An employee's right to safety in the workplace is held against his/her employer, since the employer has the duty to provide the employee with a safe work environment; the employee does not hold this right against members of the general public, since they have no such duty (Rowan 3).
Thus, in situations that pose a threat to an individual’s safety, employers do have a duty to protect their employees, even if that means having to conduct drug testing to ensure the safety of others. Drug testing will further increase workplace health and safety.
Preventing harm and ensuring safety is the only justifiable reason to consider drug testing in the workplace. Employers have a duty to prevent any harm from occurring that may be caused by a drugs impaired employee. Some attempt to argue that drug testing should be implemented to increase job performance; however, it is not a sufficient justification. Studies do show that impaired workers are one third less productive (Canadian Bar Association 9). Therefore, if an employee is impaired by drug use the productivity decreases, the costs increase and the profits to the employer decrease. Accordingly, employers may believe that they have a legitimate claim to obtain private information from the employee as long as they are to perform certain tasks (DesJardins & Duska 235). However, DesJardins and Duska have found that if job performance begins to slip below what is expected by the employer than the employer does have grounds for warning, disciplining, or releasing the employee (236). Therefore, job performance is an incorrect justification to employ drug testing. By no means does it justify obtaining information on drug use, instead it justifies the employers right to warn, discipline or release the employee. If an employee is meeting expected levels of production or performance of tasks than the use of drugs is rightfully private (DesJardins & Duska 236). The fallacy of this argument promotes drug testing to increase productivity assuming that each employee should be performing at an optimal level (236). As noted by DesJardins and Duska if an employer finds that the cause of unsatisfactory performance is drug use than they can choose to help with rehabilitation, however, it is not morally required (236). Therefore, decrease in job performance does not justify employing drug testing, instead, it justifies the employers right to release or discipline the employee.
Another possible but insufficient justification for drug testing is to suggest that it will reduce the demand for illicit drug use. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada suggests that the threat of a drug test, which might jeopardize one’s livelihood, may deter a person from using illegal drugs (6). Drug testing then reduces the demand for illicit drugs and thus, the supply of drugs, just as President Reagan had first intended (The Privacy Commissioner of Canada 6). Private employers can argue that by testing for illegal drugs they are doing what they can to reduce the demand (The Privacy Commissioner of Canada 6). Also, employers can argue that drug use is an illegal activity that threatens others and in that sense poses a threat of harm (Desjardins & Duska 238). This justification is inadequate because illegal activity does not reflect the ability to perform tasks at the required level and thus is irrelevant to employers (Desjardins & Duska 238). The employers by no means have a claim to know about all illegal activity on part of their employees because it is unrelated on the employee’s ability to do the job. This justification for drug testing fails since it does not affect the employer or any individual’s safety. The health and safety rationale for drug testing prevails as the most convincing argument for drug testing in the workplace.
Although the protection of employees health and safety is the most convincing argument for drug testing in the workplace there are challenges to drug testing all together. Rowan indicates in his article that first employees are persons, and second persons are morally significant - something that makes it wrong to treat them in certain ways(356). With this in mind, those who oppose drug testing in the workplace would likely argue that it violates an employees right to privacy. For instance, civil libertarians in the US and Canada view urine collection as a method of drug testing to be insulting, dehumanizing and intrusion into a person’s privacy (Canadian Bar Association 16). Also union representatives and civil libertarians fear that test samples can be used to determine other factors such as pregnancy, aids, diabetes etc. (Canadian Bar Association 17). As a result of issues regarding privacy and rights of the individual the Privacy Act was enacted in 1983 and includes drug testing; however, this act does not apply to the private sector. Nevertheless, the Privacy Act does set out guidelines to ensure that private information is not tampered with. The Privacy Act also states that it is only infringed when the employer “collects information without cause to suspect drug use by or impairment of a person or within a group, and with no evidence to suggest that drug use or impairment poses a threat to public safety” (The Privacy Commissioner of Canada 23). The Privacy Act was enacted to ensure the privacy rights of individuals, but those rights are secondary when an individual has the potential to inflict serious harm onto others. Drug testing under the Privacy Act is justifiable when “the drug or impairment poses a substantial threat to the safety of those affected by the person’s actions”. The same can be said when “there are reasonable grounds to believe that drug testing can significantly reduce the risk to safety” (The Privacy Commissioner of Canada 24). Therefore privacy rights are over-ridden in situations where public safety does pose a serious threat. DesJardins and Duska state that the contractual relationship between employer and employee means that certain areas of the employer’s life remain his or her own private concern, and no employer has a right to invade them (235). However, the rebuttal to this argument is clearly that privacy is not violated when drug testing is relevant to the contract. Drug testing is relevant to a job when it poses serious harm to individuals. The employer has a right to protect his/her employees and thus, privacy will have to be undermined in those situations.
