The protection of the privacy of employees should be paramount to the removal of drugs in the workplace. Although drug use and abuse impact society a negative ways, the drug testing of employees does not necessarily remove the problem from the workplace. The consequence of employee drug testing is that it violates the rights of many who do not use drugs nor show any indication of drug use (Shaw & Barry, 2007, p. 3362). The rights of many would be violated for the investigation of a few. From a Utilitarian point of view, this would be morally unethical as the majority of employees would be harmed in the process. In situations where an employee’s role necessitates the need for not only sobriety, but to be completely drug free, drug testing would be reasonable, but pre-activity safety checks would more likely serve to protect from potential harm (Shaw & Barry, 2007, p. 364). Take for instance a Drug Enforcement Agency officer, if these individuals will come in constant contact with illegal narcotics, it would be prudent to ensure that they do not have a drug addiction and could possibly be a threat to other officers if they began to partner with drug dealers, steal confiscated drugs or could possibly behave in way detrimental to their colleagues due to intoxication. Only in such situations would drug testing be reasonable and morally justifiable.
When justifying drug testing as a way to prevent harm, we must consider that most roles do not necessitate the need to be drug free. Employers are only justified in the expectation that their staff perform at a reasonable level. If drug use causes their employees to perform below required norms, than they should attempt to assist their employee in reaching acceptable performance levels or terminate the working relationship. Regardless of the reason for sub-par performance employers have a right to terminate the relationship, but invasion of privacy should not be a means to that end (Shaw & Barry, 2007, p. 361). Drug testing should not be within the rights or expectations of the employer and should only be engaged when absolutely necessary.
When drug testing is deemed necessary, it should be completed in strict compliance with policies which restrict its scope and intrusiveness (Shaw & Barry, 2007, p. 363). The damage that can be caused due to false positives, misuse of the information obtained and the diminishment to employee moral can be devastating. An employee’s reputation can be easily destroyed and their future opportunities damaged beyond repair due to reckless indifference when drug testing. Urinalysis not only provides information about an employees drug use (illicit or legal), but can also provide employers with information regarding an employees sexual practices, genetic disposition, eating habits and otherwise personal aspects of their lives. None of which should be considered to be within the legitimate interests of their employers (Shaw & Barry, 2007, p. 336).
Employers have a responsibility (moral and legal) to protect their employees from harm within the workplace (Shaw & Barry, 2007, p. 336). This includes not exposing employees to an environment rife with risk, but does not require employers to attempt to protect their employees within their private, non work lives. Employers can be held liable for the actions of their employees, but only when their employees cause harm during their work for the employer or within the confines of the employer’s property. Unless the intrusion is relevant to the job the employee performs, testing for health threatening activities is not morally or legally justified (Shaw & Barry, 2007, p. 361). The responsibilities of employees to employers only entail the provision of a reasonable level of performance within the job they were hired to do. The fact that employees engage in activities outside of the work environment that are disapproved of by their employer should be of no consequence nor should knowledge of these activities fall under the prevue of their employers (Shaw & Barry, 2007, p. 367).
Should employers be allowed to use polygraph tests to "screen" out potentially costly employees who may engage in any of these activities?
The theoretical justification of polygraph testing includes the theory that it can detect the physiological changes which occur when a person is disturbed by a question, specifically when there is an attempt to be deceptive. Companies reason that the use of polygraph testing during the pre-employment process can aid them is screening out potentially costly (i.e.: drug users, the dishonest and the unethical) or inappropriate (i.e.: incompatible philosophies, behavioral patters, character traits for the organization) applicants (Shaw & Barry, 2007, p. 332). Polygraph testing has not been shown to be 100% accurate (Shaw & Barry, 2007, p. 330). The inaccuracy of these tests would subject many individuals to unjustified restriction from employment opportunities and cause the organization to potentially miss the prospect of hiring many capable and beneficial staff. Polygraph testing infringes on an individual’s privacy in the most intrusive ways. They invade an individual’s most private thoughts and beliefs, many of which have no relevance to the job they are applying for. No one can forecast how an individual will perform on their job simply by administering a test that monitors physiological changes during questioning, especially during a usually stressful situation (i.e. interviewing for a job). Even when an applicant submits to a polygraph test or any pre-employment testing for that matter, there may be subtle influence or pressure involved, making that submission less consensual and more coerced (Shaw & Barry, 2007, p. 332. The applicant has only two choices, submit to the test, or go look for a job somewhere else. When economic restraints are involved, there really is no choice.
References
Shaw, W. H. & Barry, V. (2007). Moral Issues in Business (10th ed.). California: Thompson Wadworth
