Drug testing in the workplace is a mandate of the government which aims to ensure that employees are not influenced by drugs which could hamper their performance in the job, and not endanger the clients and the people that the company caters to. Drug has been one of the serious problems in the society which was found to have affected not only the vulnerable young ones, but almost everyone regardless of age. People resort to drugs for several different reasons, and most often than not, one’s venture to the use of this substance results to a longer dependency that threatens to weaken the foundation of one’s personality and future. This serious effect in the people’s lives of the use of drugs calls for urgent and effective measures that would prevent the spread of drug use in the society, particulalry in the workplace where there could be many casualties put at risk.
Among the most common drugs circulating in the society, marijuana is the most widely used substance. This prevalence use of marijuana has also pervaded the offices, which has instigated drug-testing among employees in the workplace. Although there are only a few studies which support the claim of a direct link between drug use, productivity, and safety, company employers find it prudent to free their company of employees who will be proven positively using drugs. However, this policy is not welcomed with much enthusiasm, refering to random drug testing as an invasion of privacy apart from it being costly. Other contradicting factors also pooint out to the unresolved legal issues surrounding the practice, and the presumed poor test reliability (Osterloh and Becker 506). As such, most companies today adapt preemployment and probable-cause testing.
Although it has been established that drug use is not correlated with safety in the workplace, some cases which point out to this claim are serious enough to warrant a deeper exploration. Such is the case of the crash of a Navy jet in 1981 on the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier which claimed the lives of many and injured a great number of enlisted men. Investigations on the case showed surprising and relevant results as tests showed that apart from the pilot who was found positive in drug use, many other military men who were tested were also found to be using drugs. These findings resulted to a series of testing in the military field. With the great responsibilities that military men hold, not only to ensure the public’s safety, but to guarantee that they won’t abuse the power they hold and the weapons they possess, then President Ronald Regan issued a mandate that had people in the federal workplace submitting to a mandatory drug testing. Through Executive Order 12564, a firmer drug testing mandate was formed and implemented, which had federal employees, contractors, and employees of non-mandated industries required to undergo drug testing (Fortner et al).
After the implementation of drug testing among employees showed positive feedbacks, non-mandated industries have also willingly adopted the practice. In Fortune 500 companies, the number of employees tested in 1980 reached 18%, and this increased to 40% by 1991 (Hartwell et al 35). Other surveys conducted by other government bodies also show relative increase in the number of people tested, such as that of the American Management Association which was conducted in 1988. Accordingly, results of the said survey indicated an increase in testing which were conducted among employees and applicants as well (Hartwell et al 35). These data lent credence to the government’s and other companies’ intense fight against drug abuse. However, in smaller companies, such large numbers were not observed, as report state that only 16% of the total nnumber of their applicants were required to go through drug testing. This significant difference can be attributed to the nature of the companies involved, wherein no strict compliance to the drug testing was exercised in companies involved in banking, retail trade, and services, and other financial services. However, in companies where hazard is relatively high, such as in companies manufacturing gas and those involved in electrical utilities (Hartwell et al 36). Despite the varying number in every company, it is still aparent that the companies are taking the fight against drugs seriously. While there were also other serious substance abuse problems that need to be addressed, such as alcohol abuse, the attention and measures that was given to drug testing has somehow influenced similar decrease in other substance abuse cases.
Today, urine testing is commonly used to test drug in the workplace, and has helped immensely in keeping the number of those who were tested positive at a minimum of 0% to 15% since its implementation (Osterloh et al. 506). Those employees who are found to be using drugs through the test were thought to be given punitive and remedial punishments. However, this was not the goal of the policy, which was mainly aimed at detering the continuous use of drugs. Employees who are found to be using drugs are given assistance by the company through their employee assistance programs. Although this may not sit well with others, companies find this method better than finding a new employee whom they will train again, which will also cost more compared to simply providing rehabilitation assistance. Companies who conduct drug testing among their employees aim to ensure that the workplace will be a safe place for everyone, increase productivity, and maintain product integrity for those companies involved in manufacturing (Osterloh et al. 506).
While drug testing inside the workplace is still in place, the most popular type testing. Companies have classified this as the most effective as well, as before an employee gets accepted in the company, there is already a guarantee that s/he is not into drugs. Some reports state that in smaller companies, regular employees are not necessarily required to undergo testing, unless there is probable cause to require one. Companies decide on who to require to undergo drug testing based on probable cause by observing employee performance. Random-drug testing, on the other hand, is not a popular choice among companies, as this requires frequent collection of urine sample which can be costly. In addition, a high level of management is also required in such type of testing as for it to be successful, employees should not be made known of the test beforehand to prevent them from abstaining in case they are using. Abstaining from using drugs days before the test will most likely yield a negative result.
With all the types and methods of drug testing being practiced today, an important issue arises due to the ongoing debate about legalizing marijuana. As of late, 23 states in the US have already legalized marijuana, leading to employers questioning about how this new law will affect the existing drug testing policies in their companies (Ilgaz). Also, the question of how they will be able to ensure optimum performance from their employees, as well as guarantee safety in the work place, continue to pile up.
Drug use has been a prevalent problem in the society that appears to continue to worsen as years passed. The practice of drug testing is one effective method that would somehow regulate the growing numberof drug users, especially in the work place. Companies who practice drug testing look into its benefits in making sure that the company is safe and that employees are able to perform well in their jobs. It was also paramount to company owners that the quality of products they produce remain high. Among these reasons, company safety is the most serious concern as drug use can lead to malpractice and decreased performance that may result to a rather dangerous situation. This is especially true in companies which are classified as highly hazardous, such as those which are involve in handling dangerous chemicals. In instances such as these, drug testing prove to be effective, in addition to its general goal of decreasing drug use.
Works Cited
Fortner, Neil A., David M. Martin, S. Evren, and Laura Shelton. “Employee drug testing: Study
shows improved productivity and attendance and decreased workers’ compensation and turnover.” The Journal of Global Drug Ploicy and Practice. Web. 22 Apr 2016.
Ilgaz, Seynep. “How Marijuana Legislation Will Affect Testing in the Workplace.” Forbes. 30
Sep 2014. Web. 22 Apr 2016.
Osterloh, J.D. and C. E. Becker. “Chemical dependency and drug testing in the workplace.”
Western Journal of Medicine 152(5), pp.506-513. Web. 22 Apr 2016.
Rothstein, Mark A. “Drug testing in the workplace: The challenge to employment relations and
employment law – The Kenneth M. Piper Lecture.” Symposium on Causation in the Law of Torts 63(3). Web. 22 Apr 2016.
