The ethics of Drug testing

[Redleg]

Here is one real life dilemnia that faces managers in most industries.

In a plant that has equipment that can cost you a finger, a hand, and sometimes if your really stupid your arm, the company I work for has a no-drug use policy. The drug testing is not done unless you have an accident at work.

If you are tested postive for drugs - the company policy is to terminate the employee for thier drug use. But at the same time the employee has been involved in a work place accident.

I will discuss my answer after some discussion from others. But is this a ethical practice by the employeer? Is it sound legal policy for the company? And finally is it really the humane thing to do, terminating an employee after they have been hurt at work for a postive test on drugs? Feel free to qualify you answer on this by stating drug use at work, and the testing that happens to determine if you are using drugs outside of the workplace, because it only determines if drugs were used in during a time period, not the exact time.


After this rather simple one - another Drug Testing in the work place issue, will be presented. Its more complex then this one.

[Slyspy]

It seems a bit late to start tesing for drugs after the accident has happened, though it may help avoid paying out compensation. It could still be argued that the employer let someone under the influence operate dangerous machinery and so failed in their duty of care and in fulfillment of safety reg. But what is there to do? Maybe mandatory drugs testing? Not sure how I would react to that as an employee but if its in your contract......

[bmolsson]

Staff have to submit to drug tests at any time. The same thing goes if you drive a car, the police can stop and test you. Can't really see any problem with personal integrity or privacy.

[Redleg]

Well I am still looking for more discussion - but the policy of drug testing is fine as far as I am concerned. However the way the policy is actually executed - seems to have an ethical issue, or at least to my way of thinking.

[jayrock]

the problem with after the fact testing is the accident has already happened, from the example posted it would seem the only point of doing it is for the company to cover their asses.

any litigation brought by the hurt, could be argued he caused his own accident by using drugs.

another example from my experience with this policy was worker a, was hurt by worker b, who tested positive for marijauna, worker b was summarily terminated for violation of the drug policy, but worker a sued my former company for failing to provide a safe work enviroment, that of course led to mandatory and random drug testing.

i dont really see an ethical dispute in this example red, from my point of view, once their injured and tested, you can in essence say the individual contributed to his own accident, from their they would have to file with workmans comp, for medical and potential rehab, i believe everone who is covered under the companies workmans comp insurance should be covered.

[Papewaio]

The problem is that companines are not the government. Your company has less of a right to infringe on what you do in your free time then the government. A company hires you to perform a job. It rarely has the capacity to infringe on what you do out of ours unless you break regulations at work due to what you were doing ie turning up drunk.

The other side of the coin is if what you do outside of work has an impact on your work, both positive and negative. If you turn up late for work because you were playing TW then you could expect a reprimand. Lack of sleep on the weekend will lead to productivity. Fight with your spouse, poor morale and hence less productivity. Going through a tough divorce less productive. Favourite sports team won the grand final, happier and hence more productive etc.

[GoreBag]

the problem with after the fact testing is the accident has already happened, from the example posted it would seem the only point of doing it is for the company to cover their asses.

any litigation brought by the hurt, could be argued he caused his own accident by using drugs.

That about sums it up. The company can test him all they want if the victim is seeking compensation. Fair's fair, right?

[jayrock]

The problem is that companines are not the government. Your company has less of a right to infringe on what you do in your free time then the government. A company hires you to perform a job. It rarely has the capacity to infringe on what you do out of ours unless you break regulations at work due to what you were doing ie turning up drunk.

actualy companies have more rights than the gov, they do not have to give you a job, i do not believe drug of choice is covered under the equal opportunity employment rules...

from my pov, i work around heavy machinery, i have ten forklifts weighing around 10,000 lbs a piece, semi trucks, trailers, box trucks, and about 80 employees running around my warehouse, and to be honest any drunkard or alchoholic need not apply. my job is to create as safe a working enviorment as possible, and drugs and alchohol, in fact anything that can slow their responses down do not belong in my warehouse..

someone shows up drunk or wasted, first offence i send them home, and give the a verbal warning, second time is grounds for dismissal, ill ua them first to cover myself legally. as for personal problems, ie divorce, i do my best to help them through it, wether that be extra time of to get their affairs in order, or mostly give them a shoulder to cry on, i listen to them and allow them to get their problems off their chests. people with personal problems who are good employees i bend over backwards to allow them whatever they need to get back on track, good employees are hard to find, and im hesitant to loose them. ive gone to the mat for a few before, and told managment if they fired them, id walk with them...but thats me personal morals weighing in there.

