For those who haven’t had the pleasure of undergoing a
pre-employment drug screen, there’s a strong chance you might. Drug
testing in the workplace has gone up an estimated 277% since 1987
according to the American Civil Liberties Union. In my case, I have been
tested twice for private sector business positions.
Degradation and principles set aside, I wasn’t thrilled
to have to drive to a Concentra testing center an hour away from my
house without compensation for gas money to pee in a cup. Nonetheless, I
followed the instructions while a nurse stood outside, “put all your
belongings in this cubby, here’s the cup, don’t flush.” I already felt
like I was doing something wrong despite just being offered an
internship position.
Pre-employment and workforce drug testing is not viewed
favorably among those who claim it is in violation of the Fourth
Amendment that protects against unreasonable searches. Considering urine
cannot only detect drug use but also pre-existing conditions, pregnancy
and legal drug use, the legal waters are undeniably murky.
Are people not entitled to privacy of their own bodily
functions? Apparently not when a position entails operating machinery or
a high security clearance, particularly within public sector jobs. The
massive increase since 1987 likely correlates with President Reagan’s
1988 Drug-Free Workplace Act, that required federal contractors to be
tested and for private firms receiving funding to at least implement a
drug-free policy.
Interestingly, this act did not require these firms
to start drug testing, only to develop a policy and protocol for when
drug abuse is suspected or reported.
So the Drug-Free Workplace Act may have served as
catalyst for mass implementation of drug testing policies, but financial
factors are likely more at play here. In Wisconsin, firms can reduce
their worker’s compensation costs as well as health insurance group
rates by drug testing candidates and current employees. According to
drug testing companies like Quest, drug users are more likely to land
the company a medical or injury bill.
To those who will inevitably fire back at the opposition
and say drug users aren’t serious about getting a job, you might be
right, but that’s not really addressing the correct question. Whether
drug use is right or not doesn’t get at the entire issue: under what
circumstances is a blatant violation of privacy permissible? Who has the
authority to determine that? The issue has become particularly glaring
with marijuana legalization. The question of how an employee could be
terminated for use of a legal substance has yet to be definitively
answered.
Some states have cited employment-at-will. In other
words, they can choose to fire someone without needing to give a reason.
There would of course be exceptions on the basis of disability, race or
religion, but medical marijuana is not included in the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Marijuana use is also against federal law meaning it
would trump state law in this case. An employee in Colorado couldn’t be
prosecuted for using the drug, but the employer must abide by both state
and federal labor laws, and marijuana is classified as a schedule 1
drug.
Schedule 1 meaning it has no currently accepted medical
use and potentially severe psychological or physical dependence. It’s
worthy to note that marijuana is classified in the same category as
heroin and ecstasy, and considered more dangerous than schedule 2 drugs
including cocaine, methamphetamine and oxycodone.
Obviously many states
and District of Columbia disagree. Still, marijuana will potentially
show up on a urine drug screen over thirty days after use while cocaine
and methamphetamine will be out of the system in as little as three
days.
While I’m aware I’m preaching to the choir of marijuana
legalization advocates, these facts certainly call the effectiveness of
pre-employment, post-accident, or random drug testing in the workplace.
Are methamphetamine users less likely to miss work or have a health
issue than an occasional marijuana user?
I think most would say no, but the drug testing system
seems to give a pass to some. Is it either ethical or legal for a
quadriplegic to be fired from his job for legal marijuana use? I view
workplace drug testing as a policy that violates the most basic tenants
of decency and rights to individual privacies. It looks like these
policies will be continue to be challenged as we move into a global
workplace that will simply be less tolerant of such invasive procedures.
In the meantime, drink lots of water.
No comments:
Post a Comment