Make your own free website on Tripod.com
Go to network54.com
Network54 Sponsor
create browse search ltde help  
  Network54  >>  Group 2: Mandatory Corporate Drug Testing


Group 2: Mandatory Corporate Drug Testing

Instructions: Discuss your views, opinions, and supporting arguments on the issues of corporate drug testing. Support your comments with your experiences, values and supporting arguments from readings and research. Post a minumum of three messages each week to your discussion (from Tuesday to following Tuesday), and try to reply to other's comments and questions. After you've discussed a range of viewpoints, compare and contrast views and arguments to establish a common ground.

Click here to read about the different ways you can contribute to a group discussion. For other help, email Allan Jeong.



My opinion
by

I am for drug testing. In my home country, Korea, drug is not a big problem and companies rarely do drug testing. Thus, when I first heard about drug testing, I thouht it as an invasion of privacy. But after a consideration, my opinion was changed. maybe taking drug and performance is not correlated, as mentioned by other colleagues. But, I think it would surely related to the welfare of whole society. I understand that the drug testing experience is a degrading one. Also, I still believe it can be an invasion of privacy. But, for the sake of our society, we can submit to drug testing.

Posted on Nov 25, 2000, 9:52 PM

Respond to this message
Delete Message

Return to Index


I remember my first drug test
by

I remember going to the little clinic they sent me to in order to take my drug test. It was not an enjoyable experience and to me it was somewhat degrading . There was random testing within the company.

I used to teach a two week training class and an older gentleman, who was one of the most intellegent students I had, was given instructions by his supervisor to go have a drug test. The gentleman did not go to the drug test, because he already had scheduled a doctors appointment for the same day. To the best of my knowledge he was fired shortly after not going to his drug test per company policy. In this case, the employer lost an outstanding employee and the employee was out of a job and may have lost some retirement benefits.

My previous employer, to the best of my knowledge, did drug testing if an employee was injured on the job.

Overall perspectives

From a safety standpoint, I could understand where drug testing could protect the individuals working in the plant as a whole (utilitarian viewpoint).

From a liability and productivity standpoint, I can also understand why a company would want to do drug testing.

Personally, I find it to be an invasion of privacy. Although, I dislike the concept more because I feel that it is somewhat of a degrading experience.

I don't feel strongly one way or another though.

Posted on Nov 20, 2000, 7:45 PM

Respond to this message
Delete Message

Return to Index


The Jury is Still Out
by

I am not sure how I feel about this issue. I was required to take a drug test for my internship last summer. It was not a pleasant experience. The prevailing mood at the drug clinic seemed to be guilty until proven innocent. I think drug tests are most definitely an invasion of privacy. Whether this invasion is warranted or not, I am not sure. I would like to see the correlation evidence someone mentioned. Do you know where that might be available?

Posted on Nov 18, 2000, 4:07 PM

Respond to this message
Delete Message

Return to Index


Correlation/Privacy
by Keisha Freeman

I am not aware of any correlation evidence between work performance and drug use. There are a lot of "it depends" on the correlation issue.

As for privacy, I don't consider it a big deal on the drug issue since I'm not a user (definitely not implying that anyone else is) I don't consider this a privacy issue so much as I do an issue to protect others or limit liability in the event we're talking about judges, police officers, pilots and surgeons. Those are actually the only cases that I know of where I would approve drug testing. You must have your eyes tested to become a pilot, and you have to pass a physical to enlist in the military. I don't see why a drug test is any different other than the fact that people would naturally want to keep drug use a secret.

Posted on Nov 19, 2000, 12:58 AM

Respond to this message
Delete Message

Return to Index



I am against drug testing
by

I am against drup testing except when it comes to working at companies that involve life-critical business activities such as building aircraft, etc. I think that drug testing is an unnecessary invasion of privacy. Besides, In most cases there will be a low correlation between performance and test results. what people do on their own time is really their own business.

