The union response to employer-initiated drug testing programs

Seeber, Ronald L.; Lehman, Mary Jo

doi:10.1007/bf01385027

Cited by 12 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Because of increased drug testing activity in organizations, employee drug testing responses are now a salient management issue. Negative employee responses are of special concern and may be linked to such factors as fear of retribution resulting from a positive test result (Greenfield, Karren, & Giacobbe, 1989; Karren, 1989; Seeber & Lehman, 1989). Invasion-of-privacy concerns during drug testing may also result in negative employee attitudes (Stone & Vine, 1989).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a predictor of employee attitudes and job performance.

Konovsky¹,

Cropanzano²

1991

Journal of Applied Psychology

762

493

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although management of drug testing programs is becoming a critical organizational issue, no systematic conceptual framework has been applied to the study of employee reactions to drug testing. In this study an organizational justice framework was used to explain and predict the relationships among two types of justice (procedural justice and outcome fairness) employee attitudes (job satisfaction, commitment, and management trust), and behavior (turnover intentions and performance). Survey data from 195 employees in a pathology laboratory indicated that justice predicts employee attitudes and performance. Specifically, procedural justice, but not outcome fairness, predicted all 5 criterion variables. These results demonstrate the importance of procedural justice perceptions for predicting employee reactions to drug testing programs.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a predictor of employee attitudes and job performance.

Konovsky¹,

Cropanzano²

1991

Journal of Applied Psychology

762

493

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To be sure, non-unionized employees can seek to promote their rights individually or as a class, but overall, they lack the benefit of protection provided by a collective-bargaining contract, not to mention the institution of the union itself. Thus, they tend to find themselves confronted with drug-testing programs that are not well defined and are completely devoid of any concern for employee rights (see Gragel 1987;Miller and Linden 1988;Remington 1988;Seeber and Lehman 1989).…”

Section: Employees' Rightsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Drug Testing in the Public Sector: An Interpretation Grounded in Rosenbloom's Competing‐Perspectives Model

Knowles

Riccucci

2001

Public Administration Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the last few decades, drug testing has become a major policy issue in the workplace, with a host of actors competing to promote their own needs and interests. Employers, for example, seek ways to combat the use and abuse of illegal substances by employees. At the same time, unions and their employees legitimately seek to limit overly intrusive or unfair methods of testing. The courts have also been major players in the policy arena of drug testing, as witnessed by the surfeit of case law setting parameters around what is and is not legal and constitutional in terms of drug testing.In an effort to move the drug-testing debate forward, this article examines the competing interests in drug testing, interests that ultimately frustrate the courts, policy makers, employees, and their unions from reaching a consensus on the use of drug tests in the public sector. To systematically examine this issue, Rosenbloom's competing-perspectives model of public administration is applied. The article concludes with policy recommendations for public managers. David H. Rosenbloom (1983) advanced a competingperspectives model of public administration, which has been extremely useful in studying and analyzing various phenomena surrounding the enterprise of government (Brown and Stillman 1985). Briefly, the model holds that Eddie Ade Knowles is the vice president for student life and an adjunct associate professor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Rosenbloom's Model

show abstract

“…In the nonunionized sector, there is reason to suspect that firms might be more willing, because they are rather less constrained, to implement an alcohol-or drug-testing program for both prospective and current employees; el. Seeber and Lehman (1989). SDefined as an occupation where substance abuse imposed a significant risk of injury to the employee, fellow employees, and/or the public.…”

Section: Data Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mitigating factors in substance abuse discharge grievance arbitrations

Thornicroft

1992

Employ Respons Rights J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The union response to employer-initiated drug testing programs

Cited by 12 publications

References 3 publications

Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a predictor of employee attitudes and job performance.

Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a predictor of employee attitudes and job performance.

Drug Testing in the Public Sector: An Interpretation Grounded in Rosenbloom's Competing‐Perspectives Model

Mitigating factors in substance abuse discharge grievance arbitrations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About