Drug testing is a controversial topic as it has pros and cons that hold a relatively significant amount of argumentative weight. Employers are obligated to provide a safe work environment and ensure that their employees are productive, but is the maintenance of a drug test policy in the attainment of these goals worth the hassle? In the present world, this issue is further exacerbated by the legalization of marijuana in all states in the U.S.
Before I read the article by Michael Cranford on Drug Testing and the Right to Privacy: Arguing the Ethics of Workplace Drug Testing, I had the perception that all drug testing policies were a violation of the employees’ dignity. However, upon reading it, I came to realize that this depended on the workplace. Moreover, the benefits of the policy outweigh the cons. Its primary aim is to prevent harm; therefore, it has the potential to keep employees and consequentially a company, safe from accidents that might be caused by the impaired. This is proven in real-life scenarios, for instance, the Conrail-Amtrack collision in January 1987 that led to the death of 16 people and left 170 injured (Cranford, 1998). The accident was caused by an incompetent Conrail engineer who was found to have marijuana in his system. In addition, since the doctrine of respondent superior makes companies legally liable for the actions of their employees, they are justified to implement processes and policies that would protect them from this. Therefore, I support Cranford’s claims that “the ultimate end of drug testing is the preservation of life as an intrinsic good”, which supersedes the employees’ intrinsic value and dignity (Cranford, 1998, p. 1813).
However, the article by Boatright on What’s wrong— and what’s right — with stakeholder management, negated Cranford’s views. It brought to light the shortcoming brought about by the drug testing policies. According to Boatright (2006), the strategy of profit maximization aims to serve the needs of only one stakeholder group of a business entity. Companies usually measure performance in terms of financial KPIs rather than also inculcating the welfare of their employees. Consequentially, they often end up neglecting the needs of employees who contribute to the organization’s development. He further states that it is essential for employers to consider the needs and expectations of their employees to facilitate the creation and establishment of strong working relationships that will benefit the company in the long run (Boatright, 2006). From a cost-benefit analysis standpoint, drug tests help to ensure employee productivity. However, since not all employees support this policy, this should not be regarded as a justification for drug testing.
Since both sides of the agenda in workplace drug testing hold considerable weight, I believe that it is up to an organization, depending on its industry and culture to determine which end of the spectrum contains the most significant economic benefit, which is the bottom-line for all businesses. Employers have to take into account the needs of the business, as well as applicable state laws. Some employers are federal contractors; thus, they are inclined to adhere to specific drug-free workplace laws. On the contrary, others are trying to build a qualified employee base and think that a drug testing policy might hinder the capability to attract and retain top talent. Moreover, based on my experiences, companies with drug testing policies often test when an employee showcases observable behaviors that might trigger reasonable suspicion. Therefore, with regards to the class readings, I have realized that drug testing in the workplace is recommendable as it is both legally, financially, and morally justifiable.
References
Boatright, J. (2006). What’s wrong- and what’s right – with stakeholder management. Journal of Private Enterprise, 21(2), 106-130. Web.
Cranford, M. (1998). Drug testing and the right to privacy: Arguing the ethics of workplace drug testing. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 1805-1815. Web.