e of the hair-test results, Adens received a bad conduct discharge and was robbed of something he had worked hard at for fourteen years of his life (Kean 35-36).Hair testing opponents also argue that the test is unfair because it can expose genetic information contained in DNA, such as hereditary defects or a predisposition to certain diseases. Opponents are worried that this data may be used to their disadvantage by insurance companies, as a way to deny them coverage. Companies could also use this information to bar promotions because someone may be likely to suffer a major illness later in life (Curry 163). In conclusion, I would like to point out that companies and schools who are considering implementing a drug testing policy must be very careful and follow all of the rules. The policy should prohibit the use, possession, sale or transfer of illegal drugs in the workplace, and more detailed policies will prohibit all of these on or off company time. The company must also give the employee the ability to explain any positive results. In some states, employers are required to accommodate an employee’s request for unpaid time off for rehab (Flynn 107). Usually it is in everyone’s best interest to allow an employee time for rehabilitation because if a good employee is saved, everyone benefits. Positivity Rates by Testing CategoryTesting Category1998199719961995Federally Mandated, Safety-Sensitive Workforce3.4%3.5%3.6%3.4%General Workforce5.0%5.2%6.4%7.5%Combined U.S. Workforce4.8%5.0%5.8%6.7%(Johnson)EXIBIT 1 (Johnson)EXIBIT 2Positivity Rates By Testing Reason (For Federally Mandated, Safety Sensitive Workforce)(More than 650,000 tests from January to December,1998)Testing Reason19981997For Cause15.3%14.4%Periodic1.4%1.9%Post-Accident4.3%4.3%Pre-Employment3.8%3.8%Random2.7%2.9%Returned to Duty4.8%5.9%Positive Rates By Drug Category(For Federally Mandated, Safety-Sensitive Workforce, as a percentage of all such tests)(Mor...
