An Analysis of Employee Rights vs. Employer Rights
BSAD 319 – Professional Ethics
When comparing the granted rights of employees versus employers, it does not truly seem that either party has the advantage. These factors can often vary depending on state laws and regulations, and it appears when consulting these laws, that there are many loopholes due to the gray areas that accompany behavioral legal situations. There are many occurrences of foul play, stereotyping and opinionated biases that seem to have caused and shaped these existing laws. Very much like the medical field now, it seems that many employers have taken tedious extra precautions in order to avoid legislation with what may be disgruntled past employees.
…show more content…
Drug testing within the workplace is legal in most places, and is a right normally given to employers. Most often, drug testing occurs during the application process, however, current employees of most private companies can be tested if the employer harbors legitimate suspicion. In jobs where drug use would pose a large safety risk, such as a job requiring the use of a vehicle, drug testing is often mandatory. Unionized companies however, must undergo negotiations if drug testing is imposed upon the employees. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, “The majority of employers across the United States are NOT required to drug test and many state and local governments have statutes that limit or prohibit workplace testing, unless required by state or Federal regulations for certain jobs. Also, drug testing is NOT required under the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988. On the other hand, most private employers have the right to test for a wide variety of substances.” (United States Department of Labor, 2012.) This is interesting information, because of how many employers reserve the right to ask for a drug test. There are many different types of drug testing, some of which are very invasive and require the employee to be monitored while giving a urine sample. In these cases, there is often no plausible suspicion, and the test is imposed upon a large number of employees. This act starts to infringe upon other employee privacies, in that urine samples disclose a large amount