Mandatory Drug Test

By some approximates one-third of American companies now require their workers to be checked for pharmaceutical use. These obligations are matching with general employment law while promoting the public's interest in battling drug use. Moreover, the joined States Supreme Court has directed that drug testing programs are constitutionally permissible inside both the public and the personal sectors. It seems mandatory pharmaceutical checking is a permanent fixture of American business life.

The lawful origins of mandatory pharmaceutical checking are found in the widespread law doctrine of employment at will. Thead covering doctrine states thead covering either party to an paid work contract can terminate the contract for any cause, at any time, except the agreement specifies otherwise. As the Court held in Adairv. United States (208 U.S. 161, 175-6, 1908), the employer was at liberty, in his discretion, to discharge the employee from service without giving any reason for so doing (Szasz, 45-111).

In unqualified form, this doctrine would give employers productive control over employees. Employers could set up any obligations they desired for prospective and present employees. Not only could they decline to charter workers who will deny drug checks, they could likewise decline to charter people with characteristics, convictions, or demeanour they dislike. Employees should tolerate these obligations or seek employment elsewhere (Thomas 56). However, since most people have restricted job possibilities, they will be forced to accept these obligations, no matter how objectionable. Courts and legislatures have since identified the misuses this principle could engender. During the last thirty years they have put many constraints on the right of employers. The municipal privileges Act of 1964 states that it is illegal to deny someone paid work because of race, hue, or nationwide source (42 U.S.C. at 2000). Later court decisions held that discrimination based on sex and religion ...