Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Employer vs employee rights
Critical essay concerning “drug testing: how both employers and employees benefit”
Critical essay concerning “drug testing: how both employers and employees benefit”
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Employer vs employee rights
In the workplace, a lot of topics have controversy on what should be allowed and what shouldn’t. Drug testing is one that is placed high up on those topics. Should employers be allowed to drug test employees in the workplace? In all situations the answer should be yes. If employees don’t have anything to hide, then why not take the test and pass. For people who disagree, they believe that it goes against one’s liberties and private rights, drug testing is unreliable, and it cost more to issue these test then not to. However, in today’s society drug testing has been increasing in the workplace. To go into more depth with drug testing, you can discuss random drug testing and argue about testing in states that legalize marijuana. Drug testing varies from state depending on the laws present, but for many states employees are require to take a drug before hiring. For all state employees and private employees are …show more content…
Not only does a drug test show drug use, but it also shows other health problems such as diabetes. An employer receives a full evaluation of that employee and what to expect. Someone may feel employers drug test in order to check up on their employees, but an employer needs to go through a lot of factors to conduct it. Even after conducting it, to fire an employee over it a lot has to go on. It has to go all on the books and a file needs to be reported, but like I said earlier no employer wants to make their life harder. With laws today against discrimination, employees have so many options they can do to challenge it. The cost of drug testing is an expense cost at the hands of the employer, but If they feel the need to spend money to test employees they plan to run a high productivity workplace. It comes out of pocket for a small private employer and if they are willing to spend the money on it, it their
As much as 95% of employers favor urine testing as a method for drug testing, and this one piece of statistic may have positively affected the trend and demand for synthetic urine over the years.
The chapter, Selling in Minnesota, had some disturbing information about the low wage life. As I read, I learned that every place the author went to apply, such as a Wal-Mart and a Home Depot type place called Menards, required the applicant to pass a drug test. The author went out and had to buy detox for $30, but can be up to $60. Also, I learn that 81% of employers do drug test their future employees. I don’t like this statistic, in part because I tried getting a job at Marshall Field’s restaurant and they required me to pass a drug test. Luckily, another employer called me before my scheduled drug screening (which I had planned on passing by being really sneaky and using the urine of a friend of mine), so I took that job offer and everything worked out well. The reason I don’t agree with the drug testing required to access most entry-level jobs, is because the only drugs they actually test for is Marijuana. Cocaine and heroine leave the body within three days, and other drugs aren’t even tested for. So that leaves the most commonly used illicit drug, and one that has the least affect on the user, to be tested for.
...ult, and some times it does not give a result at all. It is unfair because it only targets certain workers; mainly low wage employees. It is unjust because people are automatically accused of using drugs, and that is why the drug test is given. Drug testing should not be abolished, but it should be a more controlled issue since it is something everyone in the US must go through.
This is a very divisive issue in Missouri and there are people that support the drug testing and those that oppose it. An article in Fox News discusses the supporter’s point of view. People want to make clear that “you don’t get something for nothing.” Also, jobs require drug testing, so why should benefits have the same...
Drug testing is designed to detect and punish conduct that is usually engaged on-duty and off the employer's premises - that is, in private. Employers who conduct random drug tests on workers who are not suspected of using drugs are policing private behavior that has no impact on job performance. Someone may test positive after taking a drug days, weeks or months before. People are not generally required to organize their lives to maximize their productivity at work, and employers do not have a direct law enforcement function.... ...
In my opinion I feel that this time of authority drug test are not effective. ” It would seem that if this policy were to make way that there would not be such a large rate of recidivism” (U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1999). It takes more that sending a person to prison to break them of their habits. The means which are necessary to aid the cause of ending a drug habit are not available with this policy. Under the Bill of rights, the four rights that this policy violates are, The right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to be treated the same as others.
One of the significant issues that frequently evident by the organizations is the privacy policy related to workers. According to Wright (2013), the utilization of workplace drug testing policy by the employers might affect the workers' behavior outside the workplace.
Some high schools require athletes to submit to random chemical testing for illegal drug use. On the other hand, other schools and coaches believe that random drug testing is stating that all athletes are guilty of wrongdoing instead of believing they are innocent. There can be advantages and disadvantages to both sides, although random chemical testing for illegal drug use is the smartest idea. Having random drug tests is used for precautions, influences some to not do drugs if they are considering it, and encourages students to be their best.
