Reference no: EM131115112

For years, courts, employers, and employees have struggled withthe issue of employee drug testing. Employers want their employeesto be drug free, whereas employees do not want to submit to aninvasive and embarrassing procedure. Courts want to upholdemployee' right to privacy while allowing employer to run a safe,drug-free workplace. This issue may finally have a solution.Recently, a new drug test has been developed that uses a swab ofsaliva rather than urine or blood. It is being implemented inseveral states already, including Georgia and Hawaii. This new testgives much faster results than urine and blood tests, and someexperts believe that it might be more effective. The results ofnegative or nonnegative can be returned within 10 minutes, andemployees who test negative can begin or return to workimmediately. This faster process alleviates the stress and anxietyof employees who much be tested for drugs. The major benefit of thenew saliva test is that it is a noninvasive test. Employees do nothave to suffer the embarrassment of having to 'pee in a cup" or thepainful experience of having blood drawn. Giving a swab of salivais easy. This drug test protects employees from having to undergoan invasive or embarrassing test, while allowing employers to keeptheir workplaces drug free. Allowing employers to drug test theiremployees is very important to keeping the workplace safe andethical. Employees who use drugs while on the job are a danger tothemselves and to others and could be responsible for lawsuitsagainst an employer. Also, employees who break the law by takingillegal drugs might engage in other illegal activity, which couldalso be damaging to an employer. Allowing drug testing is the bestway for an employer to keep the workplace drug free. Random drugtesting has been legally questionable because of the employees'right to privacy. The saliva drug test eliminate the concerns withthe right to privacy and is a major step in helping keep theworkplace safe and drug free. 

1. What are the legal and ethical issues involved?

2. Is there any missing information thatwould help you evaluate this argument?

3. What points could you makeagainst this argument and for a different opinion about thistopic?