Facilitator

UrineDrug Testing

Urinedrug testing has been a method commonly used for drug testing overthe years especially by the athletics candidates. The method of urinesampling has some advantages, especially for the drug and substanceabuse testing. It serves as a way of checking the metabolic effectsand the urinary system checking serving as detection for anycomplications. Criticism and submission of the right samples for thelaboratory tests are among the challenges that affect the urine testmethod. Despite the legislation passing the law on the use of urinesamples for the job application candidates, the method negativelyaffect the ethics in the industry.

Thelegislation of the law requiring the organizations to perform a urinetest for the job candidates, however, cannot be necessary at themoment. The effects on the candidates need consideration before theauthorization of the method by the organization. The urine test hasbeen said to have legal challenges that restraints against theunreasonable searches that threaten a candidates freedom and personalprivacy. The application of the urine testing method requires theorganization’s evaluation of the social effects of the candidates.

Theurine drug testing method is considered an obligation by many of theorganization and not optional as stated by the law. Theadministration refusal to implement the urine testing in theworkplace can be viewed as a way of condoning the abuse of drugs asreflected by the administration. The effect on employees has beenaffected socially with many of the employees feeling their socialfreedom at threat. Additionally the urine test leads to the negativeview of the organization by the employees (Silverman, Anthony, andSigurdur, 48). The intrusion of privacy in the case affects theemployee morale and performance is affected. The major concern forthe organization depends on the employee performance hence bettermethods of monitoring would save the organization’s burden ratherthan the urine tests.

Accordingto Wilensky, in case the organization suspects the recipients abuseof drug and substance better methods are preferable in evaluatingthem rather than the urine test. Testing the employee performancecannot be entirely monitored by the use of urine sample test. Betterand reasonable approaches preferable to the employees monitoringboost the employee performance. The urine test requires random andregular testing which turn out to be tedious for the recipients. Theregular operation turns out to be quite expensive and time-consumingin comparison to the solutions given to the patients.

Thegovernment should consider the review of the policies about therising unemployment levels currently. The policies that seem to cutthe majority of the potential employees in the industry need a reviewgiven the rising number of unemployed. According to the review byWilensky, the government should consider policies that bring the mostunemployed population to create job opportunities. Urine test policyimplementation in the organization lower the employees’ moralehence affecting their productivity that converts into the GDP effectfor the government (Wilensky, 32). The government suffers the effectof wrong policy implementation, in the long run, affecting theemployment sector in large.

Inconclusion, the urine testing policy can be considered ineffectiveregarding the employee performance and productivity concern. Thegovernment policies change the way businesses operate with the changein the rules and regulations. Through the review of the urine testpolicy, the government obligates business organizations to implementthe rule hence affecting productivity. Businesses spend much time andresources to comply with such regulations that are expensive andtime-consuming hindering the progress and development of theorganizations.

Workscited

Silverman,Kenneth, Anthony DeFulio, and Sigurdur O. Sigurdsson. &quotMaintenanceof reinforcement to address the chronic nature of drug addiction.&quotPreventivemedicine55 (2012): S46-S53.

Wilensky,Harold L. Organizationalintelligence: Knowledge and policy in government and industry.Vol. 19. Quid Pro Books, 2015.