Posted on Nov 14, 2000, 9:24 PM

Respond to this message
Delete Message

Return to Index


My stance on drug testing
by Keisha Freeman

I am for drug testing in the workplace. Whether it is life-critical or not, I think it is warranted in numerous situations. The medical field, law enforcement, fiduciary representation, etc. While there may not be a correlation to use and performance, I think you can be a potential liability to the company and they have a right to know. It is an invasion of privacy, but since drugs are illegal and can take over your life, I think it is relevant. Also, if you are working in a capacity where your employer can be sued for your actions, its warranted.

Now whether or not you're hired/fired, or are some drugs considered ok, or can you only be tested once prior to beginning the job is a different story.

Posted on Nov 15, 2000, 11:50 PM

Respond to this message
Delete Message

Return to Index



against drug testing
by

I am against drug testing in any work situation. Any seemingly small invasion of an individual's privacy, even if it is supposedly for the greater good, has the potential of making it permissable to further reduce the rights of individuals.

Posted on Nov 16, 2000, 4:15 PM

Respond to this message
Delete Message

Return to Index



Response to Jill
by Keisha Freeman

Greetings Jill - and fellow group members. Jill I hear your point, and I am against invasion of privacy, but since drugs are illegal, its kinda like the have you been convicted of a felony question on your application. I'm for testing because your employer has the right to know if you make it a practice of breaking the law.

So should police officers, surgeons, and judges, be free of screening also?

kvf

Posted on Nov 17, 2000, 1:31 AM

Respond to this message
Delete Message

Return to Index



Response to response
by Jill Wesley

To me the have you been convicted of a felony question is a different matter. In that case someone has been tried and convicted of a crime. That is public record so there is no invasion of privacy. I do still have some problems with employers asking this, but that is a whole different discussion.

I don't think that it is the right of corporations to police the personal lives of employees. If an employee is suspected of having a drug problem address it with the individual employee, offer counseling etc. Don't make a blanket assumption of guilt and force employees to prove their innocence.

I don't think that anyone, regardless of profession, should be drug tested. Where does it stop once it becomes permissible to invade the privacy of certain individuals based on certain criteria?

Posted on Nov 18, 2000, 7:53 PM

Respond to this message
Delete Message

Return to Index



question
by

Jill:

I am just curious--does your opinion change if the company hasn't actually hired the person yet? You mentioned using counseling, etc., which I think is a great idea. But, do you think it's OK for a company to use drug screenings BEFORE they actually hire a person? I am guessing from your writing that your answer is no and I am not even sure how I feel. I am just thinking about your use of the statement "permissible to invade privacy." I guess if you are looking for a job, you have the right (and the free-will) to bypass any companies that ask for a drug test. What do you think?

Emily

Posted on Nov 20, 2000, 12:02 AM

Respond to this message
Delete Message

Return to Index



Empolyers are enforcing the law and above the law?
by

Having a law is one thing, but determining who and how the law is enforced is another thing. Not even the judicial system can impose drug testing without probable intent (forgive me I am not a lawyer, I think that is the correct phrase). But, we let companies play by a different set of laws? Are they above the law?

Maybe we should also allow employers to go through our wallets and purses every day to make sure that we don't have any illegal substances in our accessories. Maybe they should also search my car, since it will be parked on company property to insure that drugs are not in my car. But why stop there? Why not sign more of my rights away to the company in order to work there? Why don't we just let companies start testing women to see if they are pregnant? Maybe we could let them also test for AIDS or some other disease, because these employees could raise the insurance rates of the company. Aren't all of these concepts also in the company's best interest? Where do you draw the line?

But wait--you might also argue that employees don't have to work for these companies. They can choose to work for another company. Or can they? How many job offers have you had that did not require a drug test that you were willing to take? I have not had one yet since graduating from college. Would I put myself in a poor financial state to protect my principles regarding corporate drug testing? Probably not. Therefore, in essance corporations can get away with drug testing because the alternatives, unemployment or working in a less desirable position at a company that does not drug test, would be considered worse.

Posted on Nov 21, 2000, 10:11 PM

Respond to this message
Delete Message

Return to Index



Hide Header
 Copyright 2000 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement