March 7th, 2010
By Joseph Devine
The practice of randomly drug testing prospective and current employees is a highly debated issue. Many people align themselves with employers and argue that employees should not be taking performance altering drugs, because it could compromise output and safety. Others side with employees who argue that random drug testing is a violation of personal privacy.
Opponents
Many civil liberties organizations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), argue that pre-employment and random drug testing is a violation of a person’s privacy. If their performance is satisfactory and there is no reason to suspect drug abuse at the workplace, they should not be subjected to testing.
According to some statistics, the low-quality drug tests that most employers administer are prone to showing false positives. It is estimated that approximately 10% – 30% of positives are false.
Additionally, opponents argue that drug testing does not indicate when an employee was under the influence of drugs, only that drugs are present in the employee’s body when the urine test was administered. This means that an employee could come to work stone-cold sober every day but still test positive on a drug test. In the eye of opponents, this is a flawed method of determining impairment.
Proponents
Supporters of drug testing argue that they have the right to know whether or not their employees are taking drugs because an “altered” employee may compromise safety and output. According to proponents, statistics indicate that employers lose thousands of dollars each year because of substance abusing employees. While the extent to which this is a problem is controversial, there is no doubt that this is sometimes the case.
Additionally, employers argue that they would be the ones who face persecution and liability if workplace safety was compromised by a “high” employee. This is especially relevant for employees who are directly responsible for the safety of others. Pilots and bus drivers, for example, should be tested more frequently in order to ensure they are not going to compromise the public’s safety.
Laws by State
While federal does not prohibit drug testing, many states have ruled it unconstitutional to randomly test state employees. In addition to state employee unions, many people are filing suit against private employers.
Opinions about drug testing vary significantly across the nations; however, one thing remains certain-drug testing should be conducted in accordance with the Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). If your employer has failed to meet the SAMHSA standards, they may be liable for discrimination.
For more information about unlawful drug tests, contact the San Antonio employment lawyers of Melton & Kumler, LLP today.
Joseph Devine
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Joseph_Devine
http://EzineArticles.com/?The-Drug-Testing-Controversy&id=3870299
Related Blogs
March 6th, 2010
By Joseph Devine
Agriculture is the backbone of our society. Without agricultural workers, no one would be able to eat. Unfortunately agricultural workers also face some of the harshest working conditions of any industry. They work longer hours, often for less pay, than people in nearly any other line of work. Even if their working conditions are less than ideal, however, they are entitled-like everyone-to work without facing discrimination.
Discrimination can affect anyone, but is most commonly [...] Continue Reading…
March 5th, 2010
By Joseph Devine
In recent years, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and other government organizations have made a concerted effort to reduce the number of workplace injuries in the United States. As our workplaces become more advanced and more technologically refined, the number of accidents should be decreasing. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Thousands of workers are injured every single day in workplace accidents, the majority of which are tragically preventable.
In 2008 alone, [...] Continue Reading…
March 4th, 2010
By Joseph Devine
Job interviews are inherently stressful. When you’re trying to present a positive image of yourself as a worker, it can be difficult to know how to respond to your interviewer’s questions. Your interviewer is usually a stranger, and you may not know what questions to expect. As stressful as that is, sometimes interviewers ask questions that are uncomfortable or discriminatory. Even though it’s illegal to ask questions like those, many interviewees do [...] Continue Reading…
March 3rd, 2010
We live in an age when everyone is itching to sue somebody for one silly thing or another. Our courts are filled with ridiculous claims that can not possibly ever fix everything for everyone. Even though you can not please all of the people all of the time, there are ways you can try to avoid a Religious Discrimination Lawsuit.
The way we speak gets us in so much trouble nowadays. People have not been taught [...] Continue Reading…
March 1st, 2010
By Elizabeth Ryan
The U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division receives numerous complaints every year from employees who were wrongfully denied overtime pay. While some employers violate federal overtime law without intention, others purposefully deny overtime pay to eligible workers. By using common overtime scams, employers cheat their workers out of time-and-a-half compensation for overtime hours. Luckily, many common overtime scams have been identified so that workers can fully understand their rights to overtime.
A [...] Continue Reading…
March 1st, 2010
By Timothy Broderick
The real difficulty in summary judgment is for plaintiffs who claim pervasive sexual harassment that has created a hostile and abusive work environment. There are two keys to overcoming summary judgment in this type of case. First, the plaintiff’s declaration must include a description of the offensive events over a significant period of time. We know, for example, that incidents occurring on one day are insufficient under the pervasive criterion. Second, the plaintiff’s [...] Continue Reading…
February 26th, 2010
By Jane Frost
A federal employee may find himself in quandary after having an accident that renders him disabled. His only option will be to seek disability retirement and wait for the benefits. That definitely means leaving his job to live on the benefits alone or look for another job that can still accept him in his condition.
However, applying for those benefits only seems easy on paper. In fact, its approval is not always smooth [...] Continue Reading…
February 25th, 2010
By Timothy Broderick
The California Supreme Court has consistently supported summary judgment against plaintiffs in sexual harassment cases where the plaintiff has not made out a case that is sufficient under the legal definitions of “severe” or “pervasive”. The California Supreme Court says “severe” means an offensive touching involving physical violence or a threat thereof. For sexual harassment to qualify as “pervasive,” there must be repeated conduct over a period of time that alters the conditions [...] Continue Reading…
February 19th, 2010
By Joseph Devine
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) was drafted in 1938 following the Industrial Revolution, a period of time when workers were notoriously mistreated and underpaid. Tired of being exploited by big businesses, workers united and formed labor unions to rally for their rights. Because of their diligence, there are many laws today which serve to protect the rights and ensure the safety of American workers.
One area which the FLSA mandates is the employment [...] Continue Reading…
