Drug Testing

I believe through use of mandatory random drug testing, progress monitoring, on- going physical and mental examinations, we can discourage the continued misuse of these funds. If mandatory drug testing were implemented, fewer checks would be used to purchase illegal drugs, and be used for necessary Items Instead. When a person Is addicted to drugs, it consumes the Individual’s life. The person becomes obsessed with the drug they are addicted to; it becomes more important to them, than, food, family and even their own well-being. This behavior puts them and everyone under their care at risk.

If a welfare recipient has children and they use the money meant to feed their children for drugs; not only has our government paid for someone’s high, but the child will now go without food. On the flipped, if mandatory random drug testing was part of the process, we would be able to identify abusers and have their children placed where they can be cared for more effectively. This may help the next generation not to follow In their parent’s footsteps. In Identifying this type of behavior, we may be able to save not only the children, but the abusers as well.

Another method that can be used to deter abusers of these federal programs is progress monitoring. Progress monitoring is another way to crack down on people abusing the system. Progress monitoring refers to requiring the recipients to report and document their effort of searching for employment. A minimum number of applications to employers would be required each month. After obtaining a Job, follow up would be made to see that the Job is kept. I would go so far as to state, if they are unable or unwilling to find a Job, our overspent should give them a Job.

A Job similar to placing up trash on the side of the road, or cleaning our parks; they would be earning their way and not just receiving unearned money. Many people that are receiving benefits are doing so due too physical or mental ailment. Implementing a program with ongoing physical and mental examinations may help to alleviate some of the misuse In this area. Many of these benefits are given with initial physical or mental examinations, and never followed up on to see if there is improvement.

Our government could provide education to some of these recipients as well. Just because you cannot stand on your feet for long periods of time, does not mean you are useless In the working world. There are many ways to earn money, which would be a benefit to society, as well as the individual. What this boils down to is our tax money, earned from our hard 1 OFF We are out working earning our way in life and theirs too. We are being taken advantage of. If you think we don’t need to check up on these people, then you are wrong, plain and simple.

The Pros and Cons of Employer Drug Testing Programs

Introduction

            The debate on the importance of employee drug testing programs has received much controversial views from the social, political, economic, and professional fronts of the community. Proponents of the debate claim that drug testing workers increases workplace safety (Berger). This is because drug use has been established as having the ultimate potential of compromising the reasoning and judgmental ability of an individual. Such can lead to incidences of non-intentional accidents or employee violence at workplace. Another claim by proponents of employee drug testing program is that it serves to execute the social and economic responsibility of employers to their employees (Berger). Sustainable employee development and retention call for the employers to care for the social, health, and economic aspects of their workforce, and drug testing programs are one strategy.

However, there are a number of claimed against employee drug testing programs. Opponents of the program regard it as a contradiction of the constitutional provisions protecting an individual right to privacy (Berger). Based on this, the right to privacy dictates that an individual as to do whatever they wish provided it does not harm other members of the community. Still, forced employee drug testing violates the principle of innocent until proved guilty (Ward 12). It is also claimed that random employee drug testing programs do not serve any importance in mitigating drug abuse among employee. This is because drug addiction is more of a psychological rather than a criminal issue (Ward 12).

This paper is written as a discussion on employee drug testing programs. The author in particular gives a critical discussion on both the advantages and disadvantages of having an employee drug testing program in an organization.

The pros of employees drug testing programs

            Employee drug testing programs are crucial in an organization for the following reasons. The sustainable development of an organization depends on the effectiveness and reliability of its employees (Berger). However, drugs have been evidently identified as a leading compromiser of the effectiveness of employee productivity at workplace. This is because, according to available psychological evidence on drug dependence, victims of drug abuse have their efficient functionality dictated by drugs. Such have the implication that accommodating drug abusing employees at the workplace compromise the certain realization of the underlying objectives of the organization (West, and Coombs 49).

