Mandatory Drug Testing

On September 15, 1986 President Reagan signed Executive Order 12564 as an contract to establish a medicate-free Federal workplace. The order constitutes the condition in which employment of all Federal employees to refrain from substance ab work still when off-duty. After the Executive Order, the Drug Free Workplace Act of 1988 was created to compound the intention to create a medicine-free environment in the workplace. It is a general knowledge that over the years, on that point has been the increase of drug use and abuse evident in the confederation.Thus, this creates an alarming realization for companies to maintain a strict requirement of employees and future employees free of drug use. The wishing for the required drug testing constitution both has its advantages and disadvantage. But on a psycheal view, the advantages outweigh the disadvantage. This can be attri hardlyed to one of the major factors the attach to should not take the risk. (LaFoyette, 2001)The lodge over the years had provided society with the crush and timberland equipments that aids patients during the crucial heart and lung transfers. Life is the main invade of the smart set more than gaining profit from the sales of the equipments. Thus, this entails that risks should not be interpreted at all cost. Life as the matter in which the phoner holds its integrity to protect must make it a point to delay that vision with the confidence of having employees fit in the kind of demand the company requires. The mandatory drug testing polity addresses that.Why enforce the drug testing policy?The first point for employing the mandatory drug testing policy is due to it being a constitutional right. The United States Supreme coquette has agreed that mandatory drug testing of employees is constitutional permissible and one- thirdly of both private and public corporations have adopted this policy. It is of fact that companies deserve the right to accept or deny employment from a pe rson for reasons that maybe undisclosed by the employers. This attributes the right of the company to seek the surmount(p) among its employees.The second is the right of the employers to make it a point to hire the best and most qualified employees.Third, there is the concept of employment at result. This concept describes that an employee can either accept or protest his employers drug testing policy with the notion that he or she agrees to the terms and obligation between him and his employer. By law, this relates that if the employers wish to change the companys policies, and so the employee either complies or quit the job.Fourth, there is the concern in society to stop drug abuse and it has been clear that one of the greatest problems affecting the health and welfare of our population is the use of narcotics. Thus there is the need and the concern of the general public to stop one of the cancers in the society.Fifth, a reasonable employer will create a simple substance-abu se policy as he or she may deemed fit. This will begin by lay a blanket of prohibition among the employees in the use, possession and distribution of drugs and inebriant in the workplace. It is also wrong for the employee to work under the influence of drugs. And there are disciplinary actions interpreted for violation of the policy.An employers may see the accident of misidentifying an employee under the influence of drugs but this can be relieved if befitting documentation happens of the discharge decision is advisable and there lies the importance of reasonable- distrustfulness for the employer. There is the employers right to state in the employees contacts the provisions and abnegations of the two in the matter of drug testing. With suspicionless drug testing of employees, there we maintain the quality of employees we have and seek.The companys integrity and credibilityWe should always keep in mind the companys reputation at being the leading manufacturers of health equip ments responsible for other people lives. The legal grounds of the drug testing policy being permissible are valid for us to make the necessary and objective decision in having this policy taken into effective. I asked whether we should take the risk.I say we do not. It is the companys policy to maintain its integrity and credibility, and we should do that by maintaining the quality and fitness of the employees. The company may sacrifice money and risk unlawful dismissal lawsuits, but it will be worth it if the company is made sure of its employees. The animateness of the companys consumers is at stake, risks should never be taken in place of their lives.ReferenceAnonymous. (2007). Drugs, Police and the LawDrug Testing. Retrieved February 28, 2007, from http//www.drugpolicy.org/drug-testing-policiesLaFoyette, H. (2001). Mandatory Drug Testing Electronic Version, 17. Retrieved February 28 from http//www.usfsp.edu/domicile/.McKinney, J. R. (1999). The Effectiveness and Legality of Ra ndom Drug Testing Policies. 1(1),Niznik, J. S. (2001). Job inquisitory Technical Supports Equal Opportunity Employment Electronic Version. Retrieved 2007 from https//www.thebalance.com/employment-law-advice-best-websites-2071543.