|
| |
DRUG TESTING IN WORKPLACE.
Term Paper ID:28340
|
|
|
Essay Subject:
Purpose, rights of privacy & other issues; problems; court rulings.... More...
|
5 Pages / 1125 Words
10 sources, 9 Citations,
MLA Format
$20.00
Return to List of Papers
|
Paper Abstract:
Purpose, rights of privacy & other issues; problems; court rulings.
Paper Introduction:
Drug testing in the workplace has been undertaken by employers who are concerned that drug use by employees poses a danger to coworkers and the public, reduces productivity, costs the company money, and contributes to health problems which adds further to company costs. Drug testing in the workplace conflicts with our view of personal privacy and raises questions about how far employers can go in analyzing personal habits of employees. Workers are concerned that such testing might lead to employees being disciplined or fired, and employers are concerned as well that instituting testing might lead to lawsuits over errors, privacy issues, violation of rights, or unauthorized disclosure of test results. Some feel that the testing itself may not be adequate or accurate, contributing to such problems. The courts have been called in to adjudicate
Text of the Paper:
The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper.
Fok, and S.J. TheBureau of Labor Statistics surveys show that 31.9 percent of worksites withmore than 25 employees had drug testing programs in 1988, and thatproportion increased to 45.9 percent by 1991 (Hartwell, Steele, and Rodman36-37). Redel (1991, April). The frequency of substance abuse has, however, required that employers institute policies and procedures to control and contain a problem that can otherwise affect safe operations, company morale, productivity, and profitability (Fuqua and McHaney).Many employers believe they have little choice given that federal lawmandates that some employers maintain drug-free workplaces and testemployees for drug use, while business realities pressure other employersto do the same. The rise had taken place in one year, so that 38percent of all the organizations in the survey tested job applicantscompared with 28 percent in 1987; and 36 percent tested current employeescompared with 28 percent in 1986. The increase continued so that by 1991,48 percent of Fortune 1 companies used some type of drug testing. "Prevalence of Drug Testing in the Workplace." Monthly Labor Review 111 (November 1, 1996), 35- 42.Mazaroff, S. He found that "thelanguage and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of theConstitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights,protected from government infringement, which exist alongside thosefundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutionalamendments." Though concurring in the opinion, Justices Harlan and White did notagree with the concept of penumbras or the right of privacy. Rodman. 479) as a right not expressly stated inthe Constitution but found in the shadow, or penumbra, of other rights thatare enumerated in the Constitution. "The New Battle Over Workplace Privacy." HR Magazine (1 April 1998).Meyers, J.F. Goldberg felt that marital privacy was one of those fundamentalrights though it was not mentioned in the Constitution. "Drug Testing in the Workplace: Public and Private Sector Employers and the Courts." Labor Law Journal (April 1991), 239-246.Bahls, Jane Easter. Black wrote: "Ilike my privacy as well as the next one, but I am nevertheless compelled toadmit that government has a right to invade it unless prohibited by somespecific constitutional provision." The Court has ruled in subsequent cases that drug testing does notviolate the right of privacy for workers, at least in certain occupations.The move toward drug testing in the workplace is spreading in other partsof the world as well. Works CitedAbbey, A. There are two basic motivations for drug testing in the workplace.The first is to increase organizational efficiency and/or productivity byreducing absenteeism, safety problems, and similar concerns. "Drug Testing in Labor Arbitration: Does It Impact the Decision-making Process?" Journal of Managerial Issues 6 (September 23, 1994), 297-31 ."Drug, Alcohol Tests at Work Ruled Acceptable." The Toronto Star (22 July 2 ).Flynn, G. Railway LaborExecutives Association in 1989, the Federal Railroad Administration hadadopted regulations requiring drug testing on railway employees after trainaccidents, and the Supreme Court declared that governmental employees mayonly conduct intrusive drug-testing without reasonable suspicion when thereis a special and compelling governmental need to protect the public safety(Mazaroff & Ayers). NCAA: California Adopts a New Standard for Invasion of Privacy." Employee Relations Law Journal (Summer 1994), 73-84. However,it does not require drug testing or searches of suspected offenders, and itdoes not ban alcohol from the workplace: Employers who do not have a ready-made set of government rules to follow have a more difficult path to follow in developing polices and procedures that can effectively deal with the problems of substance abuse in the workplace (Fuqua and McHaney). and J.M. More recent litigation has focused not on whether anemployer may test but on how the testing is done (Bahls). NCAA and upheld drug testing for athletes, stating that theprivacy of the athletes had not been invaded because a drug test was nomore intrusive than the common awareness of physical matters between coachand athlete, advanced notice was given, and the athletes consented to thetest (Meyers). In Skinner v. "Hill v. At the same time that the changes have been instituted, employeeshave been asserting their interest in maintaining their privacy rights.Workers place a high value on their basic constitutional right to privacyand believe this right extends to the workplace, often not realizing, orrefusing to acknowledge, that privacy rights on the job are much morelimited than those at home. Hartman. As drug testing becomes more pervasive, though, workers