The Effectiveness of Drug Testing in the Workplace Essay Example

use marijuana and around 1.25 million individuals habitually consume cocaine while working.

Their employers may find employees who engage in drug and alcohol abuse to be a liability despite their employment. According to SAMHSA (2000), these individuals are only 67% functional, which costs their companies a staggering $81 billion annually due to lost productivity. Even though the cost of conducting a drug test ranges from $25 to $65 depending on testing volume and type, as reported by the Operational Health and Safety Services (2004), this expense is insignificant compared to the potential cost of employing substance-abusing individuals. Recent studies conducted by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (2008) have compared substance-abusing employees with non-substance abusers.

The information presented indicates that substance-using employees often have increased job turnover, higher absenteeism rates, decreased productivity, and more workers' compensation claims. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) reports that alcoholism is responsible for 40% of workplace fatalities and 47% of work-related injuries. While some argue that drug testing violates privacy rights and harms competent employees, Jennifer Hurley's (1999) article challenges employee drug testing as ineffective and unconstitutional.

This article focuses on The American Civil Liberties Union, which aims to safeguard employee rights and opposes drug testing as a breach of Civil Rights under the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, the ACLU asserts that drug screenings are an untrustworthy indicator of employee impairment.

The ACLU argues that an employee's productivity should be the sole basis for an employer to conclude that the employee is using drugs. However, employees may argue against drug testing without any suspicion if it entails an unnecessary expense. In reality, most companies save money by implementing drug testing

for their workers. Tamara L. Roleff's (2005) article asserts that drug abuse among employees causes a significant rise in medical claims and workers' compensation payouts, which subsequently increases the premiums paid by the employer for such benefits. This, in turn, affects the employee's paycheck and raises the prices in other areas as well.

According to Charles . P Cozic's (1998) report, the plant where your car was made may have employed workers who used illicit drugs, which could have increased the cost of your car by up to $430. This applies to cars in the U.S.

The Department of Labor is recognized as a leading innovator in implementing drug-free workplace programs by the USDL (2008). To achieve success, five key components are identified including a mandatory drug-free workplace policy. The policy should state reasons for implementation and clarify prohibited behaviors while outlining consequences for violations. In addition, supervisor training is critical since they work closely with employees. They must understand how to enforce the policy and recognize signs of substance abuse that may impact employee performance.

The program includes an education component aimed at familiarizing workers with their company's policies and benefits. This education is provided regularly through seminars, guest speeches, and orientation for new employees. Additionally, the program offers assistance programs to provide support for employees facing difficulties related to alcohol or drugs.

The Employee Assistance Programs (EAP) are crucial for the Drug Free Workplace Program, especially for those employees who may have personal difficulties with drugs or alcohol. These programs demonstrate respect towards employees by offering counseling, referrals and legal assistance to those in need. Additionally, drug testing is a vital aspect of

the program. Many companies include it in their pre-employment screening process to evaluate candidates' eligibility for employment. Some businesses also conduct random, periodic or post-accident drug testing after hiring.

Despite being a component of the Drug Free Workplace Program, drug testing frequently fails to definitively establish whether an individual was impaired at the time of an accident. To enhance efficacy, all businesses should embrace a dependable Drug Free program that incorporates pre-employment drug screening. It is vital for organizations to thoughtfully weigh various elements before instituting such a strategy, even in the United States.

According to the Department of Health and Human Services (2007), if a company is considering implementing a Drug Free Workplace Program, it is recommended that they begin by "Thinking Things Through." This involves defining clear goals and acquiring knowledge about existing policies and programs before beginning the program. The USDHHS also suggests that companies should involve their employees in the process, as they are the most crucial resource for an organization. By involving employees, the plan can create awareness about the new program and increase their willingness to comply with it.

The department emphasizes the significance of having unambiguous and consistently reviewed written policies, which will prevent any misunderstandings and ensure employees comprehend them effortlessly. Such consistency in policy creation would lead to employees perceiving it as equitable. It is imperative to write policies in a comprehensible manner, while also ensuring testing accuracy by utilizing professional and precise laboratories.

Although rare, individuals may receive a "false positive" result on drug tests, indicating drug use despite none occurring. This typically only occurs with prescription narcotics. However, if an employee can provide proper documentation of a doctor's

prescription, there should be no confusion. The Department of Health and Human Services stresses the importance of effective communication for corporations introducing new drug testing policies. Suggestion boxes, regular training sessions, and written materials for all levels of employees can aid in a smooth transition while ensuring everyone is informed. In the past, privacy concerns were common during the US employment process.

Previously, companies would inquire about personal details such as religion, political affiliation, marital status, and even the type of contraceptive being used. These invasive questions were likely used to evaluate the potential liability of a job candidate and determine if additional parental benefits were necessary. However, current employers have realized the significance of individual rights and acknowledge that workers should be entitled to privacy and personal lives outside of work. While some may consider drug testing an invasion of privacy, I personally do not share this perspective.

Implementing a program for a drug-free workplace can lead to significant savings for companies by reducing liabilities on their balance sheet. Personally, I have no objections about taking a urinalysis test if it means reducing costs for my company and potentially increasing my salary. Cozic, Charles P. (1998) addresses this topic in Current Controversies: Illegal Drugs.

The National Drug Free Workplace Alliance website includes information about the Drug Free Workplace Act of 1988, which emphasizes the advantages of drug screening in enhancing workplace environments. The act was created on April 11, 1988 and revised on May 25, 1990. The referenced article can be viewed on the website until September 17, 2008 and contains relevant with their corresponding content.

From the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services website, a

PDF on the "Hallmarks of Successful Drug Free Workplace Programs" was retrieved on September 17, 2008. The file is located at org/Editor/assets/federallaw.pdf.

Visit the website workplace.samhsa.gov/WPWorkit/pdf/hallmarks_of_successful_workplace_programs_fs.pdf for information on the hallmarks of successful workplace programs by Jennifer A. Hurley.

(1999) According to Edward W. Poole's article "Drug Testing Employees" published on March 27th, 2004, employee drug testing is not only unconstitutional but also ineffective. This viewpoint opposes the perspective presented in the section on drug abuse in Opposing Viewpoints.

In 2005, Tamara L. Roleff wrote an article titled "Workplace Testing Reduces Drug Abuse." The article can be found on the OHS Health and Safety Services, Inc website at http://www.ohsinc.com/Drug_Testing_Cost_Drug_Test_Cost2.htm.

The text discusses opposing viewpoints on drug abuse from the book "Drug Abuse" by Greenhaven Press and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration Division of Workplace Programs' website. The website provides information on drugs in the workplace and includes a fact sheet that can be accessed as of September 17, 2008 at http://workplace.samhsa.gov/DrugTesting/Files_Drug_Testing/FactSheet/factsheet041906.The US Department of Labor's website provides information on Working Partners for an Alcohol and Drug-Free Workplace, which was retrieved on September 12, 2008. The URL for the website is http://www.dol, and the information is available in aspx format.

The National Institute on Drug Abuse website provides workplace resources and information in the form of Infofacts. The webpage can be accessed through the url http://www.drugabuse.gov/asp/programs/drugs/workingpartners/dfworkplace/dfwp.asp. The information was retrieved on June 2008 but accessed on September 17, 2008.

The website for government information on workplace facts can be found at gov/infofacts/workplace.html.