Kenneth L. Carper's Commentary on "Drinking in the Workplace"
Author(s):
Kenneth L. Carper
Substance abuse, or rather the abuse of persons by harmful
substances, is a serious problem in the workplace. In
construction and in other engineering industries, alcohol and
drugs contribute to lost workdays, increased medical costs,
inefficient productivity, poor quality work, and safety
problems. These effects of substance abuse impact not only the
drug user, but also other employees, the employer, clients and,
in some cases, the general public.
Mandatory testing for drugs has been implemented in some
industries, such as the transportation industry, where impaired
judgment can result in significant injuries and deaths to
innocent parties. Expansion of mandatory testing into other
areas of the workplace has been the subject of many journal
articles and several full-length books (Coombs 1991, NASPE
1984, Tulacz 1989). This topic raises important ethical
questions. The protection of society and the rights of
employers are in conflict with the civil rights of individuals,
their freedom and their privacy.
Troubling moral questions have particularly been directed at
those mandatory testing programs that are not accompanied by
successful rehabilitation efforts. Such programs are not
usually founded in concern for the individual. They are more
likely based in concern for diminishing productivity. Those
programs that simply use testing results to dismiss abusers
from employment have feeble moral ground for existence, for
they view individuals only as means to an end, rather than as
objects having intrinsic value.
Immanuel Kant and many other philosophers have placed
emphasis on the intrinsic value of human beings. Moral theory
encourages the treatment of people as ends in themselves, never
only as means to an end (Rachels 1986). It is precisely this
point, the intrinsic value of human individuals, that suggests
the proper course of action for John Crane.
John Crane's dilemma is this: Should he talk with Andy
Pullman about Andy's drinking problem, or should he overlook
it? John is not the kind of person who is comfortable with the
prospect of discussing this problem with Andy. In this respect,
most people are like John. There are not very many people in
this world who find it easy to initiate such a conversation.
However, John and Andy have worked together for several years.
During that time, John has developed a respect for Andy's work,
and it appears that they have a close working relationship.
Andy is extremely fortunate to have a friend like John. John
may be the best person to talk with Andy, and he should do
so.
Friends can have an impact when they show genuine concern. A
common public service announcement says, "Friends don't let
friends drive drunk." Friends don't stand quietly by and let
friends abuse themselves and their future with harmful
substances, without expressing their concerns. Certainly, there
are important aspects of privacy and freedom to consider, but
an honest attempt should be made to communicate.
Often, substance abuse is a symptom of low self-esteem. This
may not be the case in Andy's situation, but if it is, it will
be encouraging to Andy to find out that John values him enough
to discuss the problem with him.
John's concerns are genuine and sincere. His motives are
founded in his respect for Andy and his desires for Andy's
prosperous future. He is not motivated by self-interest, and
Andy will likely understand this. If more persons were willing
to lay aside their discomfort, and express genuine concerns for
each other, mandatory drug testing might not be an issue. The
concerns expressed by friends for each other are founded in the
treatment of individuals as objects of intrinsic value.
Harvey Hillman, the Plant Manager, asks John later to
comment on the appropriateness of placing Andy in the top
quality control position. It seems that John should not raise
his concerns in this forum, unless he has been willing to
discuss the problem first with Andy. If he hasn't already done
so, he should approach Andy immediately following his visit
with Harvey.
Of course, John should discuss the problem with Harvey if
his visit with Andy is not productive. Andy's promotion may
place him in a position such that others are adversely impacted
by his impaired judgment. There is a point, beyond which, a
concern for the intrinsic value of those other individuals must
take precedence.
Very few who have managed people in industry have not had to
deal with an alcohol problem and, with the present growth of
the drug culture, the chance of needing to deal with drug usage
in the workplace grows even greater.
In no way can use of alcohol or drugs in the workplace be
condoned or sanctioned. A user cannot be a 100% performer
(although many will assure you they are) if he (or she) is
using alcohol or drugs in the workplace. A user--as a less than
100% performer--cheats the company in his performance. He (or
she) cheats himself/herself, too, by giving a performance that
may cost the individual chances for pay raises and
promotion.
In a workplace where machinery use is involved, the user
runs the risk of injury to himself, and possibly to others,
because his reaction time has slowed down. In quality control,
or other functions where decisions must be made quickly, and
where the decision affects the operations of other departments,
it is absolutely critical that the decision-maker not be under
the influence of drugs or alcohol.
In the case described here, John, as a friend must speak to
Andy about his drinking problem (and it is a problem if he is
drinking at the beginning of work and on breaks--in truth, Andy
is undoubtedly an alcoholic) and urge him to seek help.
Paralleling the slogan of today, "Friends don't let friends
drive drunk," John should bring home to Andy that "Friends
don't let friends risk their job by working drunk."
Andy must be a good worker if he can use alcohol and still
perform at a level that merits him consideration for a
promotion. Think how much better he could be if he could free
himself from alcohol-dependence!
After John and Andy have talked, if Andy takes no action to
curb his problem, John should let company management know of
Andy's problem. This action is a form of "whistleblowing." End
of a friendship?--perhaps, but this action may keep Andy from a
job whose pressure will deepen his need to drink. Not getting
the job, if followed by appropriate advice from management, may
shock Andy into admitting his problem and doing something about
it. Andy will never give up his drinking until he admits he has
a drinking problem and seeks a cure.
As to compulsory drug testing--companies are now beginning
to make drug testing a part of the pre-employment physical
exam. This is done with the full knowledge of the prospective
employee who can refuse the exam if he (or she) chooses.
However, refusal removes any opportunity for obtaining the
job.
Unions will have to be convinced, through appropriate
negotiations, that mandatory drug testing and the elimination
of drug users from the workplace is necessary for the overall
health of the company and subsequent improvement of the lot of
the worker in such a company. One suggestion to help to get the
union to agree to drug testing is to offer rehabilitation at
company expense to drug users revealed by the testing
program.
I see no reason to exempt the professional workforce at
Branch from drug testing--this case study has already shown us
problems in existence in the professional work force! Some may
see drug testing as an invasion of privacy, but it is
truthfully a means of saving a professional worker from
destroying himself (herself). As suggested above, the company
could enhance drug testing by offering paid leave for
rehabilitation of addicted individuals.
The troubles at Branch seem to be so deeply rooted that one
must fault top management of the company. Absenteeism, shoddy
workmanship, profit decline, drug and alcohol problems are
symptoms of management out of touch with what is actually going
on in the company. If I were on the Board of Directors of this
company, I'd push for major changes in company management and
an overhaul of supervisory practices.
Suggested Readings:
- Coombs, Robert H. and L. J. West 1991. Drug Testing:
Issues and Options, Oxford University Press, New York,
NY.
- National Association of State Personnel Executives and
Council of State Governments 1984. Drug Testing: Protection
for Society , or Violation of Civil Rights?, Lexington,
KY.
- Rachels, James 1986. The Elements of Moral Philosophy,
Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 114-117.
- Tulacz, Gary J. 1989. What You Need to Know About
Workplace Drug Testing, Prentice-Hall, Old Tappen, NJ. W.
Gale Cutler