Wade L. Robison's Commentary on "Drinking in the Workplace"
Author(s):
Wade L. Robison
I
John should talk to Andy about his concerns. Though it may
be true that Andy's work has always been first-rate, continued
drinking may cause a deterioration in quality just at a time
when Andy needs to be sure that his work is at least as good,
if not better, than it has been. In addition, getting a
promotion can be stressful, and the likelihood is that someone
who drinks will drink more under such conditions. Andy needs to
know that someone else has noticed that he drinks and that
someone else is concerned about it. If one can notice, others
can as well.
There is also a concern, which is perhaps more important,
that Andy will be in a supervisory position and the most
important one, that of quality control. If Branch, Inc., has
been losing ground to its competitors, then one of the likely
sources of loss of competitive edge is the quality of its
products. If Branch has identified substance abuse as one of
the sources of its loss of competitive edge, then the company
would be ill-advised to put in as head of quality control
someone who drinks. From the company's perspective, that is
like putting a fox in a henhouse to guard the hens. That is,
quite independently of whether Andy will do a good job, the
company has committed itself to a view about whether those who
drink do a good job or are harming the company, and the company
will presumably be surprised, and no doubt angry, to discover
that its new head of quality control himself drinks. The
repercussions of Andy's being discovered to drink after being
promoted would no doubt be disastrous for Andy, but the main
point is that John has an obligation to the company to make
sure that those in positions of responsibility are doing what
the company requires. In this situation, the company has made a
commitment of a certain sort--has a corporate policy, publicly
proclaimed--and so one's normal obligations to make sure that
the company is not ill-served by its employees takes on added
emphasis.
In addition, those in supervisory positions are supposed to
present role models for those they supervise. If Branch is now
making a concerted effort to prevent substance abuse in the
workplace, having Andy in a supervisory position, and in that
crucial supervisory position, will undermine its overall
commitment should those working under him, or others within the
company, discover that he drinks.
So there are three reasons John has for talking with
Andy--Andy's own self-interest in doing a good job in an
important position, the interests of the company in making sure
that those who work for it, especially in that supervisory
position, are not abusing any substance, and the interests of
the company in making sure that those who are in supervisory
positions are proper role models for those they supervise.
II
If Harvey Hillman makes it a point of putting John in a
position where it would be awkward for him not to say something
about Andy's drinking, then John will have to say something. It
should be noted that Harvey does not ask John whether Andy
drinks, but the nature of the conversation is such that if he
did drink, and it was later discovered that he does and that
John knew and said nothing, John would be, quite properly,
criticized for not volunteering the information. The question
Harvey is asking is indirect, but about as direct an indirect
question as one can ask under the circumstances.
If John has not talked with Andy about any of this, he would
be in a far worse position than if he has. If he has talked to
Andy, he can then explain to him that he, Andy that is, had a
chance to go to Harvey himself, explain his problem, and make
whatever arrangements were mutually agreeable--to vow to stop
drinking and take the position conditionally, perhaps. He could
have said to Andy that there was no way that he could continue
in that supervisory position without being discovered,
especially given the company's publicly expressed commitment to
control substance abuse, and that eventually things would come
down on him and that he would be well-advised to discuss the
issue up front with Harvey. Having been told that, Andy has
only himself to blame if John now says to Harvey that perhaps
Harvey ought to talk to Andy. He can say, quite honestly, "Andy
has done superb work, and I really think that he will do a
great job in that position, but, to be honest, I have smelled
alcohol on his breath from time to time, and though it has not
interfered with his work, you may want to check it out with
him."
If he has not talked to Andy about this at all, then he is
in a really awkward position. He will feel, rightly, that he
has not forewarned his friend and that to say anything now
would be somewhat unfair to him. But not to say anything now
would be unfair to Branch, and to his superior. In addition, it
would not likely help since, in the long run, Andy is bound to
be found out. And, so, not saying anything now would likely
hurt Andy more in the long run and would hurt John as well.
After all, if Andy is up front at the beginning, then perhaps
something can be worked out--some conditional arrangement:
"I'll try to stop drinking, and we'll check it out in three
months." But if he is not up front about this, then when he is
found out, if he is, he will probably not be given a second
chance: he will be perceived as having deceived the company.
And John will be perceived in the same way. Having been given
an opportunity to do something beneficial for the company, and
for his friend, he will be perceived by Harvey as having let
Harvey down personally--since, after all, Harvey will be the
one who will have to take responsibility for having put a fox
in the henhouse and so for not having properly checked out
whether he was a substance abuser--and by the company for not
being loyal to the company.
