Why an Employer Might Introduce Employee Drug Testing
As the writer of the following article gathered her thoughts on the subject of employee drug testing, she was grateful for the fact that she had officially retired. The writer of the following article had a hidden medical problem that she did not like her employers to know about. In fact she had to design her resume so as to cover-up her periodic need for surgery. Yet until 1984 an employee drug testing program might have uncovered her secret. It might have disclosed to her employer that she was taking an anti-epileptic drug, the result of an incident that had preceded the first operation.
In any company with a production facility, it is clear that the production level will eventually impact the company’s bottom line. Such a company would not want a lazy employee serving on the production line. Neither would that same company want a drugged employee on the production line. That is why many employers think seriously about using employee drug testing.
A drugged employee can not only slow the production of a money-making product, a drugged employee also has a greater chance of experiencing a period of carelessness. Such carelessness could lead to a serious injury. Such an injury could then cause the employee to seek workman’s compensation. That is a second reason why employers are giving careful thought to employee drug testing.
Of course the initiation of employee drug testing can not take place in just a short span of time. An employer must first decide on the structure for that drug testing program. In order to make that decision, an employer could benefit from looking at some sample employee drug testing policies.
Some company’s have declared that drug testing will be mandatory for any employee who is involved in an accident. That would of course assume that the company would be aware of all accidents. That would assume that all accidents, even those that might take place after the established working hours, would be recorded. Since no employer would feel confident about making that assumption, employers have veered away from reliance on such a restricted testing program.
At the other extreme are policies that call for random drug testing of all workers. The harshest presentation for such a policy then demands the automatic firing of any employee who is found to test positive for drugs. This is called a zero tolerance policy.
A more moderate approach calls for random employee drug testing, but does not demand immediate dismissal of those found to be drug users. According to such moderate policies anyone found to test positive for drug use would get a second chance. In other words, such an employee could remain on the payroll at least until called-up for the next round of drug testing. A second positive test would require that the offending employee be “pushed” out the door.
This third possible structure for a drug testing program is probably as close as any such program can come to presenting an aura of fairness. If an employer waited for an accident before testing, that would seem to put the lives of the employees in danger. If an employer fired any employee who tested positive for drug use, that could mean that a false positive result would have the ability to deprive an innocent employee of a source of income.
In any company with a production facility, it is clear that the production level will eventually impact the company’s bottom line. Such a company would not want a lazy employee serving on the production line. Neither would that same company want a drugged employee on the production line. That is why many employers think seriously about using employee drug testing.
A drugged employee can not only slow the production of a money-making product, a drugged employee also has a greater chance of experiencing a period of carelessness. Such carelessness could lead to a serious injury. Such an injury could then cause the employee to seek workman’s compensation. That is a second reason why employers are giving careful thought to employee drug testing.
Of course the initiation of employee drug testing can not take place in just a short span of time. An employer must first decide on the structure for that drug testing program. In order to make that decision, an employer could benefit from looking at some sample employee drug testing policies.
Some company’s have declared that drug testing will be mandatory for any employee who is involved in an accident. That would of course assume that the company would be aware of all accidents. That would assume that all accidents, even those that might take place after the established working hours, would be recorded. Since no employer would feel confident about making that assumption, employers have veered away from reliance on such a restricted testing program.
At the other extreme are policies that call for random drug testing of all workers. The harshest presentation for such a policy then demands the automatic firing of any employee who is found to test positive for drugs. This is called a zero tolerance policy.
A more moderate approach calls for random employee drug testing, but does not demand immediate dismissal of those found to be drug users. According to such moderate policies anyone found to test positive for drug use would get a second chance. In other words, such an employee could remain on the payroll at least until called-up for the next round of drug testing. A second positive test would require that the offending employee be “pushed” out the door.
This third possible structure for a drug testing program is probably as close as any such program can come to presenting an aura of fairness. If an employer waited for an accident before testing, that would seem to put the lives of the employees in danger. If an employer fired any employee who tested positive for drug use, that could mean that a false positive result would have the ability to deprive an innocent employee of a source of income.
Categories
:
Employee Drug Testing
0 comments :
Post a Comment