Couture 1
Elizabeth Couture
Professor Jakubovic
English Comp 102-400
29 April 2017
Workplace Drug Testing Have you ever had to submit to a drug test for employment? Where you enter a clinic and feel as if your privacy was invaded and you’ve been declared guilty of some crime you did not commit? When you attempt to comprehend the connotation of the employers mentality, you feel rooted in your safety and the safety of your co-workers. Drug-testing in the workplace has been established in multitudes of diversified industries and corporations in the United States since the 1980s. Following federal and state mandated drug-testing laws, with pre-employment screening, random testing, reasonable suspicion, and post-accident injuries, specifically in safety sensitive positions; the company secures their own liability. Workplace safety, reduced absenteeism, lower company health care expenditures, compensations, higher productivity, and innovation, are all indisputable advantages of permissible drug-free policies. Beginning in the 1970s, an interrelationship of drug detection in the blood was established, this began the advancement of drug observations in particular forms. It wasn’t until the 1980s when the accelerated use of urine became the main matrix in drug detection in both the workplace and clinic environments. In 1986, US President Ronald Reagan regulated workplace testing of employees. “The original order and subsequent Drug-free Workplace Act of 1988 was restricted to urine testing and it only applied to US Federal employees and Federal contractors…” (Tsanaclis, Wicks, and Chasin 83). Couture 2 “Drug use in the workplace costs businesses $75 billion to $100 billion each year, according to the Federal Labor Department” (46). …show more content…
Employees who use illicit substances expose the risk of profitability efficiency, production, and workplace safety. They’re also accompanied with a “higher rate of absenteeism, higher health care and compensation claim costs, and more on-the job injuries” (46). Federal and state laws still mandate workplace drug-testing. When employers utilize the drug testing policy, they are obligated to abide by laws legislated by the state (if applicable) that delegate what workplaces can and can not do (Lu and Kleiner 46-49). Drug testing is pertinent to health and public safety risks such as those laboring with substantially large machinery, including transportation and shipping, such as, freight, railways, and airlines (Tsanaclis, Wicks, and Chasin 83). Because of safety concerns, the majority of corporations have endorsed some sort of form of a Drug Free Workplace Program (DFWP) (Christie 172). The most prevalent of these is pre-employment testing, which prohibits the hiring of any current or recent substance abuser. Although legal as a condition of employment, the employer must give notice of the testing and all applicant are to be treated correspondingly (Lu and Kleiner 50). A second form of drug testing is of random, but still must meet accession with its state regulations. “For example, the Iowa drug testing law prohibits random tests. Therefore, it is un-lawful for employers in Iowa to have random test for employees in a safety-sensitive position” (49). This testing consists of both Discretionary and Systematic. Discretionary random testing allows the employers to request a drug test from the employee at any given time. Systematic Couture 3 testing is still undisclosed but involves a percentage of elected employees to be submitted. “The advantage of this policy is that employers …show more content…
"The U.S. Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing
Programs: Current status and future considerations." Forensic Science International , vol. 174, no. 2-3, 2008, pp. 111-119. OhioLINK Electronic Journal Center , doi:10.1016/J.FORSCIINT.2007.03.008. Christie, Timothy. "A discussion of the ethical implications of random drug testing in the workplace." Healthcare Management Forum , vol. 28, no. 4, 2015, pp. 172-174. OhioLINK Electronic Journal Center , doi:10.1177/0840470415581251.
French, Michael T., M. Christopher Roebuck, and Pierre Kébreau Alexandre. "To test or not to test: do workplace drug testing programs discourage employee drug use?" Social Science Research , vol. 33, no. 1, 2004, pp. 45-63. OhioLINK Electronic Journal Center , doi:10.1016/S0049-089X(03)00038-3.
Jacoby, Jeff. "Oh, Brother." Boston Globe (2006): n. pag. Abstract. (n.d.): n. pag. Print.
Couture 6
Lu, Ying-Tzu, and Brian H. Kleiner. "Drug testing in the workplace." Management Research
News , vol. 27, no. 4-5, 2004, pp.46-53. OhioLINK Electronic Journal Center , doi:10.1108/01409170410784464.
