By: Lana

Lana — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 01:47:02 +0000

This article provides a good argument challenging drug testing within the work place environment. My comment in response to this article however, will argue that drug testing should be compulsory for all employees (not just a select few) for business’s who choose to drug test their work force. The result being that the business’s safety record will be maintained or improved, their public brand and image will be enhanced, while internally the culture in the work place will promote an advantageous working environment. Looking at employee’s right to privacy and safety in the workplace my comment to your article will suggest that it is reasonable to set boundaries of expectations around drug testing in a valid employment contract. Overall I will argue that drug testing is a positive tool which used effectively can increase productivity and provide a safer working environment.
Michael Cranford (as cited in Beauchamp and Bowie 2004 page 296) suggests that ‘The terms of the contact, if it is valid, set reasonable boundaries for employee privacy rights consistent with the terms and expectations of employment. The argument offered here is that drug testing does not violate those boundaries.’ What this employment contract will do is initially give the employer the authority to set what they see as acceptable behaviour around drug testing within their work place e.g. a zero tolerance. The contract will state the groups of employees tested (e.g. in my argument the whole company), what circumstances the employees are tested (e.g. regular, or random tests) and the type of test being used (e.g. urine, hair etc). This contract would also detail the repercussions of a positive test and the company policy which is followed for these circumstances.
Where the conditions are set in the employment contract, it ensures that drug testing is not used as a negative management tool. All employees are tested regardless of their performance – if an employee’s performance is poor, they are drug tested. If an employee’s performance is high, they are drug tested. There is no discrimination against anyone, or a person feeling ‘got at’ and it can’t be said that an employee has been treated unfairly when the whole work force is being tested. Poor job performance results in higher costs and lower productivity which affects the company’s profits. If the company can set ethical boundaries around drug testing which are clear and consistent in contracts the result will mean more profit through more driven and efficient employees. It will also enable them to invest in people who need help e.g. by offering counselling service paid for by the company; giving employees the tools they require to succeed and reach a higher potential.
Through setting the expectations of drug testing in an employment contract it does not infringe on a person’s personal life, and I feel the question has to be asked if an employee is using illegal drugs then does the company want them anyway? Workmates tend to see each other out of work – if one person is using, there is the potential for others to follow especially younger persons who are looking to please. Why should a company being paying away their money in wages to a person who has the potential to be dragging others down and underperforming or doing a poor job. Their resources could be put into another person who will do a far better job and create a positive working environment. Given today’s competition and need for employment, I believe it is ethical to be looking for a best people to employ, who are free of drug use.
Still just because a person is in a safety role does not limit them to drug testing. Your argument of a train driver is fair – however I believe those even in online booking or customer service should be tested and it is ethical to do so. If drugs are present for a person in the booking travel role and they incorrectly book peoples travel, this has a negative impact on the company’s brand and reputation. It is a well known fact that illegal drugs impact people’s concentration – among other implications. Booking people’s travel incorrectly has huge implications for those affected; seldom do friends and family not hear if your travel company makes an error. In the competitive market of today’s business and the world of social media, it is in the company’s best interest to provide the best and highest level of service they can.
My comment to your article has considered to what extent drug testing in the work place can be fair and ethical, and who should be drug tested. Examining in particular that by drug testing all employees it has the potential to reduce errors, provide a higher level of service while striving to set a high safety record. Drug testing as the ability to empower employees, allow the company to invest in those who require it and back their employees into a stronger working position. Employers have a moral duty to promote safety and provide a safe working environment; drug testing is an effective tool to allow them to do this, while setting an ethical and moral expectation from the start in the employment contract.
References
The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand (2013) Module Two 71203 Business Ethics Lower Hutt New Zealand, Content Specialist Vanessa Scholes.

Comments on: Is the rise in workplace drug testing a good thing?

By: Lana