Drug testing in workplaces has become a topic of debate among employers, employees and workplace environment researchers. The question of the necessity and the relevance of drug testing is a complex one and needs to be approached from various angles of argumentation. First of all, there are industries where substance abuse, which is a central rationale for introducing drug testing, is unacceptable in the context of safe and secure performance and service, such as “transportation, safety, defense, transit, and aviation are required to test certain applicants and employees for drug and alcohol use, as well as hospitals, media corporations, schools, and universities” (Alison Doyle, 2017).
Mentioned industries are required to ensure the evaluation of employees through drug testing by state law. However, drug tests have entered other sectors, which are not bound to perform such tests by law and this has incentivized a discussion around issues of privacy of employees. In this essay, we will argue that drug testing is not irrelevant in those industries where substance abuse can negatively affect society (such as transportation, medical services, and educational institutions), but in other sectors should be designed with employee-oriented precision.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Drug Testing of Employees".
Russell Cropanzano from Colorado State University and Mary A. Konovsky from Tulane University have researched the correlation between drug testing as a company policy and employee performance. Scholars have found out that employees who feel that such procedural obligation is in some way unfair, perform worse than those who think that company drug testing policy is fair. The results of the study indicate “the importance of procedural justice in the drug testing context and is consistent with the belief that procedural justice, but not outcome fairness, is associated with employee loyalty and long-term expectations of fair treatment, which are manifested in employees’ endorsement of their organization and its leaders” (Mary A. Konovsky & Russell Cropanzano, 1991). The study concluded that justice is an essential concern for the company’s team and justice should be integrated into company’s code of conduct (Mary A. Konovsky & Russell Cropanzano, 1991).
Human resource policies in the context of drug testing should be designed with a careful and attentive precision since many factors can contribute to the overall justice perception of the employees and therefore their performance. This essay suggests several fundamental principles that should be followed in developing a company policy on drug testing
Transparency: the requirement for drug testing should be announced already in the job announcement, in this case, a person is not “cornered” into taking it, but makes a conscious choice.
Precision: if the procedure of drug testing at the company is written in detail with explanations of the schedule, particularities and the rationale, then employees do not perceive injustice and develop loyalty to the company.
Trust: regardless of what the company’s management believes is the reason for worse performance and absenteeism, corporate policy should reflect the rationale behind doing drug testing. Without knowing the reason for being tested, employees will develop distrust among the team.
Konovsky and Cropanzano stress the importance of program design that considers procedural justice perception and suggest advanced notice, employee voice, and the right of appeal as few of the possible instruments for company policy design (Mary A. Konovsky & Russell Cropanzano, 1991). Overall, the benefits of introducing drug testing (fewer accidents, lower health care costs, and lower absenteeism) should be considered together with drawbacks and balanced in the document of drug testing policy (Mary A. Konovsky & Russell Cropanzano, 1991).
Providing a safe workspace is a demonstration of caring and respectful attitude towards employees. When people know that the company they dedicate 80% of their life is taking care of their health and wellness, they put more energy and motivation into their responsibilities, thus giving our company a higher value (Tyler D. Hartwell, Paul D. Steele, Michael T. French, & Nathaniel F. Rodman, 1996).
Companies could follow this scenario for ensuring workplace safety: create a supervising committee that will analyse the incoming cases of hazardous workplace situations; then, the team of the safety department will identify, analyze and prioritize the possible risks at our workspaces; further, introduce a set of preventive measures for the hazardous workspace situations and finally, approve the most efficient safety and risk management actions with the board of the company and will proceed with the implementation of the approved safety action plan.