[solypsist]

i imagine the company doesnt want to shell out $$ for an accident that involved an "impaired" employee. sounds like a good way to make sure the staff don't drink too many beers to sneak a toke during the lunch break.

[Papewaio]

actualy companies have more rights than the gov, they do not have to give you a job, i do not believe drug of choice is covered under the equal opportunity employment rules...

from my pov, i work around heavy machinery, i have ten forklifts weighing around 10,000 lbs a piece, semi trucks, trailers, box trucks, and about 80 employees running around my warehouse, and to be honest any drunkard or alchoholic need not apply. my job is to create as safe a working enviorment as possible, and drugs and alchohol, in fact anything that can slow their responses down do not belong in my warehouse..

someone shows up drunk or wasted, first offence i send them home, and give the a verbal warning, second time is grounds for dismissal, ill ua them first to cover myself legally. as for personal problems, ie divorce, i do my best to help them through it, wether that be extra time of to get their affairs in order, or mostly give them a shoulder to cry on, i listen to them and allow them to get their problems off their chests. people with personal problems who are good employees i bend over backwards to allow them whatever they need to get back on track, good employees are hard to find, and im hesitant to loose them. ive gone to the mat for a few before, and told managment if they fired them, id walk with them...but thats me personal morals weighing in there.

Which is what I wrote:

It rarely has the capacity to infringe on what you do out of ours unless you break regulations at work due to what you were doing ie turning up drunk.

Kind of a laconic version of what you wrote. The difference I am pointing out is that if you get drunk on the weekend and turn up sober a company cannot regulate that.

This then leads to another part can a company regulate (illegal or legal) drug use on your private time if you turn up to work without any hangover/impairment from social life?

[Lemur]

What's disturbing is that the policy the company has in place appears to be more of an after-the-fact CYA maneuver, rather than an attempt to encourage a drug-free workplace.

Also, it's fine and dandy to have a company drug test in an environment where personal safety is at stake. But I hear about people being drug tested for all sorts of jobs, things like secretarial work. There would seem to be a privacy issue at play here, assuming you believe in any right to privacy at all.

[KafirChobee]

i imagine the company doesnt want to shell out $$ for an accident that involved an "impaired" employee. sounds like a good way to make sure the staff don't drink too many beers to sneak a toke during the lunch break.

Excellent response. However, if the company doesnot have a random drug test policy .. or cyclic one ... then one must assume that their testing after an accident is simply a protective device to use in court to deny responsability for unsafe practices.

Here's the grabber; was the equipment safe - were all safety devices active, operative and ? Was the person operating it aware of the danger, and if so were they aware that some of the safety devices were turned off to increase productivity?

It is a unique situation when a company maybe aware of drug use in its facility, but is only concerned after an accident there in. It makes it look like they were willing to turn a blind eye, until it might actually affect their pursestrings.

From example, when I was 18 I was injured on the job (making bearings for the F-4s ... many moons ago), was my fault (was to strong) and the removal of a safety device. Seems that by removing a flange that protects an operators hand from a wheel spinning at 3'000 rpm you can increase productivity by 5 pieces an hour (or $20 in submitted profit) - but, the problem was that to remove the fudgesickle gauge from the working piece the operator had to pull their hand directly towards the 3,000rpm - get the idea? Thing is, I thought it was me - 'til I signed a release and they fired me. At 18 we are all stupid to a point - me anyways.

Thing about this is, were I the injured party, I would certainly want my attorney to be looking into OASHA vialations (or threatening to do so) to make a deal. In todays environment - I doubt your company has anything to concern themselves with. Who gives a hoot about an American getting hurt on the job today? Stoned or sober.

[Redleg]

Excellent response. However, if the company doesnot have a random drug test policy .. or cyclic one ... then one must assume that their testing after an accident is simply a protective device to use in court to deny responsability for unsafe practices.

Hence my ethical issue. The company has a random drug test policy - but does not use it. All testing is only done if the employee gets hurt.

Here's the grabber; was the equipment safe - were all safety devices active, operative and ? Was the person operating it aware of the danger, and if so were they aware that some of the safety devices were turned off to increase productivity?

In short the answer is yes all safety devices are in place and the operator was trained and certified on the machine.

It is a unique situation when a company maybe aware of drug use in its facility, but is only concerned after an accident there in. It makes it look like they were willing to turn a blind eye, until it might actually affect their pursestrings.

Nice summation of my ethical issue with the way the policy is not followed by the corporate headquarters.