Another pro of employee drug testing programs is that it serves to ensure safety of employees at the workplace (West, and Coombs 61). Numerous scientific research findings have identified drug use as having the potential to negate the reasoning and judgmental power of an individual. In the social life, drug abuse is regarded as a leading cause of violence in the society (Berger). Taking an analogy of this to the workplace scenario, drug abuse can no doubt compromise the safety of employees. According to existing statistical information on industrial injuries and deaths, drug use is the most notable cause of failed workplace safety (West, and Coombs, 63). Therefore, employee drug testing programs are important for an organization to realize its workplace safety policies as a way of ensuring sustainable development.

Employee drug testing programs are a social responsibility owed by employers to their employees (Berger). According to the principle of sustainable competitive advantage development in organizations, employee engagement is the most important tool. True to the letter, the ultimate realization of an effective employee engagement practice dictate for identifying and mitigating the social and economic problems affecting employees. From available evidence, drug abuse is a leading social-economic problem affecting most members of the community (Ward 21). This has the end result of causing emotional and psychological distress in employees, a factor which can only serve to compromise their productivity as well as their interpersonal relationships with other employees.

Still on social responsibility as an advantage of employee drug testing programs, drug abuse poses a major risk to the sustainable future of an organization (Ward 24). Victims of drug addiction find less importance to an organization. It is worthy to appreciate here that one of the most expensive aspect in any organization is to acquire and nurture reliable skills. Indeed, this is why practices of retaining the best employees are given utmost priority in any organization. To realize this, organization must address any potential problem that can lead to the loss of the reliability of their employees. Thus, employee drug testing programs should be encouraged in organization as a tool for realizing employee retention (West, and Coombs 66).

Employee drug testing programs are important in executing justice among members of the community (Ward 27). The rule of the law must prevail regardless of the place. According to the laws of the United States of America, drugs are illegal. In fact, the government spends billions of dollars every on the war against drugs among its citizens. This makes it an obligation for every member of the community to identify, rectify, and/or report cases of drug abuse among individuals. With workplace being currently the most common social avenues for the citizens, organizations should implement employee drug testing programs.

Helping of drug abusers has also been claimed to be an advantage of having employee drug testing programs (Berger). Clearly defined policies are quite important in any institution. It is due to this reason that employee orientation is crucial in at workplace. According to available research finding, most companies have drug abuse assistance programs for their employees. Just to be appreciated here is the fact that not all drug abusers consider it a threat to their social and economic life (West, and Coombs 69). Based on this reasoning employee drug testing programs are important as they serve to identify drug abuse incidences among employees. This is important in providing early intervention to mitigate the habit.

Some proponents of employee drug testing programs have claimed that the practice enhances morale of employees at the workplace (Ward 31). Sustainable interpersonal relationships among employees are quite important for the teamwork policies of an organization. According to the psychologists, drug abuse is a potential source of compromising interpersonal relationships (West, and Coombs 83). It is due to this reason that employee drug testing programs are closely attributed with increasing workplace morale. This is because it allows employees to interact with each other with high levels of soberness and naturally influenced understanding and appreciation, a crucial element in resolving workplace conflicts. All what this has is to promote the commitment and productivity of the employees.

Employee drug testing programs serve to promote and strengthen the reputation of an organization (West, and Coombs 84). Statistics have sufficiently established that companies which lack employee drug testing programs are at a greater risk of tarnishing their reputation in the general public. Such have been attributed to two reasons. First, drug abusing employees portray a bad image of the organization in the public (Berger). Another reason is that such companies are constantly marked with employee conflicts which can only serve to deter new job seekers from wishing to work in the organization. It is worthy noting that the reputation of an organization is the most important marketing tool. Therefore, failure by an organization to implement employee drug testing programs might compromise its competitive advantage in the marketplace, thus negating its goals and objectives.

The cons of employees drug testing programs

Employee drug testing programs are claimed to be a negation of the constitutional right to privacy of the American citizens (Berger). Although many perceive the right to privacy as not applicable to private sector employees, it is no doubt a fundamental constitutional right that must be respected. According to opponents of employee drug testing programs, every individual has the constitutional right to do whatever they want provided it does not others (Berger). Based on this reasoning therefore, it remains unconstitutional for force employees into a drug testing exercise without their consent.

