Every day companies lose millions of dollars due to employee drug use. Athletes break world records with gargantuan strength, but not on a fair scale. Drugs ruin the lives of users and cause injury to those who must work with users. Detection by officials is necessary to curb this problem. When does the safety for others violate the rights of drug users? Drug testing, whether in the workplace or on the athletic field, is not a violation of civil rights.
"In 1988, the National Institute on Drug Abuse estimated that 12 percent of full-time employed Americans between the ages of 20 and 40 used an illicit drug" (Goldburg 62). Twenty percent of the 14.5 million Americans who use drugs are employed. This fact has convinced many that drug testing at the workplace should be mandatory (Goldburg 51). Sixty percent of the major corporations in America require drug testing as a condition of employment (Goldburg 50). Steven Mitchell Sack asserts that "Experts estimate that more than 50 percent of the major corporations in the United States now engage in drug and alcohol screening before hiring new employees; such tests are on the rise, particularly in high technology and security-conscious industries" (41). Because of such frequent testing, the number of applicants who test positive is down to under five percent (Sack 41).
Not only do the companies pay the price for drug users, but so does the public. The public pays higher prices due to lost productivity from work-related accidents and job absenteeism caused by drug abuse (Goldburg 51). The average drug user is three times as late as fellow employees and has 2.5 times as many absences (Sack 141). A drug user is five times more likely to file a worker's compensation ...
... middle of paper ...
...earche. July 1991:52.
Goldburg, Raymond, ed. Taking Sides. Guilford, Connecticut: Dushkin, 1993.
Huxford, Andrea. "What You Need to Know About Drug Testing in the Work Place." Netscape. http://www.charm.net/~trade/s/stein/index.html
Levy, Leonard W., ed. Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. New York: Macmillan, 1992.
O'Brien, David. "Rx for Disaster." Sun-Sentinel. 14 July 1991: 52-54.
"Policy of Clarkson Construction Company." Pamphlet. No other information given.
Preferred Alliance. "The Road to D.O.T Compliance" Netscape. http://www.preferredalliance.com/
Sack, Steven Mitchell. From Hiring to Firing. New York: Legal Strategies, 1995.
Wornsnop, Richard L. "Athletes and Drugs." CQ Reasearcher. 26 July 1991: 513-519.
Zigarelli, Michael A. Can They Do That? A Guide to Your Rights on the Job. New York: Lexington, 1994
to this question Do drugs tests violate employees’ right to privacy?’ The answers are given by the presentation and the analyzing different views evident in literature so as to build an argumentative case against or in support of, lastly drawing the conclusions set. This is made possible concentrating on a scope which considers the ethics existent in normative theories. It means that theories of a higher philosophical calling considering whether the employees violate the right of privacy of their
School Athlete Drug Testing In the case of the Roanoke County Schools, the schools should be allowed to test student athletes for drugs. This is because the drug tests are not a violation of the students’ 4th Amendment privacy rights. Since this case involves students in a school, different rules apply. Drug testing should also be allowed because the safety of the other student athletes could be threatened if one of them is on drugs. This case is important to the common good because it shows that
personality attributes- drug testing attempts to evaluate candidates by chemically screening their urine for mind-altering substances. By collecting urine samples from job applicants and performing chemical tests on them, employers are able tell whether or not these individuals have illegal substances in their blood streams (Muchinsky, 1997). While a negative result on a drug test certainly does not predict a high level of job performance, those applicants who test positive for drugs are generally viewed
his favor. The evidence collected during the illegal search was in violation of the 4th Amendment and was thus inadmissible at the trial. The Weeks decision was the birth of a new legal doctrine titled ‘The Exclusionary Rule.’ The Exclusionary rule is defined as is a legal principle in the United States, under constitutional law, which holds that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights is sometimes admissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law
samples of employees for drug testing. In my opinion, the public employer should not be able to conduct unreasonable or random drug screening of their employees and it should be balanced with the provisions of the fourth amendment, where drug testing must be based on special governmental needs and balanced against individual privacy rights to avoid a fourth amendment violation. There should be a focus on striking a balance between the competing logic of individual rights, agency needs and public
