Case Study Four: Drug Testing at College International Publishers

  • View all of the information carefully and decide what information or data is important: drug use has reduced employee performance, morale, and overall productivity; company’s finances are so bad now that the parent company is considering absorbing it into an internal division of the parent company
  • Sales staff has to travel and make sales with professors, solicit manuscripts in preparation, making phone calls to encourage the adoption of texts, gather info for mail and email campaigns
  • Bowie had an efficient and effective system of managing editors and sales staff
  • Believes that decline in loyalty and effort is due to the editor’s drug use
  • Some editors agree with him but never talk about themselves in this way
  • Many employees started “cheating on company time”
  • Bennie Jett embezzled over $15,000 (was a highly trusted sales manager); he’s married to the company accountant, Bowie thinks his embezzlement will be hard to prove; no compelling evidence to link drug use and embezzlement after Bowie interviewed Jett
  • Jett stated that many of the CI editors had “designer drug” parties on Friday’s  denies that he participated
  • Bowie feels betrayed by employees, considers required drug testing for employees  specimen chemically tested to see if the drug is present and has been used, the test tells drug use, but not how recent it was/history of use/impairment levels
  • Congress passed Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act required transportation workers in “safety-sensitive” positions to have drug/alcohol testing
  • CI never implemented these before but had used polygraph and drug testing in Latin America offices  Bowie doesn’t want to implement the drug testing but is attracted to its benefits
  • In the documentary he sees how embarrassed the employees are when their supervisor has to watch them urinate for the drug test; doesn’t want to submit his employees to do that
  • The documentary employees feel like their personal privacy is invaded and their personal integrity is questioned without cause
  • 45% of large corporations survey worker’s emails, files, and phone calls  executives deny unjustified invasions of privacy  reasoned company resources were at stake, not private resources
  • Corporate drug testing raised productivity, cut costs, and reduced waste; no tests had shown the drug tests lowered morale as long as executives and employees receive similar treatment  employees complain of lower morale and lowered loyalty to company
  • Bowie is concerned of “false positives” as they trace metabolites, not drugs themselves  some other pills resembles amphetamines in drug tests
  • With drug tests Bowie wouldn’t know past drug history and wouldn’t ask them to tell other employees habits unless there was a legitimate suspicion about a specific employee
  • Would be applied to all new employees and yearly to those already there including Bowie
  • If drug use was detected Bowie would ask them to go to an employee assistance program (EAP) for rehab
  • Would not be asked to leave firm if they went into the EAP voluntarily  would be asked to leave if they refused
  • Bowie likes this idea but doesn’t like the idea of taking urine samples from his editors
  • Wonders if new technology from OraSure Tech would be able to ensure collection without having to oversee it himself by using oral fluid over urine
  • Uses mouth swabbing, more dignified
  • Ask questions of the information or data:
  • In the documentary, how hard are the drugs that the 70% of illegal drug users use?
  • Does the company have any form of drug policy to begin with?
  • If so is it enforced?
  • Would the two consultants benefit from Bowie drug testing the employees?
  • Are his employees really using drugs or is he just making an assumption?
  • Does drug use create problems at the work place?
  • What could be underlying problems at the company that would decline production?
  • Does the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991 exist – yes.
  • Does OraSure Tech really produce an oral drug testing equipment – yes.
  • Is the employee telling the truth about the “drug parties”?
  • List the main people (individuals/groups/stakeholders) involved and what values and principles they seem to be holding as highest to them (based on the evidence of what they say and do), what their motives and intentions seem to be, what assumptions they are making, and what Gilligan/Kohlberg stages they are using, and what theories they seem to be using:
  • Dick Bowie – President of College International Publishers Company of Austin, Texas; ethics of care/Gilligan Stage 5: cares about his employees he interacts with, doesn’t want to put them in embarrassing situations, realizes they’re people; procedural justice: everyone, including himself, will be drug tested during their time with the company; integrity: okay to drug test at other locations but not at his; nonmalevolence: trying to not harm is employees by getting them fired, looking