From example, when I was 18 I was injured on the job (making bearings for the F-4s ... many moons ago), was my fault (was to strong) and the removal of a safety device. Seems that by removing a flange that protects an operators hand from a wheel spinning at 3'000 rpm you can increase productivity by 5 pieces an hour (or $20 in submitted profit) - but, the problem was that to remove the fudgesickle gauge from the working piece the operator had to pull their hand directly towards the 3,000rpm - get the idea? Thing is, I thought it was me - 'til I signed a release and they fired me. At 18 we are all stupid to a point - me anyways.

Young and naive gets you in trouble more often then not.

Thing about this is, were I the injured party, I would certainly want my attorney to be looking into OASHA vialations (or threatening to do so) to make a deal. In todays environment - I doubt your company has anything to concern themselves with. Who gives a hoot about an American getting hurt on the job today? Stoned or sober.

Oh I hope she does go find a lawyer that knows what he is doing. It might make the company actually begin to follow their stated drug testing policy. Which I agree with. But I would addachocal testing to the random test, just to be fair and to insure a safe work place.

Edit: OPPs to much real information there

Now the kicker in my ethicial dilimena is from monitoring the actions of several employees on not only my shift - but the other two, I suspect to a degree of certainity that the plant has other associates using drugs when they are not at work. Well going to have to sleep on it tonight - and deal with it when I go to work tomorrow - ie swing shift today it seems

[English assassin]

I'm not too sure I see an ethical issue even if they do only test after an accident and even if they are hoping to avoid paying compensation as a result?

At the moment in the common law compensation for an injury depends not on the injury but on fault. (You can argue the pro's and con's of that, but its been that way for many years and isn't likely to change any time soon). That's not the company's doing, that's the law the judges made for them. So I don't see anything unethical in the company seeking to establish whether there might be any fault on the party of the employee. Its a legitimate issue even if it may seem hard nosed.

The failure to test at any other time seems to me to be finely balanced. On the one hand you could say that if the company really wanted to stop accidents, (and felt it had to stop drug use as a result) then it would impose more drug tests. On the other hand there is the privacy argument which would point to having the minimum number of tests possible. You could argue it either way but I don't think the arguments in favour of drug testing will be so strong as to amount to it being unethical not to test in the ordinary run of events.

My two cents.

[Major Robert Dump]

6 months ago I left upper management of a large corprate entity that drug tested. You folks talk about that place often, and I'd like to start a thread at some point setting you all straight, both those for and agianst, on some facts you may find interesting but it will be a long, long rant on my part.

I have pretty serious ethical problems with drug testing in SOME scenarios. You can't have truck drivers and guards and teachers and construction workers strung out, you just can't. But the only way to ensure that is CONSTANT random testing, which VERY FEW companies do that.

Most places test at applicant stage and IF there is an accident or IF there is reasonable cause to believe they are on something. In cases of workplaces where not being safe can get A LOT OF PEOPLE KILLED I really don't have a problem with this. In fact, I don't have a problem with preemplyment testing for EVERY JOB because people who ABUSE (not use) drugs do not make good employees, and no one likes to work with asshats. It also says something about personal dependebility becuase if you cant stop snorting meth for one month so you can find a freakin job then please, please go work somewhere else.

Heres what I have a problem with:


1. In a lot of cases, it really becomes largely symbolic, as a way to promote a "drug free workplace" you get tested up front. It also gets you brownie points with the city, state and local government for doing so, which helps to secure community support both through buisness-friendly community grants, subsidies etc and through tax incentives. So why not do it?

2. It provides a means to terminate people who may otherwise not be firable. This is good because purging is good in low-skill jobs, it lets you hire repalcements and pay them less. Also, if you can get them to quit through IMPLIED THREAT OF TESTING, you can rehire them later (veteran for lower pay) because they never actually refused a test or failed a test. It's also good at getting rid of people when you are told your staff is too fat. There are pretty serious legal concerns so most places just wont come in and one day test everyone "just because", but implementing a policy or starting a witch hunt (like through a staged drug complaint to corporate, so they get behind you on it) will let you weed out people who are "acting funny" or "have attendence issues" or "was heard talking about getting high"

[Major Robert Dump]

dbl post

[Ja'chyra]

As afr as I'm concerned my employer has a no alcohol or drug policy and that is all that is required, they have no right to perform compulsory drug testing on me, and I would tell them where to go if they tried.

If someone turns up for work who is obviously the worse for wear then it is well within the employers rights to send them home, but not to force them to pee in a cup, which even the police can't do without good reason I believe.

actualy companies have more rights than the gov, they do not have to give you a job, i do not believe drug of choice is covered under the equal opportunity employment rules...

No they don't have to give you a job, but they have no right to pry into your private life either, what would be next? Genetic tests, home checks, info on marital status?

