Drug Testing vs. Employee Assi essays

Drug Testing vs. Employee Assi essays Introduction: Drug Testing vs. Employee Assistance Programs In our last meeting we were asked to offer proposals on how we can cut costs. In looking into this I found some interesting research on eliminating drug testing in favor of Employee Assistance Programs. By eliminating our drug-testing program, we will do away with $1,000,000 in the cost of testing and also lost employee productivity in the time it takes to administer the test. (ACLU 5) Also, in this time of low unemployment, it is harder to recruit people with the right skills. The research shows that for people who only used drugs once, the possibility of a test will deter them from applying for a position with that company. This report outlines the results of research I have done to offer a solution; an alternative to drug testing First, I will discuss new findings on how effective drug testing really is. Then, I will discuss Employee Assistance Programs answering the following questions, are Employee-Assistance Programs effective. What are they? How do they help? How do they work? Are they worth the hassle? We have been bombarded with the notion that drug use has reached epidemic proportions in the work force. That we need to screen for drug users because they produce sloppy work, cause accidents and so on. What we must realize is that most drugs that can cause such problems are legal. We must remember that legal drugs can also become addictive. We have always thought that the cost of our drug-testing program is less than the cost of lost productivity due to drug use on the job. Where did all this information come from? In 1986 President Ronald Regan issued and executive order prompting urine testing for all Federal employees. Now, 81 percent of all companies in the United States test their workers. But there was little scientific evidence to back these claims, so the promoters of drug tests gave businesses their statistics and studies. I would i...