.. nt raband, with or without the help of drug sniffing dogs. A more discrete way the companies search down drug users is by hiring undercover agents that entrap employees into using drugs. Catching more secretive drug users with drugs on them, because they a re clever or are just weekend users of drugs is more difficult. Companies have to physically search the employee’s body which raises a lot of controversy. Urine testing gives rise to most discontent because of its humiliating way of getting a sample.
B lood testing has its own inhereat problems because of the discomfort of a needle extracting blood. Because of the problems of conventional testing for controlled substances in the body’s chemical tract, medical professionals have been coming up with new methods for testing the body to see if it has used drugs. One of the most feasible new types of test is the testing of hair. Hair keeps a permanent record of the body’s chemicals including the drugs it has used. The best side of testing hair is that it requires less cooperation from the person being tested so it can be done without a lot of complaints. Employers are just beginning to start wide scale testing.
It is becoming more common for job applicants to take drug tests. Volunteer testing for dru gs is just starting up. Mandatory testing of all employees does have a few hurdles to get over. Managers and executives wield so much power in a company that it is hard to get them to do something that they don’t want to do. This has led to the rumor t hat “heroin use among establishment types is the most underreported social phenomenon in America today.” Even with all of the testing procedures available they all have one common drawback, they are not 100% accurate. Drug testing has outraged emp loyees’ rights groups and has triggered even more counter arguments from the employers.
Drug testing has brought up several controversies over the right to privacy and an employer’s right to have to workers who aren’t on drugs. The real reason why ” labor is not supporting testing in the work place” is because something personal might be found in a search and the violation of privacy is one step to the elimination of their guaranteed rights. Most labor unions point out “you need a search warran t to search (an employee’s) home, but (an employee’s) body is a lot more sacred than (employee’s) home.”0T On the company side of the dispute they feel that they “have a right and responsiblity to establish sound working conditions.” Employe es feel that their off time is their own time and that they can do anything they want to do. While on company time “(employers) have the right to say how (employees) behave in the work place.” But drugs have lingering affects so even if employees use them of their off time they are still impaired when they go to work, so there is no simple answer. “(An employers) No.
1 concern is safety” and drug impaired workers create a hugh safety problem because of there affected mental condition, and this gives the employers a very good cause to hunt down drug users. Still employees are afraid of drug testing because of myths of harsh and cruel treatment for being caught. Companies are trying to help those employees who are affected by drugs. Earlier, companies would terminate employees with a drug problem. But the reality of “termination for using marijuana in a company, but it would only merit a $100 fine in California” was unrealistic and unfair, so now a company will put the affect ed employee in a drug-treatment program. Another logical reason for companies to keep drug impaired employees is because “it is easier to help a person who has been on the job than it is to hire and train someone to replace him.” And on top of th at a company’s health-insurance benefits pay all the treatment costs.
These treatment programs have a 73% success rate. It is in the company’s favor to send an affected employ to a treatment program, which is totally feasible for the company. To help their employees to get off of drugs several the 500 largest companies have banded together to make up an effective program. Many of the Fortune 500 companies have set up in-house employee-assistance programs, and they have even set up toll-free 800 numbe rs for workers and their families to call for advice and information. The treatment of drug impaired workers is relativity new and therefore the long term effects of the programs is not known and can only be speculated at.
Companies have noticed the problems that drugs produce and they are trying to stop the use of them by their employees. It is now becoming harder to use drugs and make a living. Since companies are controlling people who use drugs this might stem the flow of drugs into this count ry. The way drugs are being treated by companies “may be very effective in changing the way people view drug taking in this country.” Drug use affects companies with in-efficiency and now companies are trying to stem the problem. BIBLIOGRAPHY Castro, Janice. “Battling the Enemy Within.”Time,127 11 (March 17, 1986), 52-61.
Chidsey, Donald Barr.On and Off the Wagon.New York: Cowles Book Company, Inc., 1969 DeVries, Hilary. “Business and the Military Face Up to Drug Challenge.” Christian Science Monitor,(May 5, 1982), 13. Flaz, Steven. “The Executive Addict.”Fortune,(June 24, 1985), 24-31. Roan, Shair. “Substance Abuse: Can Employers Help?” Ft.
Lauderdale News/Sun-Sentinel,(December 3, 1984), D1 & D4. Wakefield, Dan.The Addict.Greenwich: Fawcett Publications, Inc., 1963. Footnotes THilary DeVries, “Business and the Military Face up to Drug Challenge,”Christain Science Monitor,(May 5,1982), 13. Steven Flaz, “The Executive Addict,”Fortune,(June 24, 1985), 26. Flaz, p.24.
DeVries, p.13. DeVries, p.13. Flaz, p.27. Devries, p.13. Flaz, p.29. Janice Castro, “Battling the Enemy Within,”Time,127 11 (March 17, 1986), p.61.
Flaz, p.59. Castro, p.61. Castro, p.61. Castro, p.61. Castro, p.61. Castro, p.57.
Castro, p.61. THESIS Drug use affects employees for one reason or another in every postion of a company, and this greatly reduces the efficicncy of those employees, this has prompted companies to initiate illegal s earches, which question the rights of employees, and rehabilition programs.