The phrase “workplace place drug testing” is the process of examining biological substances to identify drugs or their metabolites present in a body. Urine tests are the most prevalent form of drug testing in the United States. However, other tests such as hair, sweat and saliva tests are administered to determine the presence of unnecessary substances. For those people who consume alcohol, breath tests are carried out to determine the level of toxicology. Workplace drug testing takes different forms and carried out at different times, with the common forms being; post-accident testing, random testing of workers and pre-employment testing. The application of drug testing has been extensively used on sports and in the judicial system to curb doping and illegal drug use. In addition, there has been recent media and public deliberations of the possibility of extending the use of drug testing in schools as well as the police service (Steiner and Steiner 16).
Work-related drug testing has been on the rise in the United States with prospects of a significant increase in the near future, to some extent, influenced by the marketing campaign of drug testing services to current and potential employers. Workplace drug testing has turned out to be a major safety aspect in the place or work for both safety professionals and human resources. A sizeable number of Fortune 500 companies has embraced and supported drug testing. The intention is to minimize the impact from drug abuse in the place of work. Most drug-use related impacts such as absenteeism, attitude problems, tardiness, and violence have been associated with reduced employees’ production. According to the United States department of labor, the use of drugs by workers costs employers over $80 billion annually in workers compensation costs, drug-related accidents and healthcare. Another study by Simpson reveals that over 70% of all work-related accidents are linked to drugs or alcohol, and substance abusers exploit health care benefits 18times more than non-abusers. In addition, drug users are over six times more probable to make workers' compensation claims as compared to non-drug users (Simpson 73).
The subject of workplace drug testing is compound and has legal, ethical, economic, social and scientific dimensions. Nevertheless, the issues that it raises are not just technical ones for the pertinent experts. They comprise questions concerning the quickly changing nature of leisure and work and leisure in the contemporary world; the equilibrium between the welfare of employers and the privacy of employees; the connection between substance abuse and workplace-related tension. The development of workplace drug testing could have a philosophical impact on all current and potential employees in the United States, and there is a risk that this practice might become a routine in the lack of a proper and full public debate.
With the enlargement of the trade amalgamation group and sensitive responsiveness of the significance of personal civil rights, American employees came to persist that being off the employment was their confidential concern not to be inspected by bosses. However, big gaps have started to emerge in the barrier that has alienated time on and off the employment, mainly owing to the introduction of modern technologies that make it likely for managers to supervise their workers' off-duty behavior. Currently, millions of American employees each year, in both the public and personal divisions are forced to engage in urinalysis drug checks as a provision of acquiring or maintaining an employment position (Wadsworth and Smith 35).
The American Civil Liberties Union contests unsystematic urine testing since the procedure is both unjust and needless. It is unreasonable to push employees who are not even alleged of using drugs, and whose employment deliverability is acceptable, to "confirm" their virtue through a shameful and doubtful process that defies individual confidentiality. Such checks are pointless, since they cannot discover injuries. Therefore, never improve a boss' capability to estimate or foretell job efficiency.
Based on the words of Louis Brandeis, a US High Court Judge, innocent individuals do have something to conceal: their personal life. The right to privacy is appreciated and inclusive of human rights. It is unreasonable to compel workers who are not even alleged of using drugs to "verify" their virtuousness through a humiliating and vague system that infringes individual confidentiality. of an individual's urine can reveal numerous facts regarding that individual's personal life other than usage of drugs. It can inform a manager, whether a worker or employment candidate is being treated for a heart disease, dejection, epilepsy or diabetes. It can also disclose if a worker is pregnant or not.
All managers must confer with lawful consultants to guarantee that they conform to any appropriate nation or local regulations and plan their analysis course to endure lawful confrontations. In companies where employees are in unions, the execution of checking plans should be discussed. Even at times when testing is compulsory by Federal rules, specific features of how the strategy is executed ought to be consented to through joint negotiations. Most workers in the United States are not obligated to drug investigation and numerous nation and local administrations have laws that restrict or forbid work-related drug tests, unless when needed by country or federal rules for specific reasons. Moreover, drug testing is not necessary in the Drug-Free place of work Act of 1988 (Wadsworth and Smith 33).
Drug testing can comprise an essential part in safety-significance and other professions where the community is allowed to anticipate the uppermost values of security and decency. Apart from this, there is no validation for drug checking basically as a technique of regulating the personal conduct of the personnel, nor is it a suitable device for coping with most employee efficiency problems. Even where drug testing is reasonable, it must be performed with vigilance, and executed in a reasonable, obvious and comprehensive approach. The IIDTW winds up that superior inclusive supervision is the most successful technique for realizing increased output, improved security, small truant rates, poor personnel proceeds and a consistent and accountable labor force. For nearly all companies, investment in administration teaching and schemes will have additional effect on protection, deliverability and efficiency than drug testing at workplaces (Steiner and Steiner 23).