The Arguments for and Against Drug Testing in the Work Place
The Arguments for 1
Running head: THE ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST
The Arguments For and Against Drug Testing in the Work Place
Becky M. Kanipe
Orientation to Doctoral Learning in Psychology
The Arguments For 2
Abstract
The issues of whether society should permit the business sector to test for the presence of illegal drug use by the employees, is one in which seemingly convincing arguments can be proposed to support it, as well as equally convincing arguments against the concept. In this paper, I will explore the controversy from several different perspectives, analyzing the most important arguments both for and against permitting businesses to engage in employee drug testing. I will begin this paper by first considering the arguments for permitting businesses to engage in drug-testing employees for illegal substances. Then I will consider the arguments against permitting drug-testing. Summing up the paper, I will decide who has the best argument for their beliefs and explain a possible rationale for those beliefs.
The Arguments for 3
On current trends within two years it will be almost impossible for recreational drug users to get a job with larger companies. Drug testing at work is probably the single most effective weapon we have against adult substance abuse. It is a proven, low cost strategy which identifies those needing help, reduces demand, cuts accidents and sick leave, improves attendance and increases productivity. (Cross, 1997) Yet drug testing is highly controversial, according to Cross, it penalizes users with positive drug tests that can bear little or no relation to work performance, encourages knee-jerk dismissals and discrimination at interviews. It costs money and invades privacy. Despite all this, almost overnight it has become fashionable to talk of testing millions of people at work for both alcohol and drugs. Perkinson states, “The government's
Running head: THE ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST
The Arguments For and Against Drug Testing in the Work Place
Becky M. Kanipe
Orientation to Doctoral Learning in Psychology
The Arguments For 2
Abstract
The issues of whether society should permit the business sector to test for the presence of illegal drug use by the employees, is one in which seemingly convincing arguments can be proposed to support it, as well as equally convincing arguments against the concept. In this paper, I will explore the controversy from several different perspectives, analyzing the most important arguments both for and against permitting businesses to engage in employee drug testing. I will begin this paper by first considering the arguments for permitting businesses to engage in drug-testing employees for illegal substances. Then I will consider the arguments against permitting drug-testing. Summing up the paper, I will decide who has the best argument for their beliefs and explain a possible rationale for those beliefs.
The Arguments for 3
On current trends within two years it will be almost impossible for recreational drug users to get a job with larger companies. Drug testing at work is probably the single most effective weapon we have against adult substance abuse. It is a proven, low cost strategy which identifies those needing help, reduces demand, cuts accidents and sick leave, improves attendance and increases productivity. (Cross, 1997) Yet drug testing is highly controversial, according to Cross, it penalizes users with positive drug tests that can bear little or no relation to work performance, encourages knee-jerk dismissals and discrimination at interviews. It costs money and invades privacy. Despite all this, almost overnight it has become fashionable to talk of testing millions of people at work for both alcohol and drugs. Perkinson states, “The government's
References: Bernbach, J. (2007). Job Discrimination II: How to Fight…How to Win. Paris: Voir Dire Press Bussee, R., (2004). Employee’s Rights: Your Practical Handbook to Workplace Rights. New York: Sourcebooks. Cialdini, R.B. (2001). Influence: Science and Practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Cross, S.E. & Madson, L. (1997). “Models of Self: Self-Construals and Drugs.” Psychological Bulletin, 122:5-37. Hock, R.R. (2009). Forty Studies That Changed Psychology: Explorations Into The History of Psychological Research Jepsen, L. & Jepsen, C. (2002). “An Empirical Analysis of the Matching Patterns of Non-Alcoholics and Alcoholics.” Demography, 39:435-453. Kurdek, L. (1998). “Perceived Social Support of Drug Users in Cohabitating Relationships.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54:504-509. Perkinson, R.R. (1997). Chemical Dependency Counselling: A Practical Guide. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Thompson, L. & Walker, A.J. (1999). “Women and Men in Marriage, Work, and Alcoholism.” Journal of Marriage and Family, 51:845-872.