Employee Privacy Concerning Drug Testing in the Wo Essay Example For Students

Employee Privacy Concerning Drug Testing in the Wo Essay rkplaceEmployee Privacy Concerning Drug Testing in the WorkplaceEmployee Privacy Concerning Drug Testing in the WorkplaceA.Court Cases Affecting Privacy of Employees and Drug Testing in the Workplace1.Supreme Court cases affirming drug testing a.Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association 109 S.Ctb.National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 109 S.Ct. 1384 (1989)2.Other lower court and State court rulings a.Kraslawsky v. Upper Deck 56 Cal.App.4th 179, 66 Cal Rptr.2d.297(CA 4, 1997)b.Pettus v. DuPont, 49 Cal.App.4th402, 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 46 (1997)3.Supreme Court cases dealing with Privacy in generala.Griswold v. Connecticut381 U.S. 479, dealing with individual rights to privacy1.Just Illegal Drugs on the Street?1.Who should be the one to decide this?2.Should we only test the most critical jobs that are for the safety of the public good?1.Is it accurate and can the employer rely on the outcome?2.How much do you spend to make sure you get the right answers1.How should the informatio n be handled?2.What should be done with the employee?F.Who’s Rights are We Infringing OnPrivacy and drug testing have gone hand in hand since President George Bush instituted the Drug-Free Workplace Act in 1988. This act only affected federal workers and was only to be used in certain circumstances, so as to not impact the privacy of the federal employees, but to make sure that the federal workplace was a safe place to work in. This was actually the start of pre-employment drug testing and the on going testing of those who had returned from a rehabilitation programs for drug and alcohol abuse previously. All federal agencies instituted drug-testing programs at this time to protect the safety and security of government employees and the public. The act provided that programs had to be legal and be communicated to the employee. Discipline was left up to the employer’s discretion. If the employee was found guilty of criminal sanctions, the employer must administer some ty pe of employment sanctions towards the individual also. Most of the programs were and are focused on rehabilitation and recycling of the employee back into the work environment. Privacy was extremely important with this act. It was important that the employer only used drug testing for pre-employment and not as an on going harassment of the employees if they were not found to be abusers. A number of legal definitions of privacy really have come about due to the 1890 Harvard Law Review article â€Å"Right to Privacy†, written by Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis. They felt that it is the right of the individual was â€Å"to be let alone† and that the press or anyone else should not infringe upon his/her privacy. In conjunction with the Law Review, the case of Griswold v. Connecticut (381 U.S. 479) also addressed privacy. Justice Douglas wrote that the individual should be afforded a â€Å"zone of privacy† around their person, which cannot be violated by government intrusion. It is articles and cases like these that have shaped our current legal system and how they look at the individual privacy issue. Many cases have been decided on these decisions and articles. There have been some cases that have affirmed suspicion less or random testing for drugs. Loder v. City of Glendale (1997) 14 Cal.4th 846, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 696. The Court held that the city c ould require all job applicants to submit to drug testing. However, suspicion less drug testing of all current employees who were offered promotions was not reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. In this instance, the courts have protected the rights of the employee to not be tested again after they have been hired, just because they are being looked at for promotion. If the employee is acting normally and making good decisions on their current job, there is no reason to test them just because they are being promoted. Stalin's Purges EssayIf the employee has been found guilty to the illegal use of drugs then it will be up to you them to consider seeking the proper health clinics that specialize in drug treatment and abuse. If there is an accident and the employee is found to have illegal drugs in their system then it would be correct to terminate employment or discharge because as a rule zero tolerance is needed to provide a safe environment for all to work in most organizations and jobs currently. Also the proper authorities such as police in their area to which they live or reside should be informed that this particular individual has a problem and needs help. RehabilitatingIn rehabilitating the employee it helps them to become more self sufficient and responsible for their actions in society and the workplace. Also, it improves their performance and their attitudes and outlook on life. It could be that the employee was hanging around the wrong crowd and realizes that once detoxed and they are clean see that there are people out their and people to whom have faced similar problems in life and have resolved and changed their lives by rehabilitating themselves. Who’s Rights are we Infringing On? For the employee rights they are protected by the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches. If the employee winds up turning him or herself in and is willing to get help there are laws that protect them. If the employee is tested the employer for the employee should restrict the information gained during testing. If the information is disclosed to people who don’t have a need to know then the employee can hold the employer liable for invasion of privacy or for defamation should the information turn out to be false. For the employer you have an absolute right to determine whether someone is sufficiently healthy to do a job. The employer should make sure that if they test that the yield results are relevant to the job in question. (Employment Labor and Law 535)DD. Bennett-Alexander ; LP Hartman (2001), Employment Law for Business, 3rd Edition, Irwin McGraw-Hill Publishing. (1998, December)http://www.sundoulos.com/answers/body_drug.html (1994, February)http://www.brobeck.com/sslitle/8.htm (1998, August)http://www.fairmeasures.com/print/articles/drugtest.html (1996, March)http://www.nesl.edu/lawrev/vol30/vol30-2/Obrien.htm (2000, November)http://www.aclu.org/library/pbr5.html (1997, June)http://www.fortune.com/fortune/1997/970623/ask1.html Curry, Sheree R., â€Å"Big Brothers want a close look at your hair† Fortune. June 1997Bibliography:Bibliography:DD. Bennett-Alexander ; LP Hartman (2001), Employment Law for Business, 3rd Edition, Irwin McGraw-Hill Publishing. (1998, December)http://www.s undoulos.com/answers/body_drug.html (1994, February)http://www.brobeck.com/sslitle/8.htm (1998, August)http://www.fairmeasures.com/print/articles/drugtest.html (1996, March)http://www.nesl.edu/lawrev/vol30/vol30-2/Obrien.htm (2000, November)http://www.aclu.org/library/pbr5.html (1997, June)http://www.fortune.com/fortune/1997/970623/ask1.html Curry, Sheree R., â€Å"Big Brothers want a close look at your hair† Fortune. June 1997