Crossroads—A Case Against Workplace Drug Testing

Debra R. Comer
Additional contact information
Debra R. Comer: 228 Weller Hall, 134 Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York 11550

Organization Science, 1994, vol. 5, issue 2, 259-267

Abstract: Workplace drug testing, particularly urinalysis, has proliferated in the last few years. Despite widespread support for biological testing, research suggests that not all drug use diminishes performance and that testing may fail to deter the most potentially harmful substance abuse. There is no solid empirical evidence that drug testing is associated with enhanced organizational productivity and safety, and findings that persons who fail drug tests are inferior workers may be rooted in ethnic discrimination. Further, because drug testing detects exposure to a drug but cannot assess an individual's ability to perform, it is an inappropriate gauge for judging the suitability of employees or applicants. Drug tests may violate current and prospective employees' right to privacy and, according to a growing body of literature, may adversely affect their work attitudes and behaviors. Skills testing, which assesses employees' performance fitness less intrusively, discussed as an alternative to biological testing.

Keywords: drug testing; privacy; employee attitudes (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 1994
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.2.259 (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:5:y:1994:i:2:p:259-267

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Organization Science from INFORMS Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Asher ().