They pay you to do a job, they aren't doing you any favours just like you aren't doing them any, if they think that you are incapable then they should replace you.

[Major Robert Dump]

Sorry hiut submit

3. Allows in some cases complete immunity to workers comp if one fails a test, not just immunity to company level dangerous workplace and negligence suits. The problem here is that a drug test doesnt prove how long its been since the person has taken the substance, unless we are talking about immediate intoxication. In other words, if Jim smoked a joint 3 weeks ago and hasnt gotten high since, and he loses his foot because SOMEONE ELSE runs it over with a power jack, he gets tested, fails and insurance lets him blow in the wind. this is wrong, just wrong. Hey man, show up drunk and get itno an accident, well screw you you deserved it. But getting disqualified from coverage because you did something that in no way impaired your judgement well its just wrong.

4. Hair tests: this is the big one. Most places DONT do this, but basically any hair you had when the drug was ingested (even if it were 6 months ago) will test positive. So unless you wax your arms and head and eyebrows and let it all grow in again before the test you are screwed, buster. Again, hair tests for pilots and high risk jobs go right ahead. But to work at a car dealership or as a plumber or at a video store? HAHAHAHAHA


So now let me quailfy this. I like limited testing. I worked at a place that did pre-employent AND accident AND witch hunt testing. I was management. And I smoke marijuana. Cheated on each test (took one for emply and one for promotion). Did all I could to spoil a witch hunt whenever I saw one, but really had very little way to impact accident tests. Was also good at weeding out people coming to work impaired, which is a no-no any way you cut it. And NO, I never came to work impaired. Never entered my mind for a second, I have no sympathy for people with hangovers or stupid stoner mistakes.

[Kralizec]

It seems that in Redleg's scenario workers can get stoned or drunk and still work provided they don't show it, and that the bosses condone this (since they don't do preemtive tests). Like an unspoken agreement that if workers appear sober and don't cause any accidents, fine, but that the employer will wash his hands in innocence if something does go wrong.
I'd say it's definitely unethical for an employer to use drug tests not as a means to actually prevent dangerous situations, but proclaim their innocence when accidents do occur.

Employers should have no right to decide what you can and cannot use (the government can, however) unless it can impair your productivity or safety at work.
Therefore it seems logical to me that for an employer to be justified to fire a worker he'd have to prove that the drug use was sufficiently short ago and intense to have an effect on the working day, as only then you can assume there was a potential danger. And furthermore, if an accident does happen, there's still the question wether an average person with a clear mind would have been able to avoid the accident. If a stoner can prove that the accident would have happened anyhow, there isn't any ground for the employer to refuse paying for the damages, at least in Dutch law

[master of the puppets]

i like the witch hunt idea, random testing, but what this company is doinfg is purely civering its as. ther is no preventative measure, and even if they test possitive i would say that marijauna and alchohol is acceptable (but grudgingly) as long as it does not effect you at the moment of work, give them one of those 10 minute reflex and aptitute tests i have heard about, (not sure where, drived ed teacher maybe) it is a simple thing on reflexes ,rapid questions, motor skills...uh oh, the bell, lunch is over i g2g i'll finish dis l8ter

[master of the puppets]

srry about that so...

a employer expects his employee to work, if drugs of any kind hinder that relationship then it is not surprising that harsh action should be taken, i would lay off someone who lacked the ability to work effectivly. if they hurt themselves you were too late, you should have known of there problem loong before and have taken action (if it is a problem).

i would write more but i lost my train of thought.

[Soulforged]

Call me blind if you'll but I don't see the ethical issue here. You break their policies you fall out. Now if you bring me some Common Law that dictates that such a clause is unethical or illegal then please do. As far as I'm concerned it's ethical (inside the rather tiny boundaries of ethical capitalism), only when the fired employee is compensated, the bird can always find another tree.

[Redleg]

Call me blind if you'll but I don't see the ethical issue here. You break their policies you fall out. Now if you bring me some Common Law that dictates that such a clause is unethical or illegal then please do. As far as I'm concerned it's ethical (inside the rather tiny boundaries of ethical capitalism), only when the fired employee is compensated, the bird can always find another tree.

Common law does not necessary apply to ethical issues.

[Soulforged]

Common law does not necessary apply to ethical issues.

That's ok, however it will be an enforcer to your argument and an enlighment to me. But then again the moral subject comes to play far before than the law does, so I'll remain nontheless in my possition and state that I don't see any ethical problem with this. Now as for the policy, perhaps it's unethical, tough it will help me much to know your views just to be informed as in where do you see the amorality, but then again the problem is minimal to me. There's two important points to notice: 1- The employee should know of the policy at the letter before even signing any contract. 2- If fired he should receive compensation, both for the accident and for the termination. Now if that's followed I think that the company is being as ethical as it can be.

