PROFESSIONAL ETHICS FOR BUSINESS

Name Student ID#

Jessica Arroyo Vazquez 110036300

Academic Honesty Policy Statement

I, hereby attest that contents of this attachment are my own work. Referenced works, articles, art, programs, papers or parts thereof are acknowledged at the end of this paper. This includes data excerpted from CD-ROMs, the Internet, other private networks, and other people’s disk of the computer system.

LECTURER’S COMMMENTS/GRADE:for office use only

DATE : ______________

TIME : ________________

RECEIVER’S NAME : _______

1 | P a g e

Title :Group AssigmentLecturer : kamelia chaichi

Rights of Employers and Employees

Drug testing in the workplace, whether pre-employment or post-employment, constitutes an unacceptable invasion of the

employee's right to privacy and should be legally prohibited

Introduction

Workplace drug screening can be a touchy topic. It is true thatthey want employees to be healthy and productive. But if you’renot careful you might break their trust — and the law. There aregenerally two forms of workplace drug testing: Pre-employmentscreening and post-employment testing. The latter, in particular,comes with a host of cultural and legal issues.

Employers design drug-free workplace programs to protect theirbusinesses from the impact of drug abuse. Pre-employment drugtesting helps prevent the hiring of individuals who abuse drugsand is most often performed as a part of the job applicationprocess. Because every business and workforce is unique, eachemployer should make a careful determination about the programelements that are most beneficial for their workplace.

Drug testing makes the workplace safer and increases employeeconfidence. It is always better to catch a drug or alcoholproblem before an employee becomes a hazard. Knowing a drug-

2 | P a g e

testing system is in place generally helps employees be moreproductive because they do not have to fear a drug- or alcohol-related incident jeopardizing their welfare in any way. Also, ifworkplace drug testing leads an employee to seek treatment, somuch the better. Some employers may opt to refer anyone testingpositive to a drug treatment program so that employee has achance to become productive again.

But when it comes to post-employment testing employees are lessreceptive to random drug testing, perhaps perceiving it as aninvasion of privacy because no probable cause exists. Whilerandom testing is legal in the workplace, some groups feel itviolates an individual's constitutional rights. Urine and hairtests only reveal certain aspects of past drug use, not current,illicit use that may have occurred on the job. It could be arguedthat a field sobriety test might be an alternative, particularlyfor suspected alcohol abuse, which is not often included inroutine drug testing.

Critical terms

What are the benefits of implementing workplace drug testing?

There are so many unknowns when hiring new employees. The impact

of any one new hire on a team, department, or company can be

great. An employer has a responsibility to themselves, their

employees, and their customers to be diligent and who they are

bringing into their workforce. Although not required for most

private-sector employers, workplace drug testing has become a

standard practice for many. The benefits of a workplace drug

testing program include reducing costs associated with substance

3 | P a g e

abuse, such as workplace accidents, lost productivity, and

workers’ compensation. The benefits go beyond costs and directly

to the employer’s responsibility to provide a workplace free from

risks and hazards for their employees, which can positively

impact a company’s culture and overall employee morale.

What are the main disadvantages of testing new or currentemployees for drug use?

The benefits of a properly designed workplace drug testingprogram outweigh the risks. The main risk is violating the law.There are legal issues associated with workplace drug testing andemployers who decide to test must follow applicable state and orlocal laws. Before embarking on a program, it is imperative thatyou understand the history of drug testing and be aware of thecurrent legal, medical, and risk landscape. Claims an employercould face include unlawful treatment, invasion of privacy, orviolations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Acomprehensive, well-thought-out workforce drug testing program —which addresses who should be tested and when — is essential toprotecting the company. Researching and implementing a workplacedrug testing program is a collaborative effort among thoseknowledgeable in the different areas. Reach outside the companyto augment your internal knowledge and seek the advice of legalcounsel before implementing. This is an area you must get right.

Drug testing does not test impairment.

4 | P a g e

As a result, drug tests mainly identify drug users who may have

used a drug on the weekend, as they might use alcohol, and who

are not under the influence of a drug while at work or when

tested. It takes several hours for drug metabolites to appear in

urine, so drug tests may miss drug users who are under the

influence of drugs at the time the test is given. Using the

Kaiser Permanente data, researchers found no significant

differences between health care costs for marijuana users to non-

users.