Paik, Leslie. "Organizational Interpretations of Drug Test Results." Law & Society Review ,
Elizabeth Couture
Professor Jakubovic
English Comp 102-400
29 April 2017
Workplace Drug Testing Have you ever had to submit to a drug test for employment? Where you enter a clinic and feel as if your privacy was invaded and you’ve been declared guilty of some crime you did not commit? When you attempt to comprehend the connotation of the employers mentality, you feel rooted in your safety and the safety of your co-workers. Drug-testing in the workplace has been established in multitudes of diversified industries and corporations in the United States since the 1980s. Following federal and state mandated drug-testing laws, with pre-employment screening, random testing, reasonable suspicion, and post-accident injuries, specifically in safety sensitive positions; the company secures their own liability. Workplace safety, reduced absenteeism, lower company health care expenditures, compensations, higher productivity, and innovation, are all indisputable advantages of permissible drug-free policies. Beginning in the 1970s, an interrelationship of drug detection in the blood was established, this began the advancement of drug observations in particular forms. It wasn’t until the 1980s when the accelerated use of urine became the main matrix in drug detection in both the workplace and clinic environments. In 1986, US President Ronald Reagan regulated workplace testing of employees. “The original order and subsequent Drug-free Workplace Act of 1988 was restricted to urine testing and it only applied to US Federal employees and Federal contractors…” (Tsanaclis, Wicks, and Chasin 83). Couture 2 “Drug use in the workplace costs businesses $75 billion to $100 billion each year, according to the Federal Labor Department” (46). …show more content…
Employees who use illicit substances expose the risk of profitability efficiency, production, and workplace safety. They’re also accompanied with a “higher rate of absenteeism, higher health care and compensation claim costs, and more on-the job injuries” (46). Federal and state laws still mandate workplace drug-testing. When employers utilize the drug testing policy, they are obligated to abide by laws legislated by the state (if applicable) that delegate what workplaces can and can not do (Lu and Kleiner 46-49). Drug testing is pertinent to health and public safety risks such as those laboring with substantially large machinery, including transportation and shipping, such as, freight, railways, and airlines (Tsanaclis, Wicks, and Chasin 83). Because of safety concerns, the majority of corporations have endorsed some sort of form of a Drug Free Workplace Program (DFWP) (Christie 172). The most prevalent of these is pre-employment testing, which prohibits the hiring of any current or recent substance abuser. Although legal as a condition of employment, the employer must give notice of the testing and all applicant are to be treated correspondingly (Lu and Kleiner 50). A second form of drug testing is of random, but still must meet accession with its state regulations. “For example, the Iowa drug testing law prohibits random tests. Therefore, it is un-lawful for employers in Iowa to have random test for employees in a safety-sensitive position” (49). This testing consists of both Discretionary and Systematic. Discretionary random testing allows the employers to request a drug test from the employee at any given time. Systematic Couture 3 testing is still undisclosed but involves a percentage of elected employees to be submitted. “The advantage of this policy is that employers …show more content…
"The U.S. Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing
Programs: Current status and future considerations." Forensic Science International , vol. 174, no. 2-3, 2008, pp. 111-119. OhioLINK Electronic Journal Center , doi:10.1016/J.FORSCIINT.2007.03.008. Christie, Timothy. "A discussion of the ethical implications of random drug testing in the workplace." Healthcare Management Forum , vol. 28, no. 4, 2015, pp. 172-174. OhioLINK Electronic Journal Center , doi:10.1177/0840470415581251.
French, Michael T., M. Christopher Roebuck, and Pierre Kébreau Alexandre. "To test or not to test: do workplace drug testing programs discourage employee drug use?" Social Science Research , vol. 33, no. 1, 2004, pp. 45-63. OhioLINK Electronic Journal Center , doi:10.1016/S0049-089X(03)00038-3.
Jacoby, Jeff. "Oh, Brother." Boston Globe (2006): n. pag. Abstract. (n.d.): n. pag. Print.
Couture 6
Lu, Ying-Tzu, and Brian H. Kleiner. "Drug testing in the workplace." Management Research
News , vol. 27, no. 4-5, 2004, pp.46-53. OhioLINK Electronic Journal Center , doi:10.1108/01409170410784464.
Paik, Leslie. "Organizational Interpretations of Drug Test Results." Law & Society Review ,