Argue the Deontology of Workplace Dope Testing - Case Study Example

ETHICS CASE STUDY By Name Course Instructor Institution City/State Date Ethics Case Study Introduction Drug-testing is rapidly increasing in both government agencies as well as private industry. However, in spite of its increasing popularity, routine and random on-the-job drug use investigation has generated a storm of hullabaloo over its ethical principles. In this scenario, an investigator in a big IT company tasked to identify workers suspected of on-the-job drug use that was resulting in high percentage failures of the software products, decided to use company program to systematically look for the workers and timekeeping records of workers tasked with product quality. The investigator disregarded the traditional methods of investigation such as interrogation, observation, as well as the use of undercover informants that was suggested by the management. Besides that, the investigator identified workers that were likely using drugs according to their unpunctuality, poor performance reviews, medical leave records, and the outcome of the physical examinations as well as the past survey carried out by an outside medical research group. This case study analyses the ethical implications of the above-mentioned scenario and comment on the wisdom the action. Discussion As indicated by Cranford (1998, p.1805), drug testing is applied by companies for profits maximisation, and to reduce the economic effect of worker drug use. In view of this, a number of arguments emerged drawing into question the ethical justification for drug testing; this includes the position that drug testing results in the infringement of workers privacy by trying to regulate the behaviour of the worker outside the legitimate sphere of the employer control. The ethical status of drug testing in the place of work may be voiced as what Cranford (1998, p.1805) terms as a question of competing interests, between the company's right to utilise testing so as to decrease drug-related problems and improve productivity and profits, over against the worker's right to privacy, predominantly regarding drug use that takes place outside the place of work. Given that drug testing is acceptable for improving productivity as evidenced in the scenario, it is as well profoundly unscrupulous and leads to the unethically intolerable level of employee control. For this reason, Cranford (1998, p.1811) posits that drug testing is unethical, and must be rejected at all costs. Carrying out background checks has traditionally been more prevalent in the government sector, but lately it is widely utilised in the private and public sectors. Technological advancement has made employees more insecure since they believe employers will take actions that will violate their right to privacy. Recently, laws protecting and governing privacy in the place of work have started emerging, but they have not managed to rival technology. In the scenario, the investigator infringed the rights of the workers by invading their privacy. Almost 5 per cent of companies in the US have been taken to the court of law for violating employees e-mail privacy in the place of work MacDonald and Kroepsch (2004, p.138). As pointed out by MacDonald and Kroepsch (2004, p.138), employees have the right to know the privacy rights that they are giving away after being employed. Besides that, they are legally protected against violations of their privacy by employers. As evidenced in this case study, the investigator used technology to monitor some details of the employees’ actions and medical reports without permission from both the employees and the employers. The investigator action resulted in the invasion of employee’s privacy and was against the request of the management. Utilitarianism Testing workers for on-the-job drug use, heedless of the occupation, has for years been a controversial issue. Understandably, employees who use drugs see drug testing as a violation of their right to privacy, but this is so from a deontological point of view. The utilitarian perspective provides rather a different view. In utilitarian perspective, testing employees for on-the-job drug use are the suitable solution that can benefit numerous people for a long period of time. This perspective supports the investigator actions and it argues that if drug testing was non-existent then software products failure would increase drastically and the company’s productivity could experience a devastating decline. Utilitarianism supports the issue of drug testing not for the benefit of the company, but for the larger population. In view of this perspective, for corporations that derive most of its business from the image, then employees’ drug testing of employees must be compulsory. In a number of situations, the well-being of ignorant persons, the masses’ acuity of a group of persons, as well as the business life supersede the needs of a few entities. Kantianism Under Kantianism ethics, privacy is considered important to every person, and by violating ones right to privacy because of illegal activity such as on-the-job drug use is considered acceptable if there is an existing as well as clear harm prevention to others. If an individual is using drugs, even if it negatively affects only them, deontics would see the use of drugs as naturally wrong and would for that reason encourage implementation of policies that prohibits drug use in the place of work (Reiman, 2009, p.138). Drug use is not acceptable because it results in behaviours that are inherently wrong; therefore, Kantianism supports on-the-job drug use tests only if it is meant to protect others and not for corporate benefits. Virtue Ethics Virtue Ethics stresses a person’s character as the main attribute of ethical thinking, instead of rules concerning the acts themselves or their consequences. Shifting towards virtue ethics has proved crucial for privacy protection in the present epoch of Big Data, wherein the individual interests as well as individual rights, are largely violated by employers who care only about profits. As mentioned by Donohoe (2005, p.74), worker drug testing programs wear down the privacy of the workers. The majority of drug-testing programs need one to give away information such as medical reports and fail to consider that some medical reports can offer false-negative or false-positive test results. Therefore, virtue ethics does not support abuses of an employee’s capacity and dignity for self-cultivation, as compared to cases where intrusion can be protective and at odds with a virtue ethics. Recommendations In the case scenario, the management should have initially promoted reference checking of new recruits so as to assess their preceding job performance and should have also trained supervisors to monitor the employees prior to carrying out the drug-treatment. Besides that, the management should have paid more attention to employees’ job and life satisfaction bearing in mind poorly motivated workers are poor performers. The management should not have blamed only on-the-job drug use for software products failure because some employees can perform poorly because of lack of motivation and not because they are using drugs. Besides that the company should have used probable cause approach as suggested by Cranford (1998, p.1813) that involves monitoring of uncharacteristic behaviours, palpable impairment symptoms, or a suggestively reduced ability to carry out duties in the workplace. Without a doubt, using the probable cause approach is ethical and can reduce the invasive aspect of drug testing by producing a higher test positives percentage. The investigator failed to understand that drug testing through the company program could result in privacy invasion and bring about a deterrence factor at the company. In view of this, the management should understand that the foundation of drug testing programs is offering employees an advance notice of the planned drug tests. Conclusion In conclusion, it has been mentioned that drug testing may result in a negative impact on employees’ morale in the workplace, and testing process itself is demeaning as well as degrading, especially when privacy is violated. The investigator behaviour was therefore ill-justified and unethical. Employees have a right to privacy, but its violation can be justified if it is for the good of the larger population and not for the company. References Cranford, M., 1998. Drug Testing and the Right to Privacy: Arguing the Ethics of Workplace Drug Testing. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 17, pp.1805-181. Donohoe, M., 2005. Urine Trouble: Practical, Legal, and Ethical Issues Surrounding Mandated Drug Testing of Physicians. The Journal of Clinical Ethics, vol. 16, no. 1, pp.69-81. MacDonald, R. & Kroepsch, d.B., 2004. Workplace Privacy: The Social, Technical, and Ethical Ramifications. In Bliss, A. Technology and privacy in the new millennium. Colorado: Ethica Publishing. pp.132-44. Reiman, A., 2009. Moral Philosophy and Social Work Policy. The Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, vol. 6, no. 3, pp.136-47. Read More