Should an employer base employment on a drug test's results? Like it or not...However intrusive, states such as California now require drug testing randomly or for specific causes such as employment screening. This article also looks at the following:
*Random testing is just part of such tests. California, is an example of a state that requires drug testing for cause or randomly..and this is legal. In California, the law supports and allows for employers to require what is referred to as a "suspicion-less" drug test.
* If zero tolerance workplaces should be allowed to excercise the right to test employees.
The fact that empirical evidence suggests drug users are less productive and have a higher level of absenteeism from work.
Why most companies in Canada do not make this a mandatory law, while the practice is 'Trending" in the USA.
Should an employer base employment on a drug test's results?
If the employment depends on driving and operating heavy machinery and equipment, (flying an airplane etc) then yes absolutely a company would most likely be held responsible, if someone was under the influence, and so a a positive test would /could mean major liability issues for the company. I believe the company should have all right to exercise the right to test their employees for drugs.
Random testing is just part of such tests. California, is an example of a state that requires drug testing for ...
Drug testing is usually performed as part of the screening process for job applicants. Although controversial, it is now commonplace for many companies and organizations to test current and prospective employees, for illegal drug use. Many organizations conduct 'routine' 'random' drug tests on current employees, and are even including this in contracts for employment employees will sign as they are being hired. Such test include but are not limited to: blood, saliva, hair follicles, urine, etc.