You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
A Case against Workplace Drug Testing
Debra R. Comer
Vol. 5, No. 2 (May, 1994), pp. 259-267
Published by: INFORMS
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2635019
Page Count: 9
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Drug testing, Workplaces, Employees, Urine, Drug abuse, Employment, Marijuana, African Americans, Productivity, Job performance
Were these topics helpful?See something inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Preview not available
Workplace drug testing, particularly urinalysis, has proliferated in the last few years. Despite widespread support for biological testing, research suggests that not all drug use diminishes performance and that testing may fail to deter the most potentially harmful substance abuse. There is no solid empirical evidence that drug testing is associated with enhanced organizational productivity and safety, and findings that persons who fail drug tests are inferior workers may be rooted in ethnic discrimination. Further, because drug testing detects exposure to a drug but cannot assess an individual's ability to perform, it is an inappropriate gauge for judging the suitability of employees or applicants. Drug tests may violate current and prospective employees' right to privacy and, according to a growing body of literature, may adversely affect their work attitudes and behaviors. Skills testing, which assesses employees' performance fitness less intrusively, is discussed as an alternative to biological testing.
Organization Science © 1994 INFORMS