One way of determining what it is proper for someone to do
is to ask whether one can ask of anyone in such a situation to
do such a thing. If I see someone drowning, and want to know
whether I should go in to save them, then it is proper to ask
whether I could ask of anyone, similarly situated, to do the
same. The answer will vary depending upon the circumstances.
Since I am not a strong swimmer, it would be crazy of me to try
to save someone in a rapid current, or in an undertow: I would
not save the person and I would likely die, too. I could not
ask anyone, similarly situated, to make such a risk. Just so,
we can ask whether Andy can properly ask of John that John not
respond to Harvey's indirect question, and the answer, I
suggest, is that Andy can see that if he were in that position,
he would feel compelled to answer: his own self-interest, his
concerns about the long-term interests of his friend, his
concern about Harvey's interests in making a good choice, and
his concerns about the company's well-being (and thus his job,
his friend's job, his colleagues's jobs throughout the company)
all conspire to make a response reasonable.
III
Mandatory random drug testing raises a variety of ethical
issues, and one could go on at great length about all the
difficulties. Let us concentrate upon two concerns:
First, the proposal to exempt present professionals and test
its nonprofessional workforce does raise issues of fairness.
This is particularly so since the professionals are the ones
responsible for ensuring that the workmanship not be shoddy.
One shoddy worker can ruin a product, but if Branch's problems
are systemic, it is much more likely that a variety of factors
are at work and that proper management could alleviate the
problem. So the likelihood, in such a situation, is that the
professional managers are as likely culprits as the
nonprofessionals.
All this assumes, of course, that Branch is correct in its
assessment that substance abuse is the problem. It seems odd
that so much abuse should occur in a single place and cause so
much difficulty, and one ought to back off and ask whether that
really is the source of difficulty. A good manager can
sometimes turn a weakness into an asset and turn around a
difficult situation by deft managerial maneuvers. So it may be
bad management that is partly at fault. But if so, that is all
the more reason not to exempt professionals from such
testing.
To do so would be to say to the nonprofessionals that the
company holds them, and them alone, as responsible for its
problems. It is to shift onto those assigned to do the work all
the company's problems in getting out a good product and so
alleviate the professional staff from any share in the blame.
That is not the way to build a cohesive company. Such a policy
will rather wedge apart the professional and nonprofessional
staffs and so cause one more problem that is likely to cause
Branch's difficulties to increase. After all, one cannot
improve a product if those doing the work are not willing to
come to the professional staff and point out difficulties.
Casting blame on those doing the work of assembly, for
instance, is not going to make them likely to come to those who
have been given a clean bill of health to explain how to
improve the product. After all, the company has already decided
that the problem lies with the workers, not the professionals,
and so any worker who sees a problem that needs a professional
to correct has already been told, by the company policy, that
the problem is not likely to be perceived as a real one.
So if there is to be mandatory random drug testing, there
ought not be discrimination between employees. Everyone from
the President on down ought to be subject to such testing, and
the procedure ought to be truly random. Some procedure for
selecting those to be tested--like a lottery--ought to be
instituted to make sure that everyone is equally subject to the
test.
There is an additional reason for the need for a pure
procedure besides the unfairness and the problems with creating
two or more classes of individuals within the company, and that
is that such testing is demeaning, and it is important that no
individual be exempted because of his or her position from
being so demeaned. Perhaps the realization that the person
ordering such testing may himself or herself be tested will
make them more reluctant to issue such an order.
For, and this is the second issue that needs to be
discussed, one major difficulty with random drug testing is
that it presumes guilt. It is one thing to notice a problem and
ask that someone be tested to make sure that what one thought
one noticed is in fact the case. That is like a police officer
giving a sobriety test to someone who was weaving the car down
the street, as though drunk. One has some evidence in hand of a
problem, and the test then determines whether the evidence is
accurate or not. Since we presumptively have the power not to
drive after drinking, we put ourselves in such a situation
where we risk being tested. If we do not wish to be subject to
such a risk, we need not drive after drinking. But mandatory
testing picks out people quite independently of any evidence
that there is a problem. It is as though one is presuming guilt
until proven innocent, and that presumption demeans people: why
should they be treated as though guilty if they have done
nothing to merit such treatment?
In addition, the test itself is demeaning. One is forced to
urinate, as tests now are conducted, in a place where others
can know that one is urinating and that there is no chance that
one will replace one's own urine sample with anyone else's.
Many will no doubt not be bothered by such a procedure at all,
but many will, and it is offensive to subject them to such a
procedure--especially when there is no evidence that they have
abused any substance.
So mandatory drug testing which exempts the professional
staff is not only discriminatory and may well not get at the
problem at its roots--if the professional staff is in part, at
least, responsible for Branch's competitive decline--but also
demeaning to those it tests, both by presuming guilt without
evidence and by subjecting those presumed guilty to a demeaning
test.