arelikely to object on privacy grounds. The courts have been called in to adjudicate these andrelated matters and have ruled on how far employers can go in drug testingand in the use of drug testing results. Management believes it must take steps tocurtail violence in the workplace and to minimize lost profit resultingfrom thefts and drug abuse: In addition, the availability of sophisticated surveillance and monitoring technology enables employers to observe behavior and measure performance as never before. "Drugs in the Workplace." HR Magazine (1 March 1998).Crow, S.M., L.Y. JusticeHarlan relied on the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment andsaid that the question was whether the law "violates basic values implicitin the concept of ordered liberty." He said that this did not depend on"radiations" from the Bill of Rights. Employers must be careful in instituting a drug testing program,however, for if they make a mistake, they may find themselves in court,defending the company against charges of negligence, violation of privacy,defamation, or violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) orTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act. The specific issue of privacy versus drug testing by employers hasgone to the U.S. Employers accept the ideathat drug testing represents an objectively-based alternative to dependingon the judgment of the supervisor in a potential drug usage situation andpresume that the drug test will provide a clear-cut answer to questions ofabuse by an employee (Crow, Fok, and Hartman 298). Ayers. Some feelthat the testing itself may not be adequate or accurate, contributing tosuch problems. "Will Drug Testing Pass or Fail in Court?" Personnel Journal (April 1996), 141-143.Fuqua, D.M. A second goalinvolves the idea that drug testing represents an objective, simple way todeal with the complex problem of drug usage. "Controlling Drug Abuse in the Workplace: The Legal Groundrules." American Society for Personnel Administration (Spring 1989), 1-16.Menda, Kathleen. The issue of privacy was raised in the Supreme Court in 1965 inGriswold v. Management, therefore, has the means and the motive to "invade" employees' privacy, while employees continue to reject management's reasons for doing so (Menda). Drug testing in the workplace has been undertaken by employers whoare concerned that drug use by employees poses a danger to coworkers andthe public, reduces productivity, costs the company money, and contributesto health problems which adds further to company costs. The Drug-Free Workplace Act became effective in March 1989and applies to federal contractors with individual procurement contracts of$25, or more and to direct recipients of federal grants of any amount.The act requires that the employer certify that he or she will provide adrug-free workplace in accordance with the directives of the act. and J. Connecticut (381 U.S. Drug testing inthe workplace conflicts with our view of personal privacy and raisesquestions about how far employers can go in analyzing personal habits ofemployees. Drug testing is being used more and more by employers. In 1994, the California Supreme Court decided the caseof Hill v. Douglas found a penumbra in the First Amendment wherebyprivacy is protected from government intrusion. One studyshows that 18 percent of Fortune 5 companies tested their employees in1985, while the proportion had more than doubled to 4 percent by 1991.The American Management Association conducted a survey in 1988 and foundthat there had been increases in the testing of both applicants and currentemployees for drugs. McHaney, Jr. Steele, and N.F. Justice Goldberg wrote aconcurring opinion and found that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates theBill of rights and that the "concept of liberty" protects certainfundamental rights not restricted to those actually spelled out in the Billof Rights. We see this currently in drug testing for theOlympics, where freedom from drugs is made a requirement. Commentators note that controlling drugs in the workplace is one ofthe most difficult problems facing employers today: The use of alcohol and drugs during working hours is most often a covert activity that is identifiable only by circumstantial evidence. Supreme Court several times. A number of lawsuits in the 198 sdecided the basic issue, that employers do have the right to conduct drugtests, so that private employers may screen employees with pre-employmenttesting, investigate accidents by testing those involved, and conductrandom drug tests. A recent courtdecision in Ontario, Canada holds that drug tests are justified as long asemployees who test positive are subjected to individually tailoredsanctions and not automatic dismissal ("Drug, Alcohol Tests at Work RuledAcceptable"). Justice Douglas wrote in that casethat "Specific guarantees of the Bill of rights have penumbras, formed byemanations from those guarantees that give them life and substance." TheGriswold decision was decided 7 to 2, with Justice Douglas writing themajority opinion. "The impact of drug testing in the workplace." The Law Journal (1995), http://www.abnews.com/lawjournal/lj95/article8.html.Hartwell, T.D., P.D. Justice White relied on earlierdecisions of the court and said that the rationale of discouraging illicitsexual relations was not sufficient state justification for the "sweepingscope of the statute." Justices Stewart and Black were the dissenters inthe case, and while both admitted that the law was offensive to them, theycould not accept the rationale offered for overturning it. Workers are concerned that such testing might lead to employeesbeing disciplined or fired, and employers are concerned as well thatinstituting testing might lead to lawsuits over errors, privacy issues,violation of rights, or unauthorized disclosure of test results. and C.
If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again:
or
Click here to request an essay written just for you.
|
|
|
