Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

A Case against Workplace Drug Testing

Debra R. Comer
Organization Science
Vol. 5, No. 2 (May, 1994), pp. 259-267
Published by: INFORMS
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2635019
Page Count: 9
  • Download ($30.00)
  • Cite this Item
A Case against Workplace Drug Testing
Preview not available

Abstract

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.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
259
    259
  • Thumbnail: Page 
260
    260
  • Thumbnail: Page 
261
    261
  • Thumbnail: Page 
262
    262
  • Thumbnail: Page 
263
    263
  • Thumbnail: Page 
264
    264
  • Thumbnail: Page 
265
    265
  • Thumbnail: Page 
266
    266
  • Thumbnail: Page 
267
    267