Final Paper
Introduction
There are many legal and ethical issues that we face in the world today. Business are the ones who are hit hard by these issues and need to find ways to identify them while also doing what they can to prevent any loss of business as a cause. One of the examples that this paper will talk about is the issue of drug testing. Drug testing is a sensitive issue as there are many different viewpoints regarding this issue. Drug testing also known as drug screening was used increasingly in the 1990’s to test for the presence of illegal narcotics in the blood or urine of the employees. An employee abusing illegal narcotics may be impaired and thus at a greater risk of injury or illness on the job (Kesselring & Pittman, 2002). A previous company I used to work for had many issues regarding drug testing and it sometimes came back to hurt them. Drug testing has become an issue of outstanding social concern across the country and has been used by many employers (Wall, 1992). This paper will explain the issue that drug testing causes as well as some of the ethical concerns raised by the situation. This paper will also explain the laws that effect drug testing as well as recommendations to reduce liability exposure and improve the ethical climate of the situation
Description of Business that presents a legal and ethical issue Drug testing was a big concern of a company I used to work for in San Diego. Sterling Security was a company that was bought out in 2004 due to some rising issues within the organization. Drug testing had become an issue because there were many times where employees were involved in auto accidents and incidents with working with law enforcement. Sterling Security was broken down into two departments, the standing guard department and the patrol department. The standing guard department was directly involved with the residents of the city as well as responsible for their safety. It was very important for them to be as mentally and physically prepared as possible. Anytime an incident occurred it was important for the guard to contact police and inform them of the situation. If the police were to arrive and the guard was to be under the influence of drugs it would be a liability to not only the company but also the property for which they worked at. This is why it was important to drug test the employees to help prevent any unstable workers. The patrol department was one of the most important departments of the company as they were required to drive from business to business to help protect each of the properties. Any patrol officers under the influence of drugs could cause a hazard for the people surrounding and the properties for which they were patrolling. If an accident were to occur then there will be lawsuits pending from the liability of the officer. What the company currently does is Pre Employment drug testing which consists of going to the lab prior to hire. There is currently no random drug testing present but should be done. The only other time there is any other drug testing is when an employee is in an accident or when requested by management due to suspicion. In the past there have been numerous incidents where drivers have tested positive after an accident and the company was fined and sued by the parties involved. There was an incident where a driver was pulled over for running a stoplight and decided to run from the cops and caused a three-car accident with tremendous property damage. From an ethical standpoint this is not right nor is it safe for any parties.
Analysis of the ethical concerns There are some ethical concerns raised by this situation. Utilitarianism is a procedure for aggregating individual interests and desires, a procedure for making social choices, specifying which trade-offs are acceptable (Freeman, 1994). Each individual counts for exactly as much as another if each experiences and equal quantity of utility of the same kind or quality (Riley, 2009). From a utilitarianism standpoint this is morally wrong based on the greatest good for the greatest number of people. I do not see where anyone would benefit from not drug testing. The danger is just too great and the amount of people that could be hurt is even greater. When testing randomly, it has the potential to save numerous lives by simply taking that one person off the street who could do the most damage. The current way of doing things is to test after the accident, which is way to late, and all it does is protect the company from a lawsuit but does not protect the greater number of people. Deontology is the opposite of teology, which is commonly defined as a theory in which the only right-making properties are good-promoting properties (Gaus, 2001). From a deontology perspective, deontology considers the way things are done without focusing on the consequences. From a company standpoint they are doing the right thing because they are saving money while also limiting their direct involvement with any injuries or accidents. When drug testing upon hiring an employee you are clearly stating that you are doing your duty by ensuring the employee is not currently under the influence. Drug testing again after an incident clears you from any wrong doing as saying the employee was under the influence. The company saves money by not random drug testing as it releases them from any costs associated with testing. Based on these two theories I believe that utilitarianism is the best way to go as it helps both the company and the people in society. Practicing deontology will only look out for the company but in no way helps protect the people. While random drug testing will cost the company money thru the process it will help save them in the long run on incidents such as property damage or bodily damage. Random drug testing also allows for the employees to be more aware as they could be tested at anytime and possibly lose their job.
Application of the law that has been addressed There have been some laws established such as the employment law, which was created to help business hire the right employee. Most companies now will require a drug test in order to earn employment. If the soon to be employee fails the drug test then they will be denied the position with the company. Companies will also require a drug test when in a company accident or incident involving company property or customers. Some places of employment now have contracts that need to be filled out in order to gain employment and in these contracts is verbiage that states the employee is an at will employee and will agree to be randomly drug tested. This is the most important part of employment, as this will let the employee know that they can be tested at any moment and may stop them from using the substances.
