Should Companies Test for Drugs?

Should Companies Test for Drugs?

The idea of drug testing at the work place has gained much support, as well much resistance, in America over the past decade. In two conflicting essays, authors Debra R. Comer, an adviser at Hofstra University, and Peter B. Bensinger, the CEO of Bensinger-DuPont Associates which promotes healthy outcomes in the workplace, present the negative and positive effects of drug testing in the working environment. Bensinger, author of “Drug Testing in the Workplace” acknowledges the fact that drug testing will do little to create a drug free work place; rather, it will ensure a more safe working environment for a company’s greatest asset, it’s employees, in several ways, and also discusses the appropriate ways to go about testing an employee. Comer, author of “A Case against Workplace Drug Testing”, on the other hand illustrates “the misconceptions about drug use and testing, underscores the technological limitations of testing, and reviews research on individuals’ negative response to workplace testing” (259). While the two authors do provide different opinions on drug testing in the workplace, both authors agree that drug testing in the workplace should only be given to employees who show a serious sign of abuse.

Because employers are legally expected to maintain a safe working environment for all of its employees, drug testing in the workplace is necessary, but it is also necessary to obtain clear reasons for allocating one, as Bensinger asserts (45). The courts have ruled several times in favor of employees and their families who are suing employers who hire unsafe people (43). The only way to increase the chances of a drug free work place is to test for drugs during an applicant’s application process, which in turn, would reduce employer liability. Bensinger claims that these tests will help keep work accidents down, along with tardiness/absenteeism, and theft around the office (44). Bensinger also suggests that companies implement testing when employees do not demonstrate traditional work levels and behavior (45). This is an obvious factor because drugs will impair an employee’s ability to generate productive and effective work. Another obvious testing situation occurs when an employee is seen using drugs in the office, according to Bensinger (46). Anytime an employee is being accused of using drugs during work, he or she should be investigated for reliability and then be tested for a concrete answer. However, there is one specific kind of drug testing in the workplace that Bensinger feels should be used only when workers come into direct contact with the public: random testing. The author uses examples from an experiment in Chicago that tested the effects of marijuana on pilots. Bensinger claims the experiment illustrated the effects of marijuana on operating pilots can last up to twenty four hours through simulated flights (46). He argues that the only time random drug testing is necessary and/or appropriate is when the employees are put in a positions to be responsible for the public well-being (46). Drug testing in the workplace should be limited to maintaining a safe working environment and when drug use and abuse becomes obvious.

Comer, on the other hand, demonstrates the problems with drug testing at the workplace, as well as illustrates the unsupported claims of workplace testing advocates (Comer 259). Immediately, the author acknowledges the blind, common acceptance amongst advocates, like Bensinger, who believe it will reduce “absenteeism, theft, mistakes, and accidents” (Comer 259). She continues by showing there is no evidence to support this claim. Comer states that there has never been proof that drug users are more prone to such crimes. She also informs her readers that demonstration of poor work behavior can be any number of personal problems not relating to work; these cannot be logical reasons for a drug test. Comer continues her argument stating that preemployment drug testing will have a very small, if any, positive effect (260). She acknowledges the fact that it could decrease the number of drug users hired, but only those who do not alter their urine beforehand to show up negative on tests or are already hired before the policy (261). Another problem of testing at the office is it suggests issues of racial discrimination as Comer exhibits through an experiment done at a post office (261). This experiment showed that even though African Americans had a lower number of absentees, accidents, and injuries on the job, they were still one hundred and forty three percent more likely to be terminated in comparison to their Caucasian coworkers (261). Comer suggests that this is a result from managers and people in power believing African Americans to be more likely to use drugs, causing them to be more susceptible to testing (262). This shows the possible unconscious bias during a