There is less of a reason to drug test or investigate these people than a person who has a record of being unreliable or irregular behavior. DesJardins and Duska make a good point by saying, "Presuming that every airline pilot is equally threatening is to deny individual the respect that they deserve as autonomous, rational agents." "It is the likelihood of causing harm, and not the fact of being an airline pilot per se, that is relevant in deciding which employees in critical job to test." Not everyone in a job that's potential of causing harm is "clear and present" should be tested.
Then we get to the Limitations on the drug testing. Lets say that we have a job in mind that the potential for harm is "clear and present" and that an individual has the behavior that would justify the need for drug testing, there needs to be some limitations that must be set in place so the employer does not abuse his power. These limitations should be necessary so that the employees are protected from the loss of a job and therefore damaging their reputation. DesJardins and Duska state, "What needs to be set ups is a just employment relationship- one in which an employer's discretionary authority to discipline or dismiss an employee is limited." As noted before, the relationship between the employer and employee is a contractual one so the contract should be a morally valid one. When the employee has given the okay for the employer to perform drug tests then the employers can obtain knowledge of drug use. A policy that requires an employee to choose either to go along with the drug test or loose his or her job is just unacceptable. Also, the employee should be given prior notice of such drug testing and be able to see the results. Prior notice will give the employee a chance to make a rational and informed decision. When an employee is able to see the results after making his or her decision, then he or she should be able to appeal the tests if they see fit to.
