) is conducted when a person applies for a job. While this standard procedure may deter habitual users and create an impression of the company being a “clean” workforce, it is a costly procedure (most often for the company), eliminates alcohol usage, which is the biggest problem, and can be discrediting to an applicant who legitimately does have a prescription regime. Random drug testing occurs within the workplace after hiring. This type of drug testing proves to be unfair as it encourages cheating, may create contentious relationships with workers if non-reciprocal as well as fails to differentiate between casual usage and abuse. No worker on any position will want that he is being observed or that whatever he does while off-the-clock is counted as having an effect on his performance on-duty (Hansson and Palm). Courts and judges have also been not very protective regarding privacy issues that arise in drug testing, nor have any laws or policies been designed regarding when to conduct drug testing and what to do after a person shows positive (European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction). Also, the process of drug testing itself is privacy-invasive since a person is required to give his urine sample in the presence of other persons. This makes the process uncomfortable and disrespectful for the employee. Moreover, when a
Cited: European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction. “Legal Status of Drug Testing in the Workplace.” EMCDDA, 2006. Web. 23 Mar 2011. . Hansson, Sven Ove, and Elin Palm. The Ethics of Workplace Privacy. Germany: Peter Lang, 2005.