Another reason against employee drug testing programs is that it instills the sense of mistrust by employers for the responsible behavior of their employees even when under drugs (Berger). The most important aspect in realizing strong employer-employee relationship is enhancing trust. Indeed, this is a key reason behind employee engagement practices. Despite this evident importance of trust at workplace, employee drug testing programs negate the underlying principles of performance grading in an organization. According to available scientific findings, some highly reliable members of the community function best under the influence of drugs. Therefore, employee drug testing programs may depict mistrust between employers and their employees.

According to available statistical information, random drug testing of employees does not solve the problem of drug abuse at workplace (Ward 32). It is a common practice by employers to conduct random drug testing on employees. However, according to critics of this method, it remains a major challenge to effective identify the real victims of drug abuse. Still, it is claimed that most employee drug testing programs are discriminatively applied (Berger). Just like is in the public perception, some ethnic groups are seen as drug abusers while others are not. This means that organizations with employee drug testing programs might, through their beliefs, failure to conduct a realistic drug testing practice (West, and Coombs 91).

Employee drug testing programs are quite expensive to the organization (Berger). The ultimate purpose for the existence of any business is to maximize profits. This dictates for minimized expenses in sustaining the operations of the company. The initial cost of conducting a drug test is estimated at $15 and the cost of a confirmatory test is roughly $60 (Berger). This has the implication that employee drug testing programs will remain a costly endeavor particularly for large organization (Berger). Such are further complicated by the fact that such test might not pay the expected results to the organization. Therefore, employee drug testing programs can be a potential source of unwarranted expense to the organization.

Implementing a drug testing policy for employees is noted to overlook the most common causes of accidents and inefficiency in the company (Ward 32). It is sufficiently established that the main cause of accidents in an organization are failure by the management to implement effective workplace safety policies. Still, failures in policy formulation and execution by organization are also to be blamed for the inefficient productivity of an organization. It is worth appreciating here that most companies lack an effective and binding corporate culture to guide its employees, a factor which deters the realization of its objectives.

Employee drug testing programs can be a source of psychological stress and depression to employees (Berger). Going against the will of an individual might greatly compromise their perception of the reality behind the action. According to logically acceptable claims by psychologists, psychological impairment is one of the most common and dangerous diseases affecting the human community (West, and Coombs 95). Therefore employee drug testing programs should not be implemented in organization as such can lead to psychological problems among the employees, a factor thus only serves to compromise their productivity.

It has been established that implementing employee drug testing programs in an organization can lead to loss of skilled and reliable employees of the organization (Ward, 31). Not all employees are ready to loose their claimed freedom rights and habits for a job opportunity. This means that employees can opt for resigning their positions due to employee drug testing programs. Just to underscore here is the fact that talent acquisition and development is quite expensive for an organization. Such is the reason behind the need for the retention of skilled and reliable employees.

Conclusion

            It is evidently established that employee drug testing programs in organizations have both advantages and disadvantages. However, in my opinion, there are economic importances in implementing employee drug testing programs. This is because such enhances effectiveness and reliability of employees as well as promoting interpersonal relationships at the workplace. However, to ensure an effective and acceptable employee drug testing program, an organization should engage its employees in understanding, accepting, and appreciating it. This could serve to solve any negative effectives of the program.

Works cited

Berger, Christy “Pros and Cons of Drug Testing Your Employees in the Workplace.” Pros and Cons of Drug Testing Your Employees in the Workplace. 1 Dec. 2006. 11 May. 2010 <http://ezinearticles.com/?Pros-­and- Cons- of- Drug- Testing- Your- Employees- in- the- Workplace&id=373780>.

Ward, Edward. Employee Drug Testing: Aalberts and Walker Revisited. Journal of Small Business Management 29 (1991): 12-32.

West, Louis, and Coombs, Robert. (1991). Drug Testing: Issues and Options. New York: Oxford University Press.

On September 15, 1986 President Reagan signed Executive Order 12564 as an attempt to establish a drug-free Federal workplace. The order constitutes the condition in which employment of all Federal employees to refrain from substance abuse even when off-duty. After the Executive Order, the Drug Free Workplace Act of 1988 was created to intensify the intention to create a drug-free environment in the workplace. It is a general knowledge that over the years, there has been the increase of drug use and abuse evident in the society.

