It is estimated that substance abuse costs employers $60 billion a year in decreased productivity, absenteeism, and unintentiona
l injuries. In the interest of health, safety, and economics, many companies are testing for illicit drug use. This has triggered a debate over whether people should be tested, who should do the testing and whether the results are reliable. Research this topic and then respond to the following questions and post your answers here. Who, if anyone, do you think should be tested in the workplace? Why? In what situations? When people test positive for drugs, what should be done about it? Why?
I think when it comes to substance abuse, everyone should be tested, from high ranking officials to the ordinary employees. This is because when one is proven abuser of substance, it does not only affect him as an employee but it affects him as an individual in general. When people are tested positive, termination from the job may the greatest option. This will allow the person to realize the risk of being in substance abuse.
I believe that many benefits can come from testing workers for drug abuse. The company that employs the workers would benefit, as it would ensure that the absenteeism is low, productivity is high and injuries do not occur as often. The employee would benefit too because it would monitor the person's health and ensure that they have access to help when needed.
Everyone should be tested in the workplace in order to be able to access these benefits. It would also lead to equality in the workplace. When people test positive for drugs, they should be provided with information and access to help so that they can recover. This would benefit the company as well, because it would represent an investment on its human assets.
