A discussion about the legality of drug testing in the workplace

S Constitution. One reason relates to the property interest that an individual may be seen to have in the expectation of continued employment and the protection that due process gives such interests.

The policy should include prevention, identification, counselling, treatment, rehabilitation, and details on at what stage disciplinary action will be taken. It tells you only that he or she may have gotten high at some point in the last few days. And Wisconsin started screening applicants for jobs training and food stamps.

Constitution, and because state legislatures may enact statutes that relate specifically to drug testing. Refusal to comply with a WDT requirement which is included in an employment agreement can be interpreted as a disciplinary offence in the United Kingdom, while other coun-tries in Europe such as Belgium and Finland believe that fundamental rights such as the right to privacy are indivisible and therefore an individual cannot consent to waive such rights.

Drug testing in the workplace statistics

Second is the distinction between preemployment and postemployment drug testing. It may well be that testing works, but its successes hide in reams of proprietary data. Advertisement No one is surprised to hear that a government program might be inefficient and ill-conceived. Justice Scalia's dissent in Von Raab suggests the potential scope of this case: [In] extending approval of drug testing to that category consisting of employees who carry firearms, the Court exposes vast numbers of public employees to this needless indignity. Their actions provide legal authority for drug testing that overrides all contrary authority except the U. The strength of the argument from deterrence and its weight relative to the ethical case against generalized drug screening are matters that can be and have been disputed. Starting in , the Federal Aviation Administration paid researchers to swab the mouths of dead private pilots, all victims of fatal accidents, and learned that 2. Yet studies have shown that dark-haired people are more likely to test positive for drugs because they have higher levels of melanin, which allows drug compounds to bind more easily to hair Associated Press, 31 August In particular, in certain circumstances not only is there no need to justify searches with a showing of probable-cause, but also the warrant requirement itself has been abandoned. The "probable-cause" language of the Fourth Amendment has, however, been held inapplicable to administrative searches that serve primarily a regulatory rather than a law enforcement purpose, so long as the search does not contravene the Fourth Amendment's more general preclusion of "unreasonable searches. In recent years more and more employees have shown an interest in objecting to drug testing, citing a violation of privacy. Municipal restrictions are valid to the extent that they do not conflict with applicable state or federal law.

Some believe that introducing a company-wide WDT policy rather than targeting individuals on the basis of reasonable suspicion is a viable solution to the problem. The administrative search standard required the reviewing court to balance the governmental interest served by the testing program against its intrusiveness.

The reliability of testing techniques in detecting the presence of illegal drugs or their metabolites has been noted by some courts as a factor in their decisions, but little attention has been paid to whether the type of drugs tested for or the amount detected reflects a threat to safety, integrity, or productivity.

Are employers responding to the shift in state laws by relaxing their drug policies to allow for employee consumption outside the confines of the workplace?

employer drug testing policy

At the same time, hair assays may raise new legal and constitutional problems due to their capacity to detect drug metabolites long after they have left the urine.

In the years that followed, drug-related safety concerns spread from the military to other branches of government. Parts of the Vermont and Rhode Island statutes have already been held to be preempted by federal regulations; other state statutes explicitly defer to conflicting federal laws and regulations.

Many employees find it unfair that they have to prove their innocence when they aren't even suspected of using drugs, and that it violates their right to privacy.

Rated 7/10 based on 55 review
Should employees be drug tested?