Skip to content

Drug Free Workplace Essay

Workplace Substance Abuse Essay

The following will address the issue of substance abuse in the workplace, what can be done to alleviate substance abuse in the workplace and the benefits of the control factors.

Before we delve into this issue let us first go over the effects of substance abuse, to better understand this growing problem. Alcoholism is defined in terms of four symptoms (1) a craving or compulsion to drink; (2) loss of control to limit drinking on any particular occasion; (3) physical dependence, so that withdrawal symptoms (nausea, sweating, shakiness, anxiety) are experienced if alcohol ceases and (4) tolerance, the need to drink increasingly greater amounts in order to get high (Lauer and Lauer, 2008).

Studies indicate that boring, repetitive tasks with little satisfying results can contribute to increased use and abuse. Other factors include irregular hours and improper supervision. Substance use can also be part of the work culture. For example, in sales professions, drinking is quite acceptable. A three-martini lunch may, in some cases, continue all afternoon. Access, opportunity and freedom can escalate a problem (Buttery, 2005/2006).

Employees are often also reluctant to reveal a problem. If I'm a licensed professional - a truck driver, doctor, nurse or veterinarian - exposing my problem may threaten my license and my ability to earn a living. I could lose my job, or if it goes on my record, it could affect my chances of promotion. In terms of addressing substance use, stigma is a barrier to accessing help. Substance use and abuse are perceived as a disciplinary problem, not a health problem (Buttery, 2005/2006).

Alcohol is the top substance problem, with marijuana following, this is because one drink can lead to slight impairment and mood change. Its easy accessibility, also, makes alcohol the most used substance. The effects of alcohol are also more difficult for an employer to detect because it does not last long in the blood stream.

The effects of illegal drugs are more difficult to determine because illegal substances can have varying side effects on the user.

Substance abuse in the workplace is one of the top concerns in the United States today. Studies show that 73 percent of drug users are employed, costing American businesses billions of dollars annually in lost production and staffing costs (Walsh). Due to higher employment rates and rising substance abuse, the chance that your organization employs one of these 8.1 million workers is greater today than it has been in the past several years (Walsh, 1996).

Dealing with the effects of alcohol and drugs in the workplace is no small challenge for any employer, but in the industrial sector where employees work closely with heavy, dangerous and hazardous materials, substance abuse ispotentially life threatening...

Loading: Checking Spelling


Read more

Drugs at The Workplace Essay

5356 words - 21 pages 1.0 INTRODUCTIONAlcohol and drug use in the workplace is considered one of the most critical problems facing business and industry today. It is not surprising that substance use problems are a leading cause of performance behavior or impairment on the job. Alcohol and other drug use can impact the workplace in many ways. While many employers frequently turn a blind eye to alcohol and drug misuse, the widespread problem hinders...

Drug-Free Workplace Evaluation Essay

1264 words - 5 pages AbstractIllegal drugs have been a part of the American society for centuries and continue to be a burden for today's economy. Each year the government allots billions of dollars towards educating and treating individuals who suffer from substance abuse yet the numbers continue to increase. Healthcare premiums reflect the medical arenas stance on substance abuse by raising their premiums for coverage. Insurance companies are hesitant in...

Drug Free Workplace Evaluation

1364 words - 5 pages The University of Purdue's Alcohol has a Drug-Free Workplace policy. The university has specific the characteristics of the tolerance in the workplace. The paper will discuss whether the policies are clearly defined on regard to a drug-free workplace, has the university implemented a comprehensive drug awareness and education program, does the university train supervisors to detect and manage substance abuse issues in the workplace, does the...

Drug Testing in the Federal Workplace

2164 words - 9 pages In September 1986, President Reagan issued Executive Order 12564. This was done in an effort to make the Federal Government a drug free work place. He believed that persons who used illegal drugs were not suitable for Federal employment. The order required the heads of governmental agencies to establish both a voluntary and mandatory testing program to determine the use of illegal drugs by employees in sensitive positions. Sensitive position...

Drug-Free Workplace Evaluation Paper

1272 words - 5 pages This paper will focus on Purdue University's Alcohol and Drug-Free Workplace policy. The paper will specify the characteristics of the workplace, determine whether the policies are clearly defined, report on any company-implemented drug awareness and education programs with their characteristics defined, training programs for supervisors, support of an

Substance Abuse: Through the Eyes of a Nurse

3599 words - 14 pages In first talking about substance use, abuse and addiction as it relates to the Nursing profession it is necessary to understand the aspect of addiction. Drug use is a broad idea that refers to the use of any chemical substance rather legal or illegal. This topic includes prescription drugs, street drugs, herbal supplements, and the like. The term Drug abuse is defined as “the use of a substance or substances in such a way that it leads to...

Against Drug Testing In The Workplace

1736 words - 7 pages Abstract The issue of drug testing in the workplace has sparked an ongoing debate among management. There are many who feel that it is essential to prevent risks to the greater public caused by substance abuse while on the job. However, others believe that the costs far outweigh the benefits and that it is an invasion of privacy. Putting all ethical issues aside, evidence presented in this paper supports the latter. The costs of drug testing...

Violence in the Workplace: A Growing Problem

2467 words - 10 pages Violence in the Workplace A Growing Problem It was six years ago this year that our radio and television stations were inundated with visions and news beyond one’s imagination. An unknown individual or group had bombed the Oklahoma City Federal Building. As we sat attentatively watching our television, we saw small children and adults being carried away by fire fighters, and others were laid out on the floor awaiting medical assistance. ...

Violence in the workplace

3167 words - 13 pages INTRODUCTIONWhat is workplace violence? Workplace violence is violence or the threat of violence against workers. It can occur at or outside the workplace and can range from threats and verbal abuse to physical assaults and homicide, one of the leading causes of job-related deaths. However it manifests itself, workplace violence is a growing concern...

Employee Privacy Rights in the Workplace.

1416 words - 6 pages Drug testing in the workplace is a violation of employee privacy rights. Drug testing in the workplace was founded under the idea of protecting the employer from employees that had attendance, tardiness, theft and accidents assumed to be related to drug and alcohol abuse. To protect an employee's right to privacy an employer should seek out alternatives to detecting and preventing drug and alcohol abuse in the workplace other than drug...

Is drugs testing important in Egypt?

1056 words - 4 pages Many drug abusers are addicted to substances and need help. By enforcing drug testing in different sectors in Egypt, we can spot out these people before they further hurt themselves or others. Currently, drug testing is being applied in many fields, due to the fact that drugs abuse recently became very common in Egypt. However, the problem of soft drugs abuse (marihuana and hashish) exists in Egypt from a long time ago. Is it closely linked to...

In the area of privacy rights, workers have actually lost ground in recent years. Here, too, the base line is not impressive -- no comprehensive right to personal privacy on the job has ever been established. I learned this on my first day as a waitress, when my fellow workers warned me that my purse could be searched by management at any time. I wasn't carrying stolen salt shakers or anything else of a compromising nature, but there's something about the prospect of a purse search that makes a woman feel a few buttons short of fully dressed. After work, I called around and found that this, too, is generally legal, at least if the boss has reasonable cause and has given prior notification of the company's search policies.

Purse searches, though, are relatively innocuous compared with the sophisticated chemical and electronic forms of snooping adopted by many companies in the 90's. The American Management Association reports that in 1999 a record two-thirds of major American companies monitored their employees electronically: videotaping them; reviewing their e-mail and voice-mail messages; and, most recently, according to Lewis Maltby, president of the Princeton-based National Workrights Institute, monitoring any Web sites they may visit on their lunch breaks. Nor can you count on keeping anything hidden in your genes; a growing number of employers now use genetic testing to screen out job applicants who carry genes for expensive ailments like Huntington's disease.

But the most ubiquitous invasion of privacy is drug testing, usually of urine, more rarely of hair or blood. With 81 percent of large companies now requiring some form of drug testing -- up from 21 percent in 1987 -- job applicants take it for granted that they'll have to provide a urine sample as well as a resume. This is not restricted to ''for cause'' testing -- of people who, say, nod or space out on the job. Nor is it restricted to employees in ''safety-sensitive occupations,'' like airline pilots and school-bus drivers. Workers who stack boxes of Cheerios in my local supermarkets get tested, as do the editorial employees of this magazine, although there is no evidence that a weekend joint has any more effect on Monday-morning performance than a Saturday-night beer.

Civil libertarians see drug testing as a violation of our Fourth Amendment protection from ''unreasonable search,'' while most jobholders and applicants find it simply embarrassing. In some testing protocols, the employee has to strip to her underwear and urinate into a cup in the presence of an aide or technician, who will also want to know what prescription drugs she takes, since these can influence the test results.

According to a recent report from the American Civil Liberties Union, drug testing has not been proven to achieve its advertised effects, like reducing absenteeism and improving productivity. But it does reveal who's on antidepressants or suffering with an ailment that's expensive to treat, and it is undeniably effective at weeding out those potential ''troublemakers'' who are too independent-minded to strip and empty their bladders on command.

Maybe the prevailing trade-off between jobs and freedom would make sense, in the narrowest cost-benefit terms, if it contributed to a more vibrant economy. But this is hardly the case. In fact, a 1998 study of 63 computer-equipment and data-processing firms found that companies that performed both pre-employment and random drug testing actually ''reduced rather than enhanced productivity'' -- by an eye-popping 29 percent, presumably because of its dampening effect on morale.

Why, then, do so many employers insist on treating their workers as a kind of fifth column within the firm? Certainly the government has played a role with its misguided antidrug crusade, as has the sheer availability of new technologies of snooping. But workplace repression signals a deeper shift away from the postwar social contract in which a job meant a straightforward exchange of work for wages.

Economists trace the change to the 1970's, when, faced with falling profits and rising foreign competition, America's capitalists launched an offensive to squeeze more out of their workers. Supervision tightened, management expanded and union-busting became a growth industry. And once in motion, the dynamic of distrust is hard to stop. Workers who are routinely treated like criminals and slackers may well bear close watching.

The mystery is why American workers, the political descendants of proud revolutionaries, have so meekly surrendered their rights. Sure, individual workers find ways to cheat on their drug tests, outwit the electronic surveillance and sneak in a bit of ''gossip'' here and there. But these petty acts of defiance seldom add up to concerted resistance, in part because of the weakness of American unions. The A.F.L.-C.I.O. is currently conducting a nationwide drive to ensure the right to organize, and the downtrodden workers of the world can only wish the union well. But what about all the other rights missing in so many American workplaces? It's not easy to organize your fellow workers if you can't communicate freely with them on the job and don't dare carry union literature in your pocketbook.

In a tight labor market, workers have another option, of course. They can walk. The alarming levels of turnover in low-wage jobs attest to the popularity of this tactic, and if unemployment remains low, employers may eventually decide to cut their workers some slack. Already, companies in particularly labor-starved industries like ski resorts and software are dropping drug testing rather than lose or repel employees. But in the short run, the mobility of workers, combined with the weakness of unions, means that there is little or no sustained on-site challenge to overbearing authority.

What we need is nothing less than a new civil rights movement -- this time, for American workers. Who will provide the leadership remains to be seen, but clearly the stakes go way beyond ''labor issues,'' as these are conventionally defined. We can hardly call ourselves the world's pre-eminent democracy if large numbers of citizens spend half of their waking hours in what amounts, in plain terms, to a dictatorship.

Continue reading the main story