Comparison & Contrast - Drug Testing and Technology

Comparison & Contrast - Drug Testing and Technology

With the continuous growth of technological innovations, employers increasingly have the ability to monitor employees in the workplace. As a result, just how far employers can go in terms of monitoring their employees has become a debatable issue. In most cases, employees' personal cell phone usage, personal telephone calls, and text messaging can potentially be legally accessible to employers if conducted within the workplace along with work phone and work computer. Likewise, employers typically are within their rights for observing employees in the workplace using surveillance technologies and to order employees to undergo drug testing (Hartman & DesJardins, 2011). The purpose of the paper is to compare the differences in safety and security, invasion of privacy, and policies and procedures of such monitoring.

Safety and Security

The goal of drug testing in the workplace is to eliminate accidents and injuries that can create severe hardships, not just for the victims, but for the employer as well. A serious accident related to drug and/or alcohol use can cost the company and lead to total devastation. By implementing random testing, employers are letting their employees know they are serious about safety in the workplace. Security programs such as drug testing can deter employees from reporting to the workplace unfit for duty and discourage these individuals from joining an organization in the first place. Pre-employment testing weeds out the frequent, regular, and heavy users, but random testing is the only way to ensure the employees remain drug free and adhere to company safety policies (Hartman & DesJardins, 2011).

In contrast, safety and security in the technology field are thought of more on the lines of system breaches than employee misconduct. Technological advances have made computers an important part of every workplace. Many organizations store valuable data on computer systems, databases and networks, and most workplace communications are done through the use of computers and networks. Although computers allow businesses to streamline processes, distribute information quickly and stay competitive, it also allows the potential for security issues that can ultimately affect business operations and integrity. Therefore, when employees use property owned by their employers that they are permitted to utilize for business purposes, personal privacy laws are largely inapplicable. When using business equipment, whether or not the usage is during business hours, employees simply should have no expectation of privacy in their communications (Hartman & Desjardins, 2011).

Invasion of Privacy

Employees are less receptive to random drug testing, perhaps perceiving it as an invasion of privacy. While random testing is legal, many feel that the test violates an individual's personal rights and freedom. Random drug testing allows an employer the option of requiring a person to submit to drug tests if they wish to keep their jobs (Pros and Cons, 2012). This requirement can be taken as discrimination against employees, especially when there is no probable cause to conduct a test. The employees believe their privacy as a "right to be left alone" and as the right to "control information about oneself" (Hartman & DesJardins, 2011). Their right of privacy remains just as important to them after they step into the workplace as it did previously outside of the organization (Hartman & DesJardins, 2011).

Monitoring an employee's use of company computers, email, and the internet involve the same basic issues as those that come into play with general searches at work. Those issues revolve around letting employees know they have no expectation of privacy, as far as work goes, in their use of company resources and equipment. On the other hand, employee use of social media as it relates to the workplace continues to increase. Employers feel the employees owe a common law duty of loyalty to the organization, and that duty doesn't