Business Law:
For years, courts, employers, and employees have struggled with the issue of employee drug testing. Employers want their employees to be drug free, whereas employees do not want to submit to an invasive and embarrassing procedure. Courts want to uphold employee’ right to privacy while allowing employer to run a safe, drug-free workplace. This issue may finally have a solution.
Recently, a new drug test has been developed that uses a swab of saliva rather than urine or blood. It is being implemented in several states already, including Georgia and Hawaii. This new test gives much faster results than urine and blood tests, and some experts believe that it might be more effective. The results of negative or nonnegative can be returned within 10 minutes, and employees who test negative can begin or return to work immediately. This faster process alleviates the stress and anxiety of employees who much be tested for drugs.
The major benefit of the new saliva test is that it is a noninvasive test. Employees do not have to suffer the embarrassment of having to ‘pee in a cup” or the painful experience of having blood drawn. Giving a swab of saliva is easy. This drug test protects employees from having to undergo an invasive or embarrassing test, while allowing employers to keep their workplaces drug free.
Allowing employers to drug test their employees is very important to keeping the workplace safe and ethical. Employees who use drugs while on the job are a danger to themselves and to others and could be responsible for lawsuits against an employer. Also, employees who break the law by taking illegal drugs might engage in other illegal activity, which could also be damaging to an employer. Allowing drug testing is the best way for an employer to keep the workplace drug free. Random drug testing has been legally questionable because of the employees’ right to privacy. The saliva drug test eliminate the concerns with the right to privacy and is a major step in helping keep the workplace safe and drug free.
Directions: Please analyze this argument. What are the legal and ethical issues involved? Is there any missing information that would help you evaluate this argument? What points could you make against this argument and for a different opinion about this topic?