Employee drug use is an expensive problem that American companies face. To compound the situation there are public opinions that support and dispute the ethical dilemma of employer drug testing. Employee drug use costs employers tens of millions of dollars every year. The Department of Labor(2004) states "70% of illegal drug users are employed." Drug use causes businesses to suffer losses due to theft, health care costs, work-related accidents, and absenteeism. Around half of American employers require employee drug testing. Employee drug use costs American businesses $75 - $100 billion dollars every year (2004).
The most common type of employee drug testing is part of the pre-employment screening process. Employers have every legal right not to hire applicants who use illicit drugs and to use drug testing as part of their selection process. The second most common form of drug testing is random drug screening. When employees are in a safety sensitive job position the use of systematic random drug testing is legal, but must be a forewarned clause within their employment contract (Lu, Kleiner, 2004).
Zing-Tzu Lu and Brian Kleiner are experts in the field of human resource management. Both scholars believe that drug testing in the workplace leads to increased worker productivity. (2004)
Employer’s rights to test employees for drug use rely on the potential hazards related to the particular position of the employee they wish to test. When an employee poses a risk to others than the employer has the right and a duty to protect others from harm caused by an employee’s illicit drug use (Lu, Kleiner, 2004). Tamara Lytle (2014) wrote in HR magazine that “employers face a legal reality the risk of liability if a high worker was involved in a vehicle or workplace accident” (p. 45).
On the other side of the ethical debate, Sullum argues that company policies imposing drug testing invades the rights of employees. Jacob Sullum, Reason magazine’s senior editor, claims that employee drug testing policies degrades and invades employee privacy. He argues that human rights trump the rights of the organization. Sullum uses the assumption that if an employee has the right to protect their privacy then forced drug testing is an invasion of the employees right to privacy to base his argument against employee drug testing (2002).
Though human rights come precede the rights of the organization, society has the right not to suffer from damage caused by criminal behavior. The organization has a duty to ensure that their employees are not partaking in high-risk illicit drug use that can cause damage and harm to others (Sullum, 2002).
After a careful examination of both sides of the debate regarding the use of drug testing in the workplace, I have come to the conclusion that I support corporate drug testing policies. Sullum’s argument can be easily deconstructed using a legal platform. Yes, employees have the right to protect their privacy however their employers have the right to ensure that as part of their employment contract the employees are adhering to the law. Employers have had a right to screen the criminal records of applicants and monitor for any employee criminal activity for many years. Adding a drug testing clause to an employment contract is only an invasion of privacy if the employee has broken the criminal code by using illicit substances. Therefore, employer drug testing is not a breach of human rights if the person is not already breaking criminal law and using illegal drugs; in the American justice system criminal law is enforced over and above contractual law. Most employee contracts already have clauses affirming that criminal behavior is grounds for immediate dismissal (Sullum, 2002).
A study done by Murphy et al. (1991) tested public attitudes to determine if public opinion supports employee drug testing policies and if their opinions about the dangers associated with the job position co-related with their attitudes about employee drug testing policies. The study found a high correlation between the danger associated with a job and attitudes supporting employer drug testing.
In conclusion, it is my opinion that drug testing policies protect society. After examining the material carefully, I don’t feel it is ethical for organization to allow drug abusing employees to raise costs and more importantly endanger society. Employers deserve a drug free workplace; the benefits of a drug free workplace includes more productive employees, higher moral, lower health care costs, less absenteeism, less on the job injuries, and fewer compensation claims. My opinion is a reflection of the courts, if a person does not break the law than they should have no need to hide their drug addiction.
References
Lu, Y., Kleiner, B. (2004). Drug Testing in the Workplace. Management Research News, 27, 4-5.
Lytle, T. (2014). Marijuana Maelstrom. HR Magazine, 59(6), 42-48.
Murphy, K. R., Thornton III, G. C., & Prue, K. (1991). Influence of Job Characteristics on the Acceptability of Employee Drug Testing.Journal Of Applied Psychology, 76(3), 447-453.
Sullum, J., (2002). Urine—or You’re Out: Drug Testing is Invasive, Insulting and Generally Irrevelevent to Job Performance. Why Do So Many Companies Insist On It? Reason
