04 Worker Rights & Working Conditions - Free.doc

Authors Avatar

Privacy is a cornerstone of our society, as Americans we value privacy above many other natural rights.  We each have a right to protect and control certain information about ourselves and who can have access to that information.  Our personal decisions should be autonomous and free from illegitimate influence (Shaw & Barry, 2007, p.329).  Organizations have a legitimate interest in situations which significantly influence the performance of their employees while on the job, but the understanding of what “significantly influence” means may differ between the employer and their employees.  The actions of employers in gaining agreement from their employees to submit to drug testing can be considered coercive when one considers the relationship between the employer and employees.  Although the relationship should be one of mutual consent and partnership, the fact that employees may be subject to termination for not submitting to drug testing, makes the consent obtained seem more likely undue coercion (Shaw & Barry, 2007, p. 364).  Employees may feel obliged or even pressured to take a drug test or risk the loss of their job.  In these instances, the consent may not be informed.  

Although we value and guard our privacy, at times it may be necessary to give up that right for the greater good.  Employer drug testing is an extremely intrusive activity, but at times can be necessary and beneficial, not only to the organization, but also the employee.  Indiscriminate drug testing in the workplace is completely inappropriate, but drug testing can be appropriate when an employee’s role dictates that assurances of sobriety are necessary or their behavior indicates they are a threat to the safety and welfare of the organization, society and/or its customers (Shaw & Barry, 2007, p. 362).  When an employee’s performance or behavior indicates intoxication on the job, testing is appropriate, not only to protect the organization and co-workers, but to protect the employee as well.  If a pilot showed up for work in an apparent intoxicated state, then testing could protect the pilot and their co-workers and the passengers on the flight.  The same would hold true for doctors, nurses and pharmacists, each of which have access to drugs on a regular basis, but for a gas station attendant or retail clerk, random drug testing would be excessively intrusive, inappropriate and morally unjust, as their roles do not place the lives of others in their hands (Shaw & Barry, 2007, p. 363).  The organization not only has a responsibility to their shareholders, but also their employees.  If necessary, testing should be handled respectfully and discretely as not to cause undue harm to the employee.

Join now!

The protection of the privacy of employees should be paramount to the removal of drugs in the workplace.  Although drug use and abuse impact society a negative ways, the drug testing of employees does not necessarily remove the problem from the workplace.  The consequence of employee drug testing is that it violates the rights of many who do not use drugs nor show any indication of drug use (Shaw & Barry, 2007, p. 3362).  The rights of many would be violated for the investigation of a few.  From a Utilitarian point of view, this would be morally unethical ...

This is a preview of the whole essay