Pre-employment drug testing is a social phenomenon that has become commonplace in modern day America. The main reason why employers resort to such measures is not particularly because they want to discriminate against drug users, but because they would like to boost efficiency in the work place. Essentially, the human resources are the life and blood of the organization. Efficiency and consistency in the human resources department ensures that there is a smooth flow of activities in the organization. A smooth flow of activities can only flow if there are not disturbances in the nature of the human resource body. Disturbances come in many forms, but the worst form of disturbance is labor turnover. Labor turnover is a phenomenon that sees the workforce of an organization change from time to time. Such changes come when employees leave the organization at unfavorable rates. Andre and Manuel argue that drug abuse could be one of the reasons causing such turnover, and that this is the main reason why employers carry out pre-employment drug testing (1). This paper is an explication of the dilemma on whether pre-employment drug testing is a way of reducing employee turnover or a violation of the rights of the citizenry.
According to Silver (937) drug testing prior to employment is a necessary evil. The main reason why he argues thus is because drug testing as a way evaluating the people joining the work force of an organization, is an effective tool of ensuring the people employed are serious and focused. Apparently, the main reason why people leave an organization is because they are incompetent and less focused on their work. Lack of professional focus is the cause of difficulties in learning. Essentially, the people in an organization are always in a position to undergo continuous training. Where drug addicts and ardent users are part of the work force, there is likelihood that they will not learn the new tactics. This will make them incompetent and in the long run, they will somehow have to leave the organization. This, according to Silver is one among the reasons why employers are resorting to pre-employment drug testing. Essentially the turnover impacts negatively on the overall efficiency of the workforce as the employer will spend time and resources on training new staff.
Among the major causes of turnover in an organization according to Mooney (97) is violence. Violence in the workplace is common and manifests in various ways. Apparently, in many organizations people may be in constant conflict over the use of resources, the access to assets and so on. It, however, becomes an issue of concern, when the conflicts degenerate into violence. Research indicates that victims of work place violence are as likely to leave the organization as are there assailants. Social scientists further reveal that people that are addicted to drugs, or have a recent history of drugs are more likely to be violent than are sober minded people. To reduce turnover resulting from incidences of violence, it is only reasonable that the employer locks out the drug user through comprehensive pre-employment drug testing.
Schmitt (1) argues that absenteeism is one among the most prominent challenges that the human resource managers have to work with. When employees are absent from duty, they contribute to absenteeism in two ways. First, they increase their chances of dismissal from duty and secondly, they demoralize other esteemed workers, who may as well consider quitting because they bear too much workload when their colleagues are away, especially without explanation. Absenteeism is a common feature of a worker that uses drugs and other intoxicants. The use of such intoxicants leaves people with hangovers that may last up to twenty four hours. These may make the person stay away from duty causing inconveniences. In point of fact, no employer will tolerate such a worker. This means that the individual will be dismissed from duty. This adds to the turnover rate injuring the organization’s efforts to deliver quality and meeting customer demands on time. The overall effect is that the employer will end up losing a lot in terms of time and resources.
Negligence has seen many employees leave their organizations because such negligence costs the employer a lot in terms of compensation and convenience. As Kinsley (1) explains, a person on drugs cannot perform effectively in handling such functions as the technically involving factory operations. There have been instances when poor quality and even toxic products were released into the market because of poor handling of the production process. A drunk, or a person high on cocaine or any other hard drug will not be in a position to make accurate measurements of chemicals, for example. On the contrary, it takes sobriety to handle such technical roles. When an employee mishandles products, the employer will vicariously bear the burden. Taking an example where a consumer buys toxic products that are toxic as a result of poor mixing of the ingredients, the employer will have to compensate the consumer for the life threatening incident. Assuming that the court is involved, the employee responsible for the action will be identified and fired, adding to turnover. In order to keep such cases on the low, Mooney (95) recommends pre-employment drug testing.
Contrary to the above explanations, there is a big tide of court rulings arguing that such drug testing for employment is an abuse of rights of individuals. According to the appellate courts, the pre-employment testing practice violates the citizens’ rights as outlined in the fourth amendment. Apparently, the fourth amendment protects the citizenry from unreasonable search and seizure. In explaining this point, Silver argues that obtaining blood, urine or any part of the citizen’s system for drug testing amounts to unreasonable search (879). Perhaps the most critical point to note at this juncture is the reality that the word unreasonable is quite subjective and could be interpreted differently by different individuals. This makes the pre-employment testing impracticable and quite unjustifiable. While seizure is not part of the policy, the part concerned about unreasonably searching an individual is quite clear and applicable.
Critics have argued that the US is one among the developed nations championing for Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO). They further argue that barring people with a history of drug abuse is a discriminatory move as it leaves out some candidate, who in normal circumstances should be considered qualified. The fact that there could be traces of drugs and substances in the blood stream of an individual does not imply that the individual currently uses the drugs (Mooney 156). It therefore becomes unfair that people have to be barred from accessing employment opportunities because of what was done in the past. It is a matter of the law that all people recognized as citizens be given equal opportunity in accessing factors that will enable them to improve their living standards.
In conclusion, it is noteworthy that, from the foregoing, drug testing is a way of reducing labor turnover rather than abusing human rights. It therefore follows that the pre-employment drug testing practice should be upheld in the US as it not only reduces labor turnover, but also protects the members of the work force from violence and ensures near zero cases of negligence. Pre-employment testing is a way of ensuring that the employer samples out the best type of employees, who will remain dedicated to the success of the organization. The legal perspectives of the policy do not make approve of testing. Even so, policy serves to reduce turnover than to violate rights.
Works cited
Andre, Claire and Manuel Velasquez. “This Is A Test: The Dilemmas Of Drug Testing.” Ethics, 2012
Kinsey, Alan. “The Benefits Of Pre-Employment Screening.” Inquire Hire, 2011
Mooney, Linda A. Understanding Social Problems. Toronto: Nelson Education, 2012. Print.
Schmitt, Jesse. “Pre-Employment Drug Testing Reduces Turnover”. Yahoo! Contributor Network, 2012
Silver, Isidore. Public Employee Discharge and Discipline. New York: Panel Publishers, 2001. Print.
