Drug testing in the workplace: An overview of legal and philosophical issues

Greenfield, Patricia A.; Karren, Ronald J.; Giacobbe, Jane K.

doi:10.1007/bf01385024

Cited by 14 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, drug testing has been supported by the courts for transportation (e.g., airline pilot) and security-related jobs, but not for other nonsensitive jobs (e.g., clerical and some professional jobs). (See Greenfield, 1989, andGreenfield, Karren, &Giacobbe, 1989, for reviews of legal issues in employee drug testing.) Research on attitudes toward drug testing suggests that the acceptability of various drug testing programs and practices varies substantially, depending in part on the job or jobs in question (Murphy, Thornton, & Reynolds, 1990;Stone & Kotch, 1988).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of job characteristics on the acceptability of employee drug testing.

Murphy¹,

Thornton²,

Prue³

1991

Journal of Applied Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Measures of the acceptability of employee drug testing were obtained from a sample of college students (N = 371) and a second sample of nontraditional, older college students (N = 112) and were correlated with job-analysis data from the Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ) and Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) databases, and with measures of perceived danger from impaired performance in each job. Both PAQ and DOT data accounted for variance in ratings of acceptability. Perceptions of danger were the best single predictor of acceptability and appeared to mediate the relationships between job characteristics and the acceptability of employee drug testing.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of job characteristics on the acceptability of employee drug testing.

Murphy¹,

Thornton²,

Prue³

1991

Journal of Applied Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…OWB has been studied both for behaviors in general and for specific behaviors. Many of the studies focused on specific types of behavior, like drug use (Greenfield et al 1989), alcohol consumption (Howard 1975), smoking (Warner 1994), romantic relationships between employees (Binetti 2007), sexual misbehavior (Carlton 1973;Miller 2006), domestic violence (Camarena 2001;Geraghty 1997), social media use (Jacobson and Tufts 2013), misconduct in operating a motor vehicle (Meadows 1993), weight restriction (Cohen and Cohen 2007), and practicing dangerous leisure activities (Olivier 2006). By focusing on OWB in generallike Miller (1997) and Nwabueze (2009) this article hopes to also cover a variety of specific OWBs.…”

Section: Definition Of Outside-work Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

Prescribing Outside-Work Behavior: Moral Approaches, Principles, and Guidelines

Kaptein

2019

Employ Respons Rights J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The more the distinction between professional and private life blurs, the more it becomes relevant whether employers may prescribe how employees should behave outside work. By analyzing different moral approaches found in the literature, this article introduces and develops the Integrity Approach to answer this question. Using this approach, an ethical principle for prescribing outside-work behavior is proposed: employees should behave outside work in such a way that they do not disrespect the integrity of their work. This principle is operationalized into twelve guidelines for employers prescribing outside-work behavior for their employees. This article opens up opportunities for follow-up research on the underexamined topic of outside-work behavior from an ethics perspective. Keywords Ethics. Outside-work behavior. Integrity theory. Code of conduct. Principles On October 2017, 50-year-old Juli Briskman, an employee of a US technology solutions and products firm, was on her daily cycling routine. As she was contemplating the bad state of her country and feeling frustrated about its president, Mr. Donald J. Trump himself passed her in his motorcade. She gave him her middle finger as a sign of protest. A photographer captured this moment and the picture immediately went viral. When her friends tagged her on the photo, she informed her employer about it and was promptly fired (Hauser 2017). From a business ethics perspective this is an interesting real-life case. Briskman did not do anything illegal and was not at work when she made the gesture. Why then did her company take disciplinary action against her for behavior that took place outside work? Outside work is outside of work's scope, isn't it? However Briskman's boss justified her dismissal by claiming that she had violated the company's code of conduct that states, "Covered Social Media Activity that contains discriminatory, obscene, malicious or threatening content [...] or similar inappropriate or unlawful conduct will not be tolerated" (Hauser 2017). Briskman was totally

show abstract

“…In addition, biochemical drug screening has not been universally accepted from a legal perspective. The courts have generally upheld the legality of drug screening in occupations that, if compromised by drug involvement, could pose a hazard to the public (Greenfield, 1989;Greenfield, Karren, and Giacobbi, 1989;Sanders, 1989;Sitomer, 1989). However, the courts have not been as uniformly supportive of drug screening for occupations in which public safety is not a central concern.…”

Section: Keymentioning

confidence: 99%