TOPIC } EMPLOYEES AND THE WORKPLACE

DRUG TEST DURING INTERVIEW

Why? Companies want to protect themselves, their employees and the customers from avoidable harm. Companies need to know about the personal history and habit of their employees to guard against fraud, theft of proprietary information or harmful acts that employees might do under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
Does a company have the right, in its own interest, to this kind of information? Or is it unwarranted intrusion on employees privacy.
3

RESPECTING EMPLOYEES RIGHT TO PRIVACY

Any company has the right to protect itself from fraud, loss of proprietary information and trade secrets, from harm to its facilities, employees, customers or to the public. Since employees can be a potential source of these harms, managers need to investigate the personal history of their job applicants. Use pre-employment tests to get a reading on their employees level of honesty. E.g. Polygraph tests - now illegal to use this practice.
4

CLOSED-CIRCUIT TELEVISION (CCTV)

Managers may also want to monitor or attempt to restrict the private-life activities of their employees to ensure that they do not pose a threat to the business. WHY?
How far can managers invade a prospective or current employees privacy in the interests of the enterprise. Does a companys right to protect itself always override an employees right to privacy? Install CCTVs in order to monitor the movement of the employees in the office.
6

SUBSTANCE ABUSE
No company wants to be placed in jeopardy by employees who cannot perform their duties to the influence of drugs or alcohol. Many employers fear they may unwittingly hire an addict or alcoholic. Hence, testing for drug use is a preemployment requirement. Do companies have a moral right to drug-test employees? If an employee feel that he or she is not a possible threat to the company, a job applicant may agree to being tested for 9 drugs.

 A company is morally justified in insisting on testing job applicants for drug use as a protective measure, especially where the safety of customers and other employers is at stake. However, the company needs to ensure that:1.The tests are accurate; the applicant is permitted to provide evidence that he or she is taking drugs under a legitimate medical prescription. 2.The results of the test remain confidential and will be made known only to those who have a legitimate need to know.
10

A.What about current employees? 1. Training supervisors in proper techniques of recognising signs of abuse. 2. Testing after the fact; after an accident that has harmed others or extensive property damage. 3. After finding out that an employee was high on drugs or drunk that caused an accident.
11

B. Is random testing of employees morally justified? Testing for drug abuse is legitimate only if an employer has a valid suspicion that an employees work performance is being adversely affected by drug use. Two circumstances to justify testing: 1. Valid suspicion that a particular employee is on drugs; Or 2. Valid evidence.
12

ABUSING EMPLOYEES
Bosses may scold their subordinates for a number of reasons, usually due to failures related to work. However, employees may be threatened with the loss of their jobs for such failures as:
1. 2. 3. 4. Not agreeing to falsify the financial statements; or Refusing sexual advances; or Not trying to get out of jury duty; or Refusing to commit deception on behalf of a union or a company.

These are clear violation of privacy - immoral and intrudes in employees conscience and invasion of privacy.
13

14

SUMMARY OF TOPIC 9 EMPLOYEES AND THE WORKPLACE

15

An employee has the right to privacy and no one, not even the employer, has the right to intrude into the employees privacy.
16

Companies want to protect themselves, their employees and their customers from avoidable harm.
17

Companies need to know the personal details such as the history and habit of their employees in order to guard against fraud, theft and harmful acts that employees might do.
18

Random testing for substance abuse may be morally justified if there is valid suspicion and strong evidence that a significant number of employees maybe abusing alcohol or using illegal drugs.
19

Scolding employees in public for poor work performance is a violation of their privacy. Everyone has the right to his public reputation, and only those who need to know about a persons performance should hear about it.
20

Threatening a person for refusing to do something immoral or illegal invades a persons conscience or puts him into legal trouble and is a violation of privacy.
21

NATURAL LAW MORALISTS would regard any abuse of an employee as morally wrong. UTILITARIAN MORALISTS would find it justified only in extreme circumstances where the overall good demands it. CULTURAL RELATIVISTS would have to determine whether the particular community in which the abuse occurs would tolerate it.
.22

THE END OF TOPIC 9

23