Drug Testing Job Applicants - Five Reasons Why Employers Prefer It Over Testing Employees

There are a number of reasons why the testing of job applicants is much more common than the testing of incumbent employees. If you are considering to establish a drug testing program only for job applicants, knowing why other employers have such a program might help your decision making.

1. Testing of job applicants is more legally defensible than the testing of employees. For one thing, there is no employer-employee relationship. There are no issues of job performance. Employers generally do have a right to make being "drug-free" a condition of employment prior to hiring. And job applicant drug testing is less likely to be of concern to union representatives than employee testing - less likely to result in union-filed grievances.
2. Job denial for applicants, unlike employee dismissals, are not complicated by benefits, severance pay, or pension issues.
3. Job applicant drug testing is less likely to hurt employee morale than employee drug testing.
4. Job applicant drug testing, by keeping drug users out of the workforce, is cost-effective because it has a preventive impact on drug-related workplace problems. It also frees up limited employer resources so employers can provide more comprehensive rehabilitation programs for those employees who do develop drug abuse problems.
5. Job applicant drug testing is likely to have the greatest deterrent effect, since it communicates a forceful and consistent anti-drug abuse policy at the outset of the new employees' career.

For more information on this subject, we suggest you read Bill Reynolds article on pre-employment drug testing. The U. S. Chamber of Commerce also has an article on drug testing that includes a map and links to specific state drug testing information.

[This article is an excerpt taken from What Every Business Manager And HR Professional Should Know About Federal Labor And Employment Laws, a guidebook written specifically for employers and human resource departments.]

Comments

[Peter Cholakis]

Pre-employment testing is neither cost effective, nor sufficient to assure a drug free workplace.

A pre-employment testing is little more than an IQ test for drug abusers, as it is easiy circumvented.

Random, post-incident, and reasonable suspicion testing are all far superior deterents, and far more cost effective than random testing.

The comment "Testing of job applicants is more legally defensible than the testing of employees." is also very misleading. Drug testing of employees, including random drug testing is legal in all fifty states if done appropriately. Remember first and foremost is it an employers responsibility to provide a safe work environment. A safe work environment is virtually impossible unless it is drug free.

[Terry]

To many times I hear people say that a work place that drug tests its employees randomly leads to low morale. This seems to be a view that the drug users are creating.

In most industries less than 5% of employees are drug users. So why would the other 95% care if they were tested. Simple Drug tests are not anything that clean people worry about.

So the myth that everyone thinks drug testing is bad is just not true.

[Sandra]

I have been employed at a company for over a year. They are adding a drug policy.

What are my rights as an employee ?

[Terry Franconi]

I also agree it is not morally right to subject employees to drug tests when they are true and honest individuals. There has to be another method like a scan.

[Brittney scott]

I am also satisfied with the fact that Job applicant drug testing is less likely to hurt employee morale.I came across many platforms where the fact is strictly implemented.