Mandatory drug testing

The majority of employers have adopted mandatory random drug testing on their employees, arguing that the enormous damage caused by the pervasive use of drugs in our society carries over into the workplace. Typically the tests involve taking urine or blood samples under close observation, thereby raising questions about personal privacy as well as privacy issues regarding drug use away from the workplace that is revealed by the tests.

Present & defend your view concerning mandatory drug tests at the workplace.

In your answer, take account of the argument that, except where safety is a clear & present danger, as in the work of pilots, police & the military, such tests are unjustified. Employera have a right to the level of performance for which they pay employees, a level typically specified in contracts & job descriptions. When a particular employee fails to meet that level of performance, then employers will take appropriate disciplinary action based on observable behaviour. Either way, it is employee performance that is relevant in evaluating employees, not drug use per se.

What do you think?

In my point of view, safety is everything. Safety of people, environment and properties. Such tests could be justified and acceptable in specific jobs like, pilots, drivers and policemen and similar jobs. Because any reckless behavior would cost a lot, and may reach to a level of losing lives. So in such cases and circumstances this mandatory test is for everyone’s good. On the other hand, there are some jobs and occupations, where it doesn't matter whether the employee is a drug user or not. In this situation it’s unethical to force the employees to do mandatory drug tests, because this is something personal and private. So the rule here which gives the justification to this mandatory test is the job nature; if any absence of mind could lead to big losses especially loss of life; this test is a must. If it’s not, in this case, this test will be unjustified and inappropriate.   

Mike W. Martin & Roland Schinzinger, Introduction to Engineering Ethics, 2nd edition, McGraw-Hill, Noew York, 2010, p. 156

 

Dhaka building collapse

It was the 24th day of April 2013, when the fate of around 5000 workers brought the worst day of their lives. Rana Plaza was an eight-story commercial building situated in Savar, which is a sub-district in the Greater Dhaka Area of the capital of Bangladesh. This building collapsed to the pile of rubble. Up to the last efforts in the search for survivors on 13 May, 1,129 dead bodies were found and around 2,515 injured people were rescued alive.

 There was not any one to blame specifically. It was a crime committed collectively by the owners of the building, owners of garment factories operating inside that building and the government authorities.

 Sohel Rana, owner of the building was used as a scapegoat to put all the blame on, while the owners of factories who forced the workers by threatening to cut their one month salaries after ignoring a day before notice from government authorities, were viewed as less culpable.

 There are a few ethical issues involved in this incident including but not limited to the following:

 It is the social responsibility of the organizations to check the poor working conditions of the factories from where they are outsourcing.

 Overloading a factory beyond its production capacities would definitely result in creating a chain of sub-contracts after sub-contract to fulfil the order completion. In such a chain, subsequently, it goes beyond control to have checks on working conditions.

 Workers in Rana Plaza factories were a perfect example of modern day slavery. They were working at $38 salary rate.

 An eight-storey building with 5000 workers; we can imagine such working conditions.

 The collapse of Rana Plaza was not just a collapse of a building but it actually was a failure of a whole system.The owners of factories, the plaza and the government authorities, ignored their personal, social and industrial responsibilities.

 To avoid such an incident in future, we have to examine all the system including all stakeholders from the manufacturers, retailers and consumers to the local authorities and workers.

 

Human rights

The American Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau:

"Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains" That was the first sentence of Rousseau's "The Social Contract."

This was the concept of ‘the noble savage’.

Thomas Hobbes:

"In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently, not culture of the earth, no navigation, nor the use of commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."