[Ja'chyra]

I'll comment on point 2.

If an employee causes an accident, whether it causes harm or not, because he was working under the influence, or effects may be a better term, then he should be sacked immediately. He should not be compensated in any way, merely escorted off the premises and told not to return.

Why would anyone think he was due compensation?

[Kralizec]

Because if a forklift driver drops a 1.5 ton crate on his head due to the drivers carelessness, you can hardly say that it was the victims fault, wether he took drugs or not. Being under influence under worktime is a reason for dismissal, but if the accident would have happened anyhow he could still get compensation.

[Redleg]

That's ok, however it will be an enforcer to your argument and an enlighment to me. But then again the moral subject comes to play far before than the law does, so I'll remain nontheless in my possition and state that I don't see any ethical problem with this. Now as for the policy, perhaps it's unethical, tough it will help me much to know your views just to be informed as in where do you see the amorality, but then again the problem is minimal to me. There's two important points to notice: 1- The employee should know of the policy at the letter before even signing any contract. 2- If fired he should receive compensation, both for the accident and for the termination. Now if that's followed I think that the company is being as ethical as it can be.

The ethical issue comes from the fact as was stated by several is that the drug testing after an accident is often used as method to not pay the employee's medical bills because of the use of drugs. If the company can not prove that the associate came to work under the influence of drugs or achocal it has the obligation under the law to pay the medical bill. The company can still terminate the employment of the individual who tested postive.

This was the exact ethical issue I had a problem with and as stated by another patron, and that was exactly what was attempted by the Worker's Comp group that asked me a question the second I showed to work.

If fired for cause an employee is not entitled to any compensation other then the time for which they have worked. The drug test is used not only as method to terminate an employee who breaks their working agreeement with the company, but as a way to avoid some of its responsiblities to an employee who is hurt on the job. The onus is on the company to prove that the individual came to work under the influence, if I could not state that the employee demonstrated signs of being under the influence, then the company could not deny payment for medicial bills. Now why would a responsible person allow an employee under their supervision work with equipment if he knew that the employee was under the influence of drugs or achocal?

[Ja'chyra]

Because if a forklift driver drops a 1.5 ton crate on his head due to the drivers carelessness, you can hardly say that it was the victims fault, wether he took drugs or not. Being under influence under worktime is a reason for dismissal, but if the accident would have happened anyhow he could still get compensation.

I'm not quite sure what you mean, language problem probably.

But, if you mean that the forklift driver drops the load on his own head it should be worked out why the accident happened (not quite sure how he would manage to drop it on his own head tbh). If it turned out that the accident was due to fautly equipment or measures outside of his control then compensation would be in order, but if the accident was down to user error (as most are) then he shouldn't receive any. I do believe that if there was more than one factor involved that they would work out how much (in %) each factor was to blame and compensation would be issued accordingly.

For example, if the driver was driving a perfectly serviceable vehicle and the accident was totally down to driver error because he is intoxicated then most of the blame would be his with the company sharing a little of the blame for allowing him to work in that condition. If no-one else was involved the driver probably wouldn't receive any compensation, but if others were involved then they would because the company should ensuring their safe working environment.

It would be argued the the company should also have ensured the drivers safety by not allowing him to work, but that is where I believe the mollycoddling starts, if you turn up to work drunk then accidents because of this are down to you , unless the company knows you are in that state and allows you to work.

[Kralizec]

Nonono,

Suppose I'm walking around my workplace, stoned as a brick. Yet I'm walking straight, mantaining a safe distance from any machinery and generally not violating any safety procedures.

Then, a forklift driver either due to his own fault or due to mechanical failure drops a crate on top of my head. Ouch....the employer takes a drug test on me and concludes that I was under the influence of pot during worktime.
However in this case, being stoned had nothing to do with the accident. Had I been in a perfectly clear state of mind, I still would have gotten the crate on my head.
The employer still would be able to fire me because I was stoned, as I *could* have created dangerous situations while I was stoned on work.
The accident that occured in reality though, didn't have anything to do with me being stoned. The accident was either due to the behavious of the forklift driver, or due to the mechanical unsoundness of the forklift- both of wich fall under the responsibility of the employer. Now under my law, I still could get compensation because the accident didn't involve any fault of my own and I'm able to prove so.

[Ja'chyra]

Yes you would get compensation for the accident and yes you would be sacked and not receive compensation for losing your job.