Alternatives to Drug Testing

Rather than submit a person to drug testing, why not use the

traditional method of checking references to find out about an

potential employee? Supervisors need to be trained to identify,

confront, or refer impaired employees to Employee Assistance

Programs or other intervention programs. Impairment testing not

only detects people who are impaired by drugs and alcohol, but

also by sleep deprivation stress, fatigue, emotional problems

including anxiety, sickness or other health problems, over-the

counter medications, prescription medications, or those who are

otherwise not able to perform safely. Impairment due to illicit

drugs is statistically much less likely than impairment from

other factors. These tests, once administered, can improve safety

far better than drug tests can. They are not discriminatory.

5 | P a g e

Rather, they measure everyone equally by their performance which

is the most significant factor in employment.

Denying an addict employment through drug testing is also a sure

way to keep him or her using drugs and alcohol (making the

addicts life more unbearable with jail time, monetary fines,

criminal records, and reducing odds of improving life).

There is a growing number of people who will suffer when they are

falsely labeled drug users by the inaccuracies of drug testing.

People will unjustly be denied a driver's license, evicted from

their homes, and be denied their rights and government benefits

Anybody being treated for depression, anxiety, heart disease,

ulcers, insomnia, diabetes, or high blood pressure may be

'screened out' and denied employment as a result of drug testing.

This has nothing to do with marijuana use. It is related to the

medical information gathered at the drug testing site.

6 | P a g e

Relevant stakeholders and their desires

From the perspective of a more productive and secure work

environment, I see workplace drug testing as a program all

businesses should consider. In companies where employees are

responsible for the well-being and care of others — such as a

hospital or public safety agency — there may be more of a reason

to do so than in other types of businesses. Companies may differ

widely on policies for pre-employment screening versus testing

current employees. The job applicant pool may play a role in the

ultimate decision to do conduct pre-employment testing, for

example. Culture will reign supreme when deciding on whether or

7 | P a g e

not to test current employees and, if so, under what

circumstances. Costs aside, leaders begin the conversation of

weighing risk versus trust. 

Workplace drug testing can help identify employees in need of

help with their substance use. Because people with addictions are

often highly secretive and deceitful, drug testing circumvents

the need for honest self-reporting, which is highly unreliable

when people have a lot to lose -- in this case, potentially, both

their livelihood and their reputation. When proper informed

consent procedures are followed, workplace drug testing acts as a

deterrent to people who might otherwise experiment with, or

regularly use alcohol or drugs.

Workplace drug testing has the potential to greatly enhance

health and safety in the workplace, by discouraging people from

abusing substances and thereby suffering any ill health effects,

and reducing the likelihood of accidents and injuries related to

working under the influence

It is important to explain this section with the assertion that

there are a wide range of factors which contribute to workplace

related hazards and harms, a number of which are cited to carry

more grave consequences than drug testing use in the workplace.

notes that these include, but are not limited to, dangerous

working conditions, conflict, poorly maintained equipment and

insufficient training. Furthermore, it should be noted that there

8 | P a g e

are significant limitations in the evidence regarding the

efficacy of drug testing in the workplace to reduce workplace

related harms . Evidence demonstrates that men are more likely

than women to suffer a work related fatality with transport,

postal and warehousing, as well as the agricultural and fishing

industries reporting the highest levels of fatalities, although

other industries, including hospitality, reported the highest

levels of drug use.

9 | P a g e

The interdisciplinary aspects of the problem

Today, in some industries, taking a drug test is as routine as

filling out a job application. In fact, workplace despite the

fact that random drug testing is unfair, often inaccurate and

unproven as a means of stopping drug use. But because there are

few laws protecting our privacy in the workplace, millions of

American workers are tested yearly - even though they aren't

suspected of drug use. Employers have the right to expect workers

not to be high or drunk on the job. But they shouldn't have the

right to require employees to prove their innocence by taking a

drug test. 

Invasion and error 

However routine drug tests have become, they're still intrusive.

Often, another person is there to observe the employee to ensure

10 | P a g e

there is no specimen tampering. Even indirect observation can be

degrading; typically, workers must remove their outer garments

and urinate in a bathroom in which the water supply has been

turned off. 

The lab procedure is a second invasion of privacy. Urinalysis

reveals not only the presence of illegal drugs, but also the

existence of many other physical and medical conditions,

including genetic predisposition to disease - or pregnancy.

Furthermore, human error in the lab, or the test's failure to

distinguish between legal and illegal substances, can make even a

small margin of error add up to a huge potential for false

positive results. In 1992, an estimated 22 million tests were

administered. If five percent yielded false positive results (a

conservative estimate of false positive rates) that means 1.1

million people who could have been fired, or denied jobs -

because of a mistake. 

Drug testing has nothing to do with impairment and everything to

do with discrimination and is a violation of our human rights.

Potential ramifications of drug testing are loss of jobs or

reputation, loss of benefits and pensions, loss of custody of

children, denial of transplants, and revocation of probation or

11 | P a g e

parole; landing more people in jail (thus, increasing the prison

industrial system).

Researchers found that workers testing positive at the time of

hire were no more likely than workers testing negative to become

involved in an accident. The NAS claimed," Illicit drugs

contribute little to the overall rate of industrial accidents."

This is because most workers who use illicit drugs never use them

at work. And, when they do so, it is in a way that does not

affect their work performance.

In comparing the residual effect of occasional off-duty stimulant

use, they found it to be no more profound than the effects that

occur following "sleep deprivation in the absence of drug use."

Moderate use of illicit drugs by workers during off-duty hours

was no more likely than moderate off-duty alcohol use to

compromise workplace safety.

12 | P a g e

Arguments both for and against the drug testing in theworkplace, whether pre-employment or post-employment,constitutes an unacceptable invasion of the employee's

right to privacy and should be legally prohibited

Arguments against the drug testing in the workplace, whether pre-

employment or post-employment, constitutes an unacceptable

invasion of the employee's right to privacy and should be legally

prohibited.

Employers have relied on information provided by drug testing

promoters who have an inherent conflict of interest on the topic.

Drug Testing products and services are now a multi-billion dollar

industry which rely on the magnification of the severity of drug-

related problems in the workplace and extolling the benefits of

drug testing as a solution. They market drug testing with the

promise that they will improve productivity and profits. They

use bogus studies to arrive at estimates of "costs of lost

productivity." The Research Triangle Institute researchers "found

no difference in the annual incomes of households with and

without current marijuana users or with users of other drugs."

13 | P a g e

According the American Management Association, only 8 percent of

companies with drug testing programs had performed any cost-

benefit analysis.

The false positive rate has been shown to vary widely from 0.8 to

60%.Despite having a 4-34% false positive rate, the EMIT has been

the most widely used immunological assay for detection of drugs

of abuse in urine. Back up tests are only required for federal

employees. More sophisticated tests require more training of lab

technicians. Inadequately trained techs cause more false

positives.

Most drugs, including cocaine and marijuana, bind and incorporate

into the hair of African Americans 10 to 50 times greater than

drugs are incorporated into the hair of Caucasians. Hair testing

is extremely poor at identifying current drug use because the

maximum amount of drug is deposited one to two months after drug

use and is often not detectable until weeks after use. Hair can

be contaminated by second-hand smoke. People have reported

testing positive up to six months after use in hair testing!

This is unreasonable search and seizure, threatening the 4th

amendment protections against such abuse. This treats people like

they are guilty until proven innocent, reversing the presumption

of innocence which is the basis of our democratic society. Drug

testing also makes individuals lose all control over who has

access to their confidential medical information.

14 | P a g e

Discriminates against medical marijuana patients. If it is

inaccurate and it does not test for impairment or performance,

then what good is it? If impairment is really a concern, there is

a far less expensive, accurate, computerized, performance test

available, which would test for that.

Taken out of context, and with all responsibility placed on the

employee, workplace drug testing does not take into account the

pressures that the work environment may place on employees,

including but not limited to:

Immediate Requirement. Submit CV Now!

Workplace hierarchies and bullying -- which drug testing

could exacerbate

Insufficient support in managing work-related stress

Long shifts, particularly those requiring disruption to

normal sleep cycles

Workplace drug testing is also an invasion of people's basic

privacy.

Workplace drug testing also could fail to take into account the

mental health problems of people with addictions, instead blaming

the employee in a way that would be unacceptable for any other

mental or physical health problem. Rather than being offered

appropriate treatment, people who test positive on drug tests are

15 | P a g e

at risk of being fired without compensation, and being ineligible

for welfare or other social assistance. This will create, or

further compound, a marginalized underclass of disenfranchised

citizens, who have even less incentive to quit their addiction.

Workplace drug testing also has the potential for abuse. When

someone's entire livelihood, reputation and future rests on the

outcome of a drug test, we need to be absolutely sure we are not

getting those tests wrong. And people need to be able to defend a

positive test, which could potentially be accounted for by other

factors, such as a pot smoking roommate, a spiked drink, a poppy-

seed bagel, or a prescription or over-the-counter medication.

As well as the fact that drug screens used by most companies arenot reliable. These tests yield false positive results at least10 percent, and possibly as much as 30 percent, of the time.Experts concede that the tests are unreliable.

Finally, workplace drug testing should be a justifiable course of

action, rather than a routine screen used to discriminate against

alcohol or drug-using employees. Although employers may have

value judgments about use of alcohol and drugs, as long as they

are not being consumed on the premises, employees are not coming

to work under the influence, or alcohol or drug use is

interfering with the completion of work, alcohol and drug use is

part of the employee's private life.

Drug War Facts: A congressional committee estimated that the cost

of each positive in governmental testing was $77,000.

16 | P a g e

Since drug tests test for marijuana, it may cause people to use

harder drugs that go through the system faster (like alcohol and

LSD that are not tested) Enployers may lose workers from false

positives that could be attributed to common foods, over-the

counter preparations, and prescription medications.

The drug testing industry is comprised of manufacturers of

equipment and chemicals, laboratories, medical review officers,

consultants, and lobbyists. Insurance companies use "after

accident" tests to deny people benefits. Despite the fact that

alcohol is the most prevalent drug causing work related accidents

and that alcohol addiction is much more costly to employers than

all illicit drugs combined, the focus is on illicit drugs in the

workplace.

Arguments on favor the drug testing in the workplace, whether

pre-employment or post-employment.

Drug testing makes the workplace safer and increases employee

confidence. It is always better to catch a drug or alcohol

problem before an employee becomes a hazard. Knowing a drug-

testing system is in place generally helps employees be more

productive because they do not have to fear a drug- or alcohol-

related incident jeopardizing their welfare in any way. Also, if

workplace drug testing leads an employee to seek treatment, so

much the better. Some employers may opt to refer anyone testing

17 | P a g e

positive to a drug treatment program so that employee has a

chance to become productive again.

Workplace drug testing encourages greater responsibility among

workers who may cause harm to themselves or others by working

under the influence. Would you feel comfortable knowing that any

of the following professionals were working under the influence

of alcohol or other drugs?

The surgeon operating on you, your parent or your child?

The bus or train driver, driving your child to school?

The truck driver tailgating you on the highway?

The airline pilot in control of your flight?

The person building your house?

The midwife delivering your baby?

Workplace drug testing can help identify employees in need of

help with their substance use. Because people with addictions are

often highly secretive and deceitful, drug testing circumvents

the need for honest self-reporting, which is highly unreliable

when people have a lot to lose -- in this case, potentially, both

their livelihood and their reputation.

18 | P a g e

When proper informed consent procedures are followed, workplace

drug testing acts as a deterrent to people who might otherwise

experiment with, or regularly use alcohol or drugs.

Workplace drug testing has the potential to greatly enhance

health and safety in the workplace, by discouraging people from

abusing substances and thereby suffering any ill health effects,

and reducing the likelihood of accidents and injuries related to

working.

19 | P a g e

Evaluation

There is no denying that workplace drug testing offers an

objective and generally accurate way to establish the truth of

someone's drug use. In situations where the employee has a

responsibility for the safety and/or welfare of others, and the

employer has a responsibility to ensure the employees'

competence, there is a strong argument for workplace drug testing

being carried out.

However, if workplace drug testing is to be carried out, there

are some basic ethical principles that need to be in place to

avoid violation of the rights of the employee. These include, but

are not limited to:

Informed consent The employee needs to know, ideally prior

to taking the job, that abstinence is an expectation, and

the workplace drug testing is planned.

Confidentiality The employee's privacy must be respected,

including whether workplace drug testing has taken place as

well as the result and consequences.

Reasonable expectations Employees' ability to cope with

stressful work experiences, such as exposure to traumatic or

stressful events, such as caring for sick and dying people,

large numbers of difficult clients, extended screen time,

20 | P a g e

and excessively lengthy or changeable shifts, should be

assessed.

Repeat tests should be conducted when a workplace drug test

is positive, and employees should be given the opportunity

to explain a positive drug test result.

Provision of addiction counseling and/or rehab should be

offered in positive drug test cases.

Support in transitioning to more suitable employment if

appropriate.

There should be clear justification of the relevance of

workplace drug testing to the situation -- it is a different

issue entirely for an employer to test an employee when

their drug use has no relevance to their job or

responsibilities.

In conclusion, drug testing in the workplace should ideally be

used to enhance the health and safety of employees and those

receiving services. They should not be used to further

marginalize drug users, by cutting off their access to employment

or social welfare. People with positive results must be treated

with dignity and respect, and be supported rather than shamed --

this is the only way we will avoid the misuse of workplace drug

testing to discriminate. That will further establish an

underclass of poverty, homelessness, unemployment, criminality

and substance abuse among those found to have positive results.

21 | P a g e

Bibliography

22 | P a g e

1. United states department of labor 2010 available at:

https://www.google.com/url?

sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http

%3A%2F%2Fwww.dol.gov%2Felaws%2Fasp%2Fdrugfree%2Fdrugs

%2Fdt.asp&ei=rbtBVZLgAtGiugSc_4HwCQ&usg=AFQjCNGWt11UAsOTvS84

j5GADzqpPeLJ-Q&sig2=y5Tt9D-cwsZIQeOL21HLuQ

2. Report on drug testing 2009 available at:

http://archive.org/stream/reportondrugalco00onta/reportondru

galco00onta_djvu.txt

3. Drug war facts 2011 available at:

https://www.google.com/url?

sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCUQFjAB&url=http

%3A%2F%2Fwww.drugwarfacts.org%2Fcms

%2FDrug_Testing_Employee&ei=rbtBVZLgAtGiugSc_4HwCQ&usg=AFQjC

NGYHAbvKP4V9__ZcDQimIY_8aNAyQ&sig2=BjRsLDToqXXf2PsgM41zXw

4. Pre-employment testing 2015 available at:

http://www.cannamm.com/services/drug-alcohol-testing/reasons

-for-testing/pre-employment-testing/

5. Find law 2012 available at:

http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/employment-law-and-human-

resources/pre-employment-tests.html

6. The vaults of Erowid 2015 available at:

https://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/testing/testing_writing

s2.shtml

23 | P a g e

7. Oregonlive 2014 available at:

http://www.oregonlive.com/marijuana/index.ssf/2014/11/outlaw

_pre-employment_drug_tes.html

8. Health street 2013 available at : https://www.health-

street.net/drug-tests/employment/pre-employment/

9. Statutes and regulations 2014 available at:

https://www.shrm.org/legalissues/stateandlocalresources/stat

eandlocalstatutesandregulations/documents/state%20drug

%20testing%20laws.pdf

10. Drug testing a bad investment 2015 available at :

https://www.google.com/url?

sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CDwQFjAF&url=https

%3A%2F%2Fwww.aclu.org%2Ffiles%2FFilesPDFs

%2Fdrugtesting.pdf&ei=Z8NBVc2zPNWeugTs4IHoCg&usg=AFQjCNH0LI6

BHxHphHbJYWCCobx-MZptwQ&sig2=jVLTBeHk9G93X4WxSWN7zA

11. Drug testing and discrimination 2015 available at:

http://sciblogs.co.nz/thedismalscience/2014/05/21/drug-

testing-and-discrimination/

12. Human resources 2015 available at :

http://sciblogs.co.nz/thedismalscience/2014/05/21/drug-

testing-and-discrimination/

13. Safe hiring 2015 available at:

https://safehiring.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/trusted-

experienced-profesional-safehiring-worldwide/

24 | P a g e

14. United nations office on drugs and crimes 2015 at:

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/bulletin/bul

letin_1993-01-01_2_page003.html

25 | P a g e