2003
DOI: 10.1023/b:errj.0000004058.01981.70
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Canadian and American Reactions to Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs in the Workplace

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2012
2012

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A key aspect of any AOD policy is to implement adequate and fair rules and procedures (Seijts et al, 2003). This is especially the case where employees regard implementation with cynicism or suspicion (Arnold & Sully, 2001).…”
Section: Policy Featuresmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…A key aspect of any AOD policy is to implement adequate and fair rules and procedures (Seijts et al, 2003). This is especially the case where employees regard implementation with cynicism or suspicion (Arnold & Sully, 2001).…”
Section: Policy Featuresmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is especially the case where employees regard implementation with cynicism or suspicion (Arnold & Sully, 2001). Therefore, employee attitudes toward the AOD policy features are crucial, including the appropriateness of policy rules (Duffy & Ask, 2001;Seijts et al, 2003), equity (Anderson & Shinew, 2003), and training of staff administering policy procedures such as testing (Casper, Fox, Sitzmann, & Landy, 2004). AOD policies that are clearly articulated and concerned primarily with rehabilitation have been found to be more acceptable to employees (Cropanzano & Konovsky, 1995;Skarlicki & Folger, 1997), as well as reducing injuries (Wickizer, Kopjar, Franklin, & Joesch, 2004) and alcohol consumption (Anderson & Larimer, 2002).…”
Section: Policy Featuresmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In contrast, among Canadian and European employers with work‐place drug testing (WPDT), the primary goal is to identify employees whose drug use significantly increases safety risks [3,4]. Documented differences between the United States and Canada in perceptions regarding the fairness of drug testing may be related to these divergent purposes served by WPDT [5]. Despite the widespread implementation of WPDT, few empirical studies have been conducted to assess how these interventions fulfil their respective goals [6].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Rothman (1988) noted that drug testing popularity has intensified with the increase in substance abuse. Thus, the rapid rise of drug testing programs in the US has occurred because drug and alcohol abuse is considered one of the most critical problems facing US businesses today (Seijts, Skarlicki, and Gilliland 2003;Lu and Kleiner 2004;Rockmore, Zimmerer and Jones 1997;Turner 1995;Zetlin 1991) and firms are under greater pressure from stakeholders to address such issues. Supporters of drug testing programs report productivity losses in accidents, lost time, and health care and workers' compensation cost.…”
Section: Institutional Theory and Hypothesesmentioning
confidence: 99%