Drug Testing in Selection Process: Legal, Ethical, and Privacy Issues - Research Paper Example

DRUG TESTING IN SELECTION - LEGAL, ETHICAL, AND PRIVACY ISSUES This paper discusses the practice of drug testing in employee selection process conducted across globe which is on the rise in the recent years to make sure they do not face problems afterwards. According to different studies conducted, “it has been found that those persons who have tested positively at the workplace for drug and alcohol have been absent from work more often and have utilized more sick leaves compared to non-users. Another fact that was revealed from these studies was that there was a decreased level of productivity as well in these users anywhere from 10-60%.” Results of such studies are making more and more companies to start using such tests while hiring employees. Mandatory testing has been done especially in industries of public transport and those involving public safety. The ethical issue: Many organizations insist on drug testing before recruiting employees. In the contemporary era, it has become a necessary procedure of employment, to the extent that any job candidate that does not wish to donate himself for such test is ‘ab initio’ disqualified for the job. Hence, it becomes questionable if the organization is not using the employees as means to an end. The ethical issue of drug testing in selecting lies in the principle of privacy. The ethical principal of privacy states that the individual have the right to his private life without any interference whether from another individual and the state. Universally, the individual is imbued with the natural right to his privacy. This simply means that no body, whether corporate or individual has the right to probe the privacy of an individual. Some people argue that this right is not absolute; that when the issue in question affects the general public, the right might be re-considered. This might be the caveat in which the principle of drug testing in selection rests. Another ethical principle that sequels the right to privacy is the principle of autonomy. Every individual has autonomy as a person. The autonomy which an individual has is assumed to be above any other issue. The principle of autonomy which the individual has stems from the ethical principle of Human Dignity and right in the community. The conflict is indeed between the organizations goal to make money through business and the employee’s right to his private life. Is it morally right for the organization to invade the privacy of the employee’s to maximize profits? There are many voices in this regard. Hence, the nagging issue is the ethical principle in various workplaces can be viewed from two competing interests which exist between the superiority of the employer ‘s right to use drug test on his employees in order to maximize profits over the right of the employee to have his privacy1 Since the intention of the organization is to maximize profits, and not carrying the drug test can help to maximize the risk of the organization to loose money, does it not entail that testing the job candidates is not an act of reducing them to mere objects; means to an end. Following the Kantian theory of categorical imperative, one can argue that such employees are used as mere working objects, which certainly reduce their humanness. Nonetheless, we must agree that the argument is inconclusive. The legal issue: The legal aspect is the legislation or endorsement the issue of drug testing for employment receives from the legislators. In order words, how does the law look at it, and what is the logical implication of the law supporting either the organizations goal to minimize risk and the individual-employee’s right to privacy, even in the face of his paid employment. Since law is highly relative, and there does not bind on all, we are going to take a look at the legal and constitutional framework of some countries in relation to the issue. Finland: The Finland constitution code has a place for this issue. An Act on the protection of the employee’s privacy in his work place (759/2004) states that drug taste could be performed on a candidate for a job. Rodrigues, M., et al (2007) highlights the point that the drug testing in finland must be done by a reputable hospital in the country which must certify that the employee has not used any drug that might be harmful in the workplace2 Italy: The Italian DPR article, of section 12515 of the narcotic and substance laws state that the worker has the moral and legal obligation to submit himself to drug test if the occasion demands. Nonetheless, it was glaringly stated in the act that this must be carried out with the view to safeguard the public. It equally follows that those working in corporations where they have the responsibility towards others must undergo this mandatory test. The reason is to protect the general public from those who might have formed the habit of taking hard drugs. It is very important to note the uniqueness of this legal Act. If the employer notices through the test that a worker is addicted to a drug that is capable of impugning on the lives and safety of others, such an employee should either be imprisoned or fined. Hence, the law is not only a matter of imperative in the Italian legal system, but also an imperative for the employers of labor to carry out such tests. The overall players in the industry, both the employer and the employee have the legal obligation to perform such tests. The privacy issue: The privacy issue in the matter of drug testing for selection is very clear. This is because the issue in question is about the privacy of the individual worker before his employer. But we must admit the fact that the privacy issue is more than what we know about it. First, the test does not include only the narcotics but also the prescribed drugs. When the test is performed on the individual worker, there will be a revelation of any type of drug taken by the individual. Hence, what was taken in the secret in now revealed in the public. This is the height of the infringement on the individual privacy. Again, the mode of taking the test is a further infringement on the right of the job candidate or worker. Some employers of labor fear that the employees or job candidates who already know that they are addicted to hard drugs might resort to a deceit method by bringing specimens that do not belong to them. The specimens use in the testing process includes the urine, stool, blood, and others as specified by the medical consultant of the organization. Because of the risk of submitting false specimens by the employee, the employers sometimes device another means which are staying with the job candidate while he is extracting any part of the specimen, especially urine or stool. Some analysts see this as disrespect for the individual who should be accorded the respect of releasing his stool or urine in privacy. This further reduces the dignity of the employee as a human being. My own logical position on the issue: Those who are advocating against drug testing for selection should look at the issue from the angle of public good. Let us take for instance, the employment of a driver for public transport company or for school children, the employment of a medical doctor for a public health institution, or rather the employment of any person that has a responsibility towards others. Imagine a situation where a doctor or a driver is under the influence of a hard drug. You can imagine the peril that can befall either the patients or the passengers when the doctor or driver is performing his duty under the influence of a drug. The principle of preservation of the common good is very important in the issue. Hence, a right that has a negative bearing on the general public must be compromised. There is nothing like an absolute right. Every right, including right to privacy must be examined base on how it affects the greater number. Hence, lending his voice to mine, Robin Hoopes (2009) opines that drug testing before hiring an employee should be for any employee that has a responsibility towards others3 This simply means that drug testing must be encouraged, especially in a situation where the employee has a responsibility to others. Conclusion: Privacy is important for any individual and these tests should be made mandatory where one’s job performance will impact the life of others, if your job involves safety of others, the testing should be made mandatory. If a small inconvenience can save the lives of others, it is worth the effort. Privacy is of course a matter of human rights and should be safe guarded and so making these tests mandatory for everyone even when their job is not in anyways impacting the safety of others, and without them committing any crime is of course an invasion of privacy and it raises serious concerns. Works cited The ethics of drug testing, 2012, online source: Available at >> http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=63037. [Accessed, 13/12/2012] Rodrigues M., and Lourenço M,. Expert committee on ethical issues and professional standards, 2007, online source; Available at >> http://www.coe.int/t/dg3/pompidou/Source/Activities/Workdrug/P-PG-Ethics_2006_4rev2_en.pdf. [Accessed, 12/12/2012] Hoopes, R., Legal and Ethical Issues of Workplace Drug Testing, 2009, online source: Available at >> http://voices.yahoo.com/legal-ethical-issues-workplace-drug-testing-2635122.html?cat=17 Read More