Henry West's Commentary on "Drinking in the Workplace"
Author(s):
Henry West
I
Whether it is in the context of the workplace or school or
personal friendship, intervention to help someone who is
thought to have an alcohol or other drug problem is a difficult
decision. On the one hand, it is easy to say that it is none of
your business or that you risk losing a friend. On the other,
if you are a real friend, you may be helping the person to a
healthier, happier and more productive life, if your
intervention results in the correction of a serious
problem.
One of the important variables is how bad is the problem. In
the case under discussion, Andy's work is described as always
first rate; so his drinking hasn't prevented him from being
able to do his job. And he isn't described as being drunk on
the job, only as probably having too much to drink the night
before and as sneaking a drink during work breaks. These are
signs of alcoholism, not just recreational drinking. But many
alcoholics are able to carry on their professional work at an
adequate level of competence. Andy would feel better in the
mornings and probably do an even better job if he were not
drinking, but it is only John's "worry" that he would not be
able to handle the additional pressures of promotion. There is
no firm evidence that he could not.
One way to approach this problem is to think in terms of the
Golden Rule. If you were Andy with a drinking problem, would
you want John to talk with you about it? If you were in
"denial" and refused to recognize that you had a problem, would
you still want John to talk with you about it? Would you want
him to ask around to see if others think that you have a
problem? If he found that they did, would you want him to bring
in a group of co-workers to confront you with the fact that
others know it whether you admit it or not? Would you want him
to contact an alcoholism counsellor or someone else to talk
with you, if he didn't feel comfortable doing it?
Another approach is to try to estimate the consequences of
alternative actions. Do you think that John would produce the
best consequences by talking with him, by keeping quiet, or by
something else?
If John talks with him, he will likely find out more from
Andy's reaction, and that may require John to take more action.
It may be that Andy will deny that he has a problem, and John
must then think about whether he is going to take any further
steps. It may be that Andy knows that he has a problem and
wants to do something about it. If so, John might need to be
prepared to follow up by getting him in contact with an
alcoholism counselor or with someone from Alcoholics
Anonymous.
If John keeps quiet, how likely is it that Andy's problem
will get in the way of his work, whether or not he gets the
promotion? John can't know for sure, but will he be doing the
best thing for Andy and the company by doing nothing?
What are the other possibilities? Should John inquire
privately among other co-workers to see if any of them think
that Andy has a drinking problem? Even if done with the best
intentions of making a decision whether Andy needs help, could
this be construed, by Andy or others, as a sort of talking
behind his back? It might start rumors that John doesn't intend
to start. But, since John is not the sort of person who feels
comfortable discussing such matters with others, John might be
able to identify someone who would be better at approaching
Andy, or he might find someone who would go with him to talk to
Andy. Which would be better--to talk to Andy first, before
getting anyone else involved, or to confirm his judgment that
Andy has a problem and to get the assistance of others in
trying to make Andy realize it? If there is a professional
alcoholism counselor accessible to the work force, maybe John
should ask his advice, but then that counselor might be
required to make a record of the conversation which would work
its way onto Andy's record. Is that fair?
II
When John is taken out to lunch, should he volunteer
anything about Andy's drinking? It may make a difference if
John has already talked with Andy and has more information
about Andy's attitude toward his problem. And it may make a
difference what the effects of the disclosure would be. On the
one hand, to volunteer the information would probably be a
service to the company, in that the plant manager could then
make a more informed decision. But if Andy has been doing first
rate work and has not actually been drunk on the job, perhaps
it is a disloyalty to a friend to report evidence which could
lead to his being fired. So one factor is what would be the
reaction of the manager. Is there a treatment program for those
with drug and alcohol problems, or are they simply
dismissed?
It is one thing to volunteer the information. It is another
to hide it if asked outright. If John is asked if he has any
evidence of Andy having a drinking or drug problem, then he
would be lying to deny it. Sometimes lying is justified if the
alternatives are horrible. For example, it is usually thought
permissible to lie to save an innocent life, such as in hiding
someone from the Gestapo. Would this be such an extreme
case?
III
There are two concerns of the union--the invasion of privacy
and the unfairness of exempting professionals from mandatory
testing. The second looks like a clear case of discrimination.
If testing is justified as a way of improving the quality of
the non-professional workforce, then some reason should be
given why professionals are exempted, and none seems to have
been given. But the privacy issue is a difficult one. It may be
thought that the company has a right to test its employees as a
means of improving performance. But the issue is not so
clear.
If the company's policy of sanctions against those found to
be working under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs has
not prevented absenteeism and shoddy workmanship, there is some
question whether drug and alcohol use are the problem and
therefore whether random drug testing will answer the problem.
A big question is what the company plans to do with the
results. Will those who test positive be fired, or be given
counselling, or be reported to the police? And what drugs are
included? Will recreational users of marijuana be identified
and labelled the same as cocaine addicts? Presumably the random
"drug" testing is for residues of illegal drugs. If drug users
have not been found to be working under the influence, why is
testing not a prejudice against socially unacceptable drugs?
The company is not testing for residues of alcohol, which is
socially accepted. Is this an interference in the private
lifestyle of the employees?
Drug addiction is often thought of as an illness. If so, is
refusal to employ an addict like discrimination against someone
who has some other (non-communicable) illness, such as diabetes
or multiple sclerosis?