Perceived Invasiveness and Fairness of Drug‐Testing Procedures for Current Employees

A study was conducted with 225 college students to examine the effects of three organizational and policy variables on the perceived fairness and invasiveness of drug‐testing practices. Specifically, the effects of warning type (no warning vs. advance warning), consequence of a positive drug test (termination vs. rehabilitation), and safety sensitivity of the job (safety sensitive vs. safety nonsensitive) were examined. Results suggested that specific features of the policy, as well as type of job under consideration, affected perceived invasiveness and fairness of drug testing. In general, testing was seen as more appropriate for safety‐sensitive jobs, that is, those in which drug‐impaired performance presented a high degree of danger for individuals. Although rehabilitation was perceived as more fair than termination, when safety was an issue, termination was viewed as a justifiable response by the company. Implications for organizational drug‐testing policies are discussed.