In today’s society, everybody is encountered with drugs at least once. The reason for this is due to family, friends, or references in the media. Teenagers are often influenced by their peers to do drugs, and they need to be tested at their schools to prevent adolescents from partaking in this activity because the number of their peers will diminish. However, there are people who believe that testing students is against their constitutional rights. On the other hand, there are those who believe that it needs to be done to protect adolescents from using illegal drugs. Drug testing needs to take place in schools to protect all students from the physical and emotional toll on the body.
“A medical dictionary defines a drug as ‘any substance that when taken into the living organism may modify one or more of its functions’” (Newton 12). However, when speaking of drug testing for abuse a person is usually thinking about illegal drugs or drugs that can alter athletic performance in sporting events. Mandatory drug testing was not allowed in public schools until June 2002 when the Supreme Court allowed for public schools to do random drug testing (Carroll 23). This decision allowed for drug testing in all schools throughout the United States not just for athletes but also students who are in any activities within the school, for example clubs and competitive events (Carroll 23). Even though drug testing is now allowed by the Supreme Court many schools do not yet have mandatory drug test policies. Mandatory drug testing for high school athletes should be required because it decreases drug use in schools, is relatively inexpensive, and can prevent drug use and or abuse that can lead to a lifelong addiction.
The ethics of drug testing has become an increased concern for many companies in the recent years. More companies are beginning to use it and more people are starting more to have problems with it. The tests are now more than ever seen as a way to stop the problems of drug abuse in the workplace. This brings up a very large question. Is drug testing an ethical way to decide employee drug use? It is also very hard to decide if the test is an invasion of employee privacy. “The ethical status of workplace drug testing can be expressed as a question of competing interests, between the employer’s right to use testing to reduce drug related harms and maximize profits, over against the employee’s right to privacy, particularly with regard to drug use which occurs outside the workplace.” (Cranford 2) The rights of the employee have to be considered. The Supreme Court case, Griswold vs. Connecticut outlines the idea that every person is entitled to a privacy zone. However this definition covers privacy and protection from government. To work productively especially when the work may be physical it is nearly impossible to keep one’s privacy. The relationship between employer and employee is based on a contract. The employee provides work for the employer and in return he is paid. If the employee cannot provide services because of problems such as drug abuse, then he is violating the contract. Employers have the right to know many things about their employees.
When employees get hired, they get a drug test due to the fact that the drug testing can prove if the person they are hiring is a good person for their business. For an example “Approximately eighty-one percent of companies in the United States administer drug testing to their employees.” Drug testing also proves that people who passes it are clean and responsible people who the company can trust on doing their job well done and showing overall percentage of the US using drug testing (Chodorow). People who cheat on a drug test and gets a job will later ruin their job of getting into accidents during working and or start a fight with the boss or coworkers unknowingly just because they were high on drugs. That is why companies strive to do drug tests every time they hire an employee now due to the fact that they don’t want to be reliable for an employee who isn’t responsible and trustworthy of their time at their company. Which it will affect the company financially once employees gets hurt on their job. An employee who is not a drug abuser can really benefit a company by not causing trouble for themselves getting hurt in the company and also the business not being reliable for anything that is caused by the employee; who was not responsible. Another example is that reports confirm that 80% of those injured in “serious drug related accidents are innocent coworkers.” And after it began requiring accidents drug
...ey to getting a good job, but high school students can’t get their education if they are caught up in doing drugs. Over thirty percent of dropouts in the United States are because of drugs. The thirty percent of drug addict dropouts may never find a job. Thats why it is important for high school drug testing to be enforced among all students. High school drug testing would allow early notice of drug use and allow the school to steer the student into the right path towards success. The drug tests will give students confidence and another reason to say “No” when being peer pressured into trying drugs. Many would argue that drug testings invade their privacy, but with drug usage being at an all time high who can we count on? High schools are made to prepare students for their future, and in order to make the students successful we must allow high school drug testings.
A basic argument for the anti drug testing is the simple fact that random drug testing in schools would be an invasion of privacy. The fourth amendment to our constitution which states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” was put in place to protect citizens of this country against policies like the random drug tests. Without probable cause there is no need to do random drug tests, what happens to those children who have tried a drug such as “pot” and not liked it. If a random drug test happens to take place within a month of the time that child experimented with the drug, then they will suffer great consequences depending on the rules of that school. I...
Mandatory drug tests have proven to help teenagers reduce the use of drugs and alcohol in their daily lives. If young people get used to it when they are young, it’s proven that they would have a difficult time trying to loss their addiction to the substance. Helps the person without any criminal chargers but with all the help needed. They even have different types of drug tests to show the time period of when the person might have taken a drug recently.