Mandatory drug testing has become an increasingly common precondition for employment in the American workplace. Drug testing laboratories throughout the country run tests on hundreds of thousands of urine specimens each day, and the vast majority of these are performed at the request of employers who wish to ensure that their employees are substance-free. Drug testing has proved consistently effective for determining whether illegal or incapacitating substances are in an employee's system. Employers credit such testing with helping to reduce accidents in the workplace and loss of revenue resulting from the hire of unstable workers. However, drug testing is a contentious issue, considered by some to be an unwarranted violation of personal privacy.
Random Drug Testing
Employees are usually tested prior to employment and occasionally are randomly tested after hiring. Random testing is especially common in workplaces containing heavy machinery, toxic materials, and other potential health hazards. Employees are also routinely tested after being involved in a workplace accident, in order to determine if the incident was the result of substance abuse.
The Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988
Workplace drug testing made its first appearance in the mid-1980s, when legislation sponsored by the Reagan administration reached its final form in the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, which mandated that all federal employees be consistently shown to be free of the influence of illegal drugs. As drug tests grew more sophisticated and drug-testing laboratories became more widespread, private businesses were quick to follow the government's example. Today, nearly all large companies insist on a pre-employment drug screening for potential hires, and nearly all U.S. states allow employers to randomly test their current staff as they see fit.
Conducting a Drug Test
Individuals to be tested are usually directed to a third-party laboratory to give a specimen. The specimen may also be taken in-house if the workplace is large enough to have a private clinic. Wherever the collection takes place, the procedure is usually identical: the individual is led to a small room to provide urine into a small cup, which is then immediately labeled, tested for signs of adulteration, and mailed or delivered by courier to a laboratory for analysis. Occasionally, individuals will be lightly searched in order to assure that no substances or urine samples are being smuggled into the collection room. Some workplaces prefer to test employees' hair instead of urine, but this is not common.
Should an employee's sample indicate the presence of narcotics, the employer possesses various legal options for dealing with the violator. In the case of a pre-employment screening, this will almost certainly result in the rejection of the job-seeker's application. If the individual is a current employee, the employer usually has the legal right to terminate his or her services. However, in many cases, an employer may offer to sponsor the violator for some form of drug rehabilitation–either as a show of loyalty or, more often, to save money on the hiring and training of a replacement.
Employee Rights
Employees have the legal right to refuse to be tested (or to enter rehabilitation), but this will usually result in their termination. Legal consequences rarely stem from a positive drug test, as a drug test does not itself meet the legal standards for evidence in a prosecution. In addition, most employers will prefer to keep the matter quiet, as businesses are occasionally sued by disgruntled employees who consider their privacy to have been violated by random testing.
Drug Testing in the Workplace