Legal analysis of the employment law The employment law consists of the pre employment, employment and post employment phases. During the pre employment phase the law allows an employer to require a suspicion less drug test as a condition of employment after a job offer is tendered but before the employee goes on the payroll. This is the most important part of the hiring process as this is one step to clearing the company of any negligent hiring. There are other certain circumstances to require employees to random drug test. A drug-free workplace policy is in effect in most companies to help with those who may suspect another employee to be under the influence of drugs. You may choose to create a drug-free workplace policy and/or include a drug-free workplace provision in the employee handbook. If a company chooses to do that then there are sets of guidelines that can help you keep the policy fair, clear, and consistent. There have been many instances of wrongful termination and drug testing. California courts have developed at least three wrongful termination theories, which employees who have been terminated for refusing to submit to drug testing can use as a basis for lawsuits.
Recommendation to reduce liability exposure and improve ethical climate Drug and alcohol abuse in the workplace contributes to a loss in productivity, increased medical expenses, and workplace crime (Fellows, 1993). Some recommendations to reduce liability exposure and improve the ethical climate or the overall ethics of the situation are to create a drug free workplace environment. The best way to do this is to find ways to enforce random drug testing while also offering multiple ways to perform these tests. Other types of testing such as hair follicles are available along with the standard urine testing. Testing for drug usage by the way of urination or blood testing is intrusive and cannot show when or how much of a drug was used, or whether the user was impaired when the test was taken (Thomas, 1997). This is why it is important to keep huge awareness of the behavior regarding the employees. Each management personnel and other employees should pay attention to changes in the employee’s lifestyle that could possibly help the risk of damage or injury. Staying aware and never assuming is always the best solution. The important part is to always try and keep the testing random as to avoid any accusations of harassment from the employees. Sometimes those you do not expect are the ones committing the crime.
Conclusion
In conclusion, there are many legal and ethical issues that present a challenge. As the country evolves so will the political outlook of the country. Political viewpoints shape this answer because most of the heads of the agencies are appointed by the current president and the generally are lead by the beliefs of the party they serve (Seaquist, 2012). Drug testing is just one of them and companies just like Sterling Security need to find ways to do the most ethical and legal thing possible. Simply staying proactive and alert will help in avoiding any disasters. The choice to do the utilitarianism thing may not always be the right choice but in certain circumstances will feel like the right thing. Laws such as the employment law are created to help balance out society and keep the safety of others in mind. When it comes to drug testing, random drug testing can be one of the most important things to consider, as it will help keep every employee aware as well as possibly saving lives. More than 1 in 12 American workers report abusing drugs regularly – despite the prevalence of workplace substance abuse and testing programs designed to identify and eliminate such abuse (Delogu, 2007). The interesting part is that according to the 2004 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 75% of drug abusers in America are employed (Cholakis & Bruce, 2007). Staying aware will not only save lives but could help fight a part of culture that is affecting us today. This culture is known as drug use.

References
Cholakis, P. N., & Bruce, R. (2007). Drug testing in the workplace. Professional Safety, 52(7), 31-36. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/200416949?accountid=32521
Delogu, N. N. (2007). Essential elements of a drug-free workplace program. Professional Safety, 52(11), 48-51. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/200384166?accountid=32521
Fellows,Henry D.,,Jr. (1993). Legal aspects of drug and alcohol testing in the workplace. Risk Management, 40(3), 21. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/226999234?accountid=32521
Freeman, S. (1994). Utilitarianism, deontology, and the priority of right. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 23(4), 313. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/210953652?accountid=32521
Gaus, G. F. (2001). What is deontology? part two: Reasons to act. Journal of Value Inquiry, 35(2), 179. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/203928000?accountid=32521
Kesselring, R. G., & Pittman, J. R. (2002). Drug testing laws and employment injuries. Journal of Labor Research, 23(2), 293-301. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/214004562?accountid=32521
Riley, J. (2009). THE INTERPRETATION OF MAXIMIZING UTILITARIANISM. Social Philosophy & Policy, 26(1), 286-325. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0265052509090128
Seaquist, G. (2012). Business law for managers. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education Inc.
Thomas, C. (1997). Drug testing in the workplace. New Zealand Journal of Industrial Relations, 22(2), 159-169. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/213508003?accountid=32521
Wall, P. S. (1992). Drug testing in the workplace: An update. Journal of Applied Business Research, 8(2), 127. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/227589757?accountid=32521