Thus, this creates an alarming realization for companies to maintain a strict requirement of employees and future employees free of drug use. The need for the mandatory drug testing policy both has its advantages and disadvantage. But on a personal view, the advantages outweigh the disadvantage. This can be attributed to one of the major factors; the company should not take the risk. (LaFoyette, 2001)

The company over the years had provided society with the best and quality equipments that aids patients during the crucial heart and lung transfers. Life is the main concern of the company more than gaining profit from the sales of the equipments. Thus, this entails that risks should not be taken at all cost. Life as the matter in which the company holds its integrity to protect must make it a point to ensure that vision with the confidence of having employees fit in the kind of demand the company requires. The mandatory drug testing policy addresses that.

Why enforce the drug testing policy?

The first point for employing the mandatory drug testing policy is due to it being a constitutional right. The United States Supreme Court has agreed that mandatory drug testing of employees is constitutional permissible and one- third of both private and public corporations have adopted this policy. It is of fact that companies deserve the right to accept or deny employment from a person for reasons that maybe undisclosed by the employers. This attributes the right of the company to seek the best among its employees.

The second is the right of the employers to make it a point to hire the best and most qualified employees.

Third, there is the concept of “employment at will”. This concept describes that an employee can either accept or protest his employers’ drug testing policy with the notion that he or she agrees to the terms and agreement between him and his employer. By law, this relates that if the employers wish to change the company’s policies, then the employee either complies or quit the job.

Fourth, there is the concern in society to stop drug abuse and it has been clear that one of the greatest problems affecting the health and welfare of our population is the use of narcotics. Thus there is the need and the concern of the general public to stop one of the cancers in the society.

Fifth, a reasonable employer will create a simple substance-abuse policy as he or she may deemed fit. This will begin by putting a blanket of prohibition among the employees in the use, possession and distribution of drugs and alcohol in the workplace. It is also wrong for the employee to work under the influence of drugs. And there are disciplinary actions taken for violation of the policy.

An employers may see the possibility of misidentifying an employee under the influence of drugs but this can be relieved if proper documentation happens of the discharge decision is advisable and there lies the importance of “reasonable- suspicion for the employer”. There is the employers’ right to state in the employees contacts the provisions and abnegations of the two in the matter of drug testing. With suspicionless drug testing of employees, there we maintain the quality of employees we have and seek.

The company’s integrity and credibility

We should always keep in mind the company’s reputation at being the leading manufacturers of health equipments responsible for other people lives. The legal grounds of the drug testing policy being permissible are valid for us to make the necessary and objective decision in having this policy taken into effective. I asked whether we should take the risk.

I say we do not. It is the company’s policy to maintain its integrity and credibility, and we should do that by maintaining the quality and fitness of the employees. The company may sacrifice money and risk unlawful dismissal lawsuits, but it will be worth it if the company is made sure of its employees. The life of the company’s consumers is at stake, risks should never be taken in place of their lives.

Reference:

Anonymous. (2007). Drugs, Police and the Law

Drug Testing.   Retrieved February 28, 2007, from http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-testing-policies

LaFoyette, H. (2001). Mandatory Drug Testing [Electronic Version], 17. Retrieved February 28 from http://www.usfsp.edu/home/.

McKinney, J. R. (1999). The Effectiveness and Legality of Random Drug Testing Policies. 1(1),

Niznik, J. S. (2001). Job Searching: Technical Supports Equal Opportunity Employment [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 2007 from https://www.thebalance.com/employment-law-advice-best-websites-2071543.

Drugs like marijuana have a major impact on our younger generation. Parents for Accountability (2003) states that, “most drug use begins in the pre-teen and teenage years, the year’s most crucial in the maturation process. ” A student’s behavior, motivation, and accountability are all limited when using marijuana. Principal Warner (2013) said “he believes the mandatory drug testing rule gives students a strong reason to refuse drugs. ” These drug testing will encourage students to think twice before saying “yes” to the drug.

I believe that random drug testings should be enforced in schools. School drug testing should be enforced because of the behavioral problems that come along with drug abuse. Marijuana causes different side effects, but most commonly are; laziness, hunger, poor memory, poor coordination, loss of control, poor social behavior, and learning dysfunctions. All of these side effects affect a person’s behavior. “I’m 16 years old, and I’ve been smoking every day for about 3-4 months.

