Random drug testing (RDT) is becoming a common practice in many industries. This type of testing involves the analysis of urine or blood samples of existing employees randomly (with no prior notification of the date of such procedures). All the employees are informed that they can be assigned to such tests at any time. Many employers, officials, and other stakeholders see this practice positively. RDT is regarded as an efficient preventive measure that enhances safety in the workplace as well as safety for the general public (Farrell & Collier, 2015). It is necessary to note that drug tests for employees have been required in many industries for decades. Employees of law enforcement organizations or those involved in the provision of health or safety services are normally tested regularly. At that, the practice is also associated with some concerns regarding certain legal aspects. For instance, such testing violates people’s right to privacy. More so, there are various technical issues that undermine the validity of testing. It is necessary to consider both benefits and drawbacks of random drug testing to understand whether organizations can use it effectively.
Benefits of Random Drug Testing
Clearly, one of the benefits of RDT is its preventive capacity. Proponents of the practice stress that it reduces the cases of the use of drugs in the workplace as employees are afraid of being caught and fired (Phan, Yoshizuka, Murry, & Perry, 2012). The fear of losing their jobs makes people restrain from using drugs since they know they can be checked at any time.
The use of RDT also contributes to the safety at the workplace. For instance, Marques, Jesus, Olea, Vairinhos, and Jacinto (2014) implement a study focusing on the transportation industry. They found that RDT decreases the rate of accidents at the workplace. Marques et al. (2014) stress that there were only 15.7% of accident victims among tested employees as compared to 47% of victims among untested ones. Clearly, the decrease in accidents results in economic benefits for an organization. It has been estimated that the benefit-cost ratio of such testing is 26:1 (Marques et al., 2014).
As far as the legal aspect of the use of RDT, it is possible to note that organizations can safeguard their operations from possible lawsuits from employees or customers. For instance, companies can be sure that their employees do not use drugs in the workplace and will behave adequately in all the situations. Thus, the likelihood of lawsuits associated with the improper treatment of customers due to employees’ drug use significantly decreases if the employer uses RDT as a preventive measure.
Drawbacks of Random Drug Testing
Nonetheless, there are various drawbacks and concerns associated with random drug testing. One of the major issues is related to the right to privacy and the Fourth Amendment that warrants that the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated” (as cited in Farrell & Collier, 2015, p. 96). Thus, the test is regarded as the intrusion into people’s private life and direct violation of their privacy right. On the other hand, the use of tests is justified in some cases as they are seen as a way to safeguard collective safety but there is no clarity in this area.
Three cases illustrate the controversy that can result in undesirable legal outcomes for organizations. Two of these cases involve government organizations providing services that can potentially lead to certain health hazards or legal issues. For instance, in National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, employees argued that drug testing violated their right to privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution (Farrell & Collier, 2015). The court agreed with the employer and stated that drug testing could be regarded as reasonable search as employees handled classified material. Likewise, in Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives, the decision was against the personal privacy of individuals. The court decided that drug testing was justified as “discharge duties fraught with such risks of injury to others that even a momentary lapse of attention can have disastrous consequences” (as cited in Farrell & Collier, 2015, p. 96). Therefore, it is clear that public interest is valued higher than the personal privacy right of employees.
At the same time, there have been cases when the right to privacy was seen as a priority. One of such examples is related to the use of random drug testing. Barbara A. Luck, an engineer in a transportation company, was fired as she had refused to take a drug test since she considered it to be unfair and superfluous (Farrell & Collier, 2015). The woman filed suit against the company and claimed that her constitutional right to privacy was violated. The court decided that RDT was unjustified as the testing was the unreasonable intrusion in an individual’s life. Farrell and Collier (2015) note that such decisions are rather rare, but still the case created a precedent that can be used in numerous hearings. Therefore, the use of RDT can have quite negative legal outcomes if public interest is not apparent. For instance, a white-collar worker in a sales company can win the case if he/she refuses to be tested since there is no direct link between adverse effects of using drugs (if used) and the public good. This means that organizations should be careful when introducing such practices.
Another concern is related to the validity of testing. Clearly, modern testing is efficient, but there can still be errors that may have adverse effects on the stakeholders involved. More so, Phan et al. (2012) stress that strict procedural guidelines aimed at ensuring the validity of tests (as well as testing criteria) still fail to achieve their major goal. Apart from particular procedural issues, the validity of drug testing is also questioned since it is still not clear whether using drugs can lead to impaired performance. An illustration of such a controversy is the case of James Barron, a welder who had an accident when performing some tasks (Farrell & Collier, 2015). Barron fell over 14 feet and injured his spine, liver, and arms. He was assigned to a drug test that turned out to be positive. The organization refused to provide the necessary compensation although it was proved that Barron took drugs two days prior to the day of the accident. Thus, the test proved the fact that the employee used drugs, but it did not prove the fact that the accident was a result of the drug use. Clearly, this controversy may lead to legal issues for an organization. Employees can try to go to court requiring various compensations from the employer. It is difficult to predict the court’s decision as there is no scientific evidence, as well as sufficient legal precedents, that could be regarded as the ground for this or that legal outcome.
Furthermore, the use of drugs is legal in many states, which also contributes to the lack of clarity. Phan et al. (2012) claim that there is little understanding regarding the line between the use of illicit and prescribed drugs in the working place. In other words, the employer (and the court in case of legal actions) will have to decide whether the use of drugs can be tolerated, can affect employees’ performance, and so on. Clearly, organizations should make sure that the benefits of random drug testing in their industry are significant while downsides can be acceptable. It is also important to make sure that employees are aware of the practice and see it positively. To achieve this aim, RDT should be incorporated into the organizational culture so that employees could understand and accept it.
Conclusion
On balance, it is possible to note that random drug testing has various benefits and shortcomings associated with legal aspects. For instance, the implementation of testing can make the employer sure that employees do not behave improperly. More importantly, it is associated with the decrease in the number of accidents in the workplace, which translates into significant financial savings. At that, the lack of understanding of the line between the public good and personal right to privacy results in uncertainty. Moreover, the lack of scientific evidence concerning the effects of the drug use, as well as the controversy regarding testing criteria and validity of test results, contributes to the development of different views on the matter. Therefore, companies should make sure that the benefits of the use of the practice outweigh its downsides. It is also vital to make sure that employees have a positive attitude towards random drug testing.
References
Farrell, A., & Collier, J. (2015). The right to privacy in mandatory drug testing: Exploring the public and private domains. Brigham Young University Prelaw Review, 29(9), 87-105.
Marques, P., Jesus, V., Olea, S., Vairinhos, V., & Jacinto, C. (2014). The effect of alcohol and drug testing at the workplace on individual’s occupational accident risk. Safety Science, 68, 108-120.
Phan, H.M., Yoshizuka, K., Murry, D.J., & Perry, P.J. (2012). Drug testing in the workplace. Review of Therapeutics, 32(7), 649-656.