to an article, “drug use in the workplace has been linked to low productivity, high absenteeism and increases in the number of workplace accidents (Jeanty, n.d., ¶ 1). Yet, drug screening employees and benefit recipients have become a discussion of privacy invasion and the Fourth Amendment. Many would argue on the basis of defamation from their employers and how they have been singled out from the rest of the employees. The government attempted to cease the use of illegal drugs in the workplace
Meth, marijuana, cocaine, and heroin are among the top drugs that many people use and utilized as money making tactics. As we all know, drugs are found and they are heavily used in low income areas, not only do they pose a significant effect on one’s health but they pose a significant effect on our economy. Generally it is perceived that those who reside in low income areas are the ones who resort to drugs, evidently they are. Likewise, they are also the ones who are assumed to be enlisted on government
This paper will discuss not only the rights of the employee in the workplace, but also the company’s obligation to ensure a safe working environment. An employee has the right to privacy in the workplace. However, these rights are fewer at work than in their personal life. There is debate on what is moral, ethical, and legal in regards to monitoring the actions of an employee in the workplace by the employer. Is the use of a polygraph or drug test morally justified by the employer or is it a
constitutionality affecting random drug testing implemented by local public schools in Vernonia, Oregon States. This provision mandates student athletes to undergo drug testing before they are going to be allowed to participate in sporting activities. This particular measure established by the constitution stated that it propagates any illegal use of any prohibited substances for students in order to preserve the integrity of the society in particular with handling against drug use. An official investigation
fundamental labor rights - including the right to privacy, fair compensation, and non-discrimination. The applicant also has certain rights, even before being hired as an employee. These rights include the right to freedom from discrimination based on age, sex, race, origin or religion during the hiring process. For example, an employer may ask a candidate questions of the family during the hiring process. In most states, employees are entitled to privacy in the workplace. This right to privacy applies
Random drug testing in schools has been a controversial and heated topic for a long time. Random drug testing involves a school administration spontaneously picking a student or a group of students on any given day, and testing them for the presence of drugs in their system. Schools usually enforce this policy on any student who either participates in a sport or extracurricular activity through the school, or has a parking pass at the school. The test is commonly done by a urinalysis, where a sample
over whether or not Welfare recipients should be drug tested to receive the benefits. The lines of reasoning from both sides of this argument have unambiguous points. Those who oppose the idea of drug testing say that it is unconstitutional, and violates the Fourth Amendment. Furthermore, they claim that this law stereotypes and discriminates against the poor , implying that because they are poor, they must be drug addicts. However, individuals that support the law, express that the plan being
baggies, a large quantity of money, and a list of individuals that owed T.L.O. money. As the evidence mounted, both T.L.O.’s mother and the police got involved. A confession to marijuana dealing by T.L.O. resulted in criminal delinquency charges in juvenile court and placing T.L.O on probation.
November’s election about drugs, and drug treatment. This measure is called Proposition 36. If this measure were to pass, state law would be changed, so that certain non-violent adult offenders who use or possess illegal drugs would receive drug treatment and supervision in the community, not prison. Right now California is ranked number one in the nation for its rate of imprisonment for drug offenders. If Proposition 36 passes, California could become number one for its treatment for drug offenders. The measure
WORKPLACE SAFETY Drug-Free Workplace Rules No employee may manufacture, distribute, dispense, possess, buy, sell, or use any alcohol, illegal drugs, or un-prescribed (for the employee) controlled substances while on the job (including meal and break time), or in a Company vehicle, or while on Company property (including parking lot and grounds). The penalty for this is termination. No employee may report to work or be at work under the influence of alcohol, illegal drugs or un-prescribed (for