The Controversy Surrounding Employee Drug Testing
When employees first objected to employee drug testing, most testing procedures used the urine drug test. Then the employee’s insistence on privacy rights seemed all too obvious. Now, however, more employers are switching to hair or saliva drug tests. Some people may therefore think it is now OK to demand employee drug testing. Such individuals should read the following article. They will then see how other privacy rights might be removed by allowing employers to insist that their employees agree to be tested for drug use, even in cases where there is no reason to suspect that an employee might really be high on drugs.
Americans have always felt the need to defend their privacy rights. Within the past 25 years, those rights have come head to head with the effort put forth by some employers, who have wanted to end any drug use by their employees. Those employers have initiated the drive for employee drug testing in the workplace.
The legality of employee drug testing has even been the focus of an ongoing court battle. That battle evolved from issuance by Ronald Reagan of a Presidential directive. President Reagan had felt it proper to test federal employees in key government positions for evidence of drug use.
Federal employees who objected to that directive brought the issue of employee drug testing before a judge of the Federal Court System. Their lawyers argued that federal drug testing “would permit random testing of virtually any federal employee in the Washington area, since almost any such employee may have access to buildings frequented by members of the Cabinet, members of Congress or justices of this court, whose safety are important government interests.”
Certain members of the Supreme Court have a similar concern for the protection of privacy rights. Certain members of the Supreme Court have opposed all employee drug testing. Their arguments have helped to underline the need for a closer examination of employee rights regarding drug testing.
A number of employees have questioned the right of employers to obtain all of the information that can be disclosed by the performance of employee drug testing. They have pointed-out that the test results reveal a great deal of medical information. Some of that information could include facts that the employee would prefer to keep away from the eyes of an employer.
Suppose, for example that a female employee was pregnant, but had not yet revealed that fact to her employer. A urine drug test might show that such a woman was pregnant. An employer might then decide to let that woman go, thus saving the company the worry of paying for her time at home with a newborn baby.
An employee who was taking a cocktail of AIDS drugs would not want his or her employer to learn about how one employee’s performance could be linked to the strong drugs used to fight a particular health condition. Such an employee would not want to be subjected to a drug test.
While AIDS patients have probably made one of the loudest objections to workplace drug testing, there are other medical conditions that an employee could no longer hide, if as to be part of a drug test. An employee taking medication for a heart condition would have his or her private problems revealed. An employee taking medication for epilepsy would need to share that fact with his or her employer.
All of the above individuals would need to disclose private medical information, if they were required to contribute a sample to a drug testing service.
Americans have always felt the need to defend their privacy rights. Within the past 25 years, those rights have come head to head with the effort put forth by some employers, who have wanted to end any drug use by their employees. Those employers have initiated the drive for employee drug testing in the workplace.
The legality of employee drug testing has even been the focus of an ongoing court battle. That battle evolved from issuance by Ronald Reagan of a Presidential directive. President Reagan had felt it proper to test federal employees in key government positions for evidence of drug use.
Federal employees who objected to that directive brought the issue of employee drug testing before a judge of the Federal Court System. Their lawyers argued that federal drug testing “would permit random testing of virtually any federal employee in the Washington area, since almost any such employee may have access to buildings frequented by members of the Cabinet, members of Congress or justices of this court, whose safety are important government interests.”
Certain members of the Supreme Court have a similar concern for the protection of privacy rights. Certain members of the Supreme Court have opposed all employee drug testing. Their arguments have helped to underline the need for a closer examination of employee rights regarding drug testing.
A number of employees have questioned the right of employers to obtain all of the information that can be disclosed by the performance of employee drug testing. They have pointed-out that the test results reveal a great deal of medical information. Some of that information could include facts that the employee would prefer to keep away from the eyes of an employer.
Suppose, for example that a female employee was pregnant, but had not yet revealed that fact to her employer. A urine drug test might show that such a woman was pregnant. An employer might then decide to let that woman go, thus saving the company the worry of paying for her time at home with a newborn baby.
An employee who was taking a cocktail of AIDS drugs would not want his or her employer to learn about how one employee’s performance could be linked to the strong drugs used to fight a particular health condition. Such an employee would not want to be subjected to a drug test.
While AIDS patients have probably made one of the loudest objections to workplace drug testing, there are other medical conditions that an employee could no longer hide, if as to be part of a drug test. An employee taking medication for a heart condition would have his or her private problems revealed. An employee taking medication for epilepsy would need to share that fact with his or her employer.
All of the above individuals would need to disclose private medical information, if they were required to contribute a sample to a drug testing service.
Categories
:
Employee Drug Testing
0 comments :
Post a Comment