Drug testing at work is a common practice in many businesses. Nevertheless, despite its lengthy history, it is still a contentious practice. Many business managers experience difficulties when they weigh the advantages and disadvantages of workplace drug testing since there are conflicting views on how to strike the right balance between worker privacy and workplace safety.
Regular occupational drug testing primarily contributes to safety promotion. Employees are less likely to engage in misconduct if they are aware that they will undergo routine drug testing. As a result, there are fewer workers who are impaired, lowering the likelihood of accidents. The impact of pharmaceuticals on a business may vary depending on your sector. The potential repercussions of an individual using drugs at work should be seriously considered by businesses that use heavy gear, such as warehouses or contractors. Moreover, when an accident takes place on business property, the company may be held accountable if it is determined that they were negligent in maintaining a safe working environment. Regular drug testing identifies any employees who might be a risk to worker safety owing to drug usage, protecting employers from legal repercussions.
Numerous Americans seek to improve their lives each year by the hundreds of thousands. Former drug users look for employment, make an effort to quit using, and seek accountability in recovery organizations. Returning to drug use is a difficult battle, though. Regular employee testing increases accountability for workers to maintain their integrity and perform their jobs. In addition, there are numerous costs the business must cover when an employee’s drug use results in an accident. Costs may include potential legal bills, worker injuries, or destruction of firm property or equipment (Brunt et al.). By routinely testing the staff for drugs, business owners may head off possible mishaps and save their business money by sparing them from having to deal with the aftermath.
Despite the fact that workplace drug testing is an excellent practice with many distinct benefits, there are certain drawbacks to be aware of. Here are a few things to think about if you’re considering introducing workplace drug testing into your business. The added cost to the business is one of the greatest and most evident drawbacks of workplace drug testing (Kulig). Drug testing isn’t free, and the cost might be rather high depending on the size of a company. Depending on the strategy, a manager might wind up shelling out about $40 for each individual (Rosso et al). Even though it might not seem like much, if there are several employees, it can quickly mount up.
The invasion of employee privacy is one of the workplace drug test’s more contentious drawbacks. Many workers believe that drug testing at work is intrusive and violates their right to privacy. The ordinary employee now feels strongly against drug testing as a result of this. Employee morale and productivity have fallen at several businesses that have instituted mandated workplace drug testing causing a decline in business revenue. Although it is not always the case, this is something to keep in mind before starting any drug testing method.
Before making a final choice regarding the company, there should be an examination of the benefits and drawbacks of workplace drug testing. The decision-making will be aided by the awareness of both the advantages and hazards of testing. I suggest to make the drug-testing voluntary, as such the policy will not violate employees’ right for privacy and also will benefit the company’s productivity.
Works Cited
Brunt, Tibor M., et al. “Drug testing in Europe: monitoring results of the Trans European Drug Information (TEDI) project.” Drug Testing and Analysis 9.2 (2017): 188-198. Web.
Kulig, Ken. “Interpretation of workplace tests for cannabinoids.” Journal of Medical Toxicology 13.1 (2017): 106-110.
Rosso, Gian Luca, et al. “Seven years of workplace drug testing in Italy: A systematic review and meta‐analysis.” Drug Testing and Analysis 9.6 (2017): 844-852. Web.