With respect to privacy rights, opponents to drug testing suggest that privacy includes the right to withhold from employers personal information that is not relevant to the job. Due to the power relationship between employer and employee, the employee is coerced to follow the demands of the employer. As long as there is unemployment in society the employee will feel obliged to compel with the needs of the employer and not jeopardize his/her job position. Only in cases of highly skilled workers does this not apply because of their heightened job security. As a result, employers will most likely conduct drug tests on employees that can easily be replaced, for instance those in public transportation over surgeons. Rowan suggests an employee’s inferior bargaining position makes them susceptible to exploitations and further, the information learned by the employer may in certain circumstances be used against the employee (359). Employees are at risk of loosing viable options, and thus of loosing their freedom if drug testing is implemented (359). DesJardin and Duska agree that “the employer has the discretion for deciding when the potential for harm is clear and present, and for deciding which employees pose the threat of harm, the possibility of abuse is great” (237). They also state that a drug policy that requires all employees to submit to a drug test or else jeopardize their jobs, would seem coercive and therefore, unacceptable (238). This argument against drug testing is based more on the relationship of the employer versus employee, and can exist when any policy restricts one’s freedom, not necessarily only in drug testing. However, harm in the workplace does exist, and it is the responsibility of the employer to prevent that harm. In order to prevent the exploitation and abuse by the employer it is appropriate to have some system of checks upon an employer’s discretion (DesJardins & Duska 237). DesJardins and Duska suggest that in order to limit the employer’s power there should be prior knowledge of drug testing so that employees have the option of refraining from drug use (237). As well, notify the test results to the employee, and be entitled to appeal. As a result, the privacy rights are recognized and the employee is treated with more respect. Drug testing is thus acceptable if there is potential for serious harm to others, as long as employers follow strict guidelines to minimize any abuse on their part.
The rising issues concerning drug testing is due to the drug abuse that occurs in the workplace. Although, United States and Canada have implemented legislations within the public sector the private sector is still to be disputed. Nevertheless, what has been implemented within government institutions gives one an understanding on what is considered justified when testing for drugs. The most prominent and convincing argument for drug testing is the prevention of harm and assurance of safety within the workplace. Employers have a moral duty to provide their employees with a safe working environment, due to the fact that the employees right to safety is held against the employer. Thus, this argument for drug testing is the most valid since job performance and detection for illegal drugs do not justify drug testing, but instead provide justifications that are irrelevant to the situation. Although employees have a right to a safe working environment some privacy rights will be undermined. Privacy rights may be devalued due to drug testing, however, employers can ensure that employees still do have rights by minimizing any room for abuse that may occur due to the employer. Nonetheless, drug testing is not only a prevalent issue in athletics but also in the workplace. However, it is now unquestionable that the most convincing justification for drug testing by employers is to prevent harm and provide a safe environment, and unfortunately privacy rights will come secondary under those circumstances.
Work Cited
DesJardins, Joseph, and Duska, Ronald. “Drug Testing in Employment.” Contemporary Issues in Business Ethics. Ed. Joseph R. Desjardins and John J. McCall. United States: Wadsworth. 2000. 234-239.
The Canadian Bar Association-Ontario. Report On Mandatory Drug Testing. Ontario. 1987.
The Privacy Commissioner of Canada. Drug Testing and Privacy. Ottawa, Ontario. 1990.
Rowan, John. “The moral foundation of employee rights.” Journal of Business Ethics 24.4 (2000): 355-361.
Drug Testing in the Workplace
Nisha Sisodiya
ID #223238
March 28, 2003
PHIL 329
Professor Hreno