I can say that I am considerably less social (although this may not be weed related, many factors come into play on this one) and slightly more paranoid” (Knight, 2009). Knight was set apart from her social life because of the marijuana she had been smoking, now she’ll never know of the people could have become close with. Behavior plays an important role in learning environment because a student cannot function properly under the influence; students that are under the influence have the tendency to act different among peers, and in or out of certain situations, it affects their way of thinking.

Narconon Drug Prevention & Education (2013) states, students that smoke marijuana get lower grades and are less likely to graduate high school, due to the learning dysfunction they came across while smoking marijuana. Since the use of marijuana is proven to affect a student’s behavior, drug testings should be enforced in schools. Marijuana also affects a student’s motivation, which is another reason why drug testings should be enforced. “Smoking a lot of weed can really amplify your mood and emotions, including laziness” (Terence Tensen, 2011).

Smoking marijuana causes students to become lazy; laziness affects a student in so many ways because it kills their drive to do anything. Students become less willing to do their homework, study, and participate in extra-curricular activities including; football, baseball, soccer, softball, basketball, dances, and any clubs available on their campus. Without participating in some type of extra-curriculum students have a harder time getting accepted into universities and even some community colleges.

After being rejected numeral times people start to shut down, they tend to give up and things they once wanted at a certain time or place. When a student then has nothing else to aim for, because their motivation was lost, they turn to drugs. These drug testings are going to stop students from coming to school under the influence, which then is going to keep the student that are motivated to stay motivated and be the best that they can be, without the distractions of the ones who are not so motivated, and feel they have better things to do.

A student’s accountability is affected when using drugs; this causes students to be less dependable. An undependable student is a student that is kind of pushed behind because they are untrustworthy. Nobody likes to be the person no one trusts, and drug use causes you to be that person. Drug Free America Foundation (2014) agrees that “Students who take leadership roles in the school community are role models and should be drug free. ” These students that appear to be role models should live up to their appearances.

Foundation of a drug free world (2013) states, “the drug, marijuana causes students to be less coordinated, shortens memory, laziness, unsociable, and has loss of control” everything people don’t see in a leader. You are supposed to be able to depend on a student leader, especially when that person is all you have to look up to. When you see that one person you admire, fall short, it literally breaks a person down, to prevent this from happening these drug tests are going to make sure the students don’t deal with the regret of disappointments. I believe that random drug testings should be enforced in schools.

School districts should enforce random drugs to help students in the long run. We are losing students to drugs, and drugged students are leading others. If we enforce these random drug tests schools will have more control over their students. These tests are going to not only help the students but a school as a whole. More students will be in school, which makes the school money. Disciplinary actions won’t be as frequent, because student’s behavior will be more on point, and students will be getting the education they need to move on to higher their education once out of school, with less of a struggle.

Peer pressured students, won’t feel the need to say “yes” because they’ll have a solid reason to say “no. ” Drug testing offers no harm to the student, only gives them an opportunity to notice their wrong and get help. When someone recognizes a problem, they tend to acknowledge it more frequently. A mother posted on a blog that her 17 year old son had a problem, she stated “He tells us he is not addicted but acting the way he is only proves he is” Feelinghelpless, (2012). When a student becomes addicted to a drug they deny they have a problem.

When drug testing will soon become frequently failed, a student will have no choice to admit to their wrongs and seek help. Another parent states “I may not be able to change his mind about drugs but I have the choice not to help him with those choices. I can’t do anything about all the drugs out there… but I do have control over what happens in my home! ” Strgazr (2012). It’s proven that a child is raised on the raising of his or hers household. When parents lay down the rules, children will listen; they need structure so they don’t tumble.

We cannot blame schools alone for the drug testings because if every child was raised to obey by the rules, drug testings wouldn’t be so necessary. Discipline is “teaching a child to behave in an agreeable way, allowing a child the freedom to learn from his mistakes and experience the consequences of his decisions, effective discipline is helping, teaching, and learning” Valya, T. (2009). Discipline is exactly what these drug testings are, they teach, help, and enforce a rule that needs to be obeyed. I believe drug testings should be enforced in schools.