Drug Testing Policy at Work
April 27, 2010 Leave a comment
United Kingdom (UK) workers are known for drinking of alcoholic beverages heavily. Research was conducted on UK workers estimated that 40% of the workers believe that alcohol misuse is the main cause of employee absence and productivity loss (Johnson, 2009). Another research quoted by Johnson (2009) estimate that 33% of the organizations in the UK report similar effects of drugs abuse although 40% of these organizations do not have a policy to manage drinking and drug abuse. Drug testing is useful but brings up personal issues and reservations. Drug testing can be justified if the nature of work need alertness like running heavy machinery, driving public transportation or performing sensitive and delicate work.
Drug testing maybe not needed for less critical jobs but lost productivity due to intoxication or absenteeism amount to huge sum of money. Pre-employment drug test is useful to screen candidates. Hair analysis is a new drug test that give a three months history of the candidates lifestyle (Johnson, 2009). Unannounced random screening could be a good practice to eliminate the thought that such test was done because of personal issues with the superior or because of prejudice reasons. The code of conduct policy should support drug testing and details how the test is performed and what to do if violation was found. A research was done on schools in Australia showed limited success in detecting and preventing drugs abuse (Roche, Bywood, Pidd, Freeman, & Steenson, 2009). Schools can be the informative and supporting medium to educate the students on the harmful sides of drugs-abuse on their health and social relationships (Roche, et al., 2009).
Johnson, G. (2009). Under the influence. [Article]. Occupational Health, 61(12), 32-34.
Roche, A. M., Bywood, P., Pidd, K., Freeman, T., & Steenson, T. (2009). Drug testing in Australian schools: Policy implications and considerations of punitive, deterrence and/or prevention measures. [Article]. International Journal of Drug Policy, 20(6), 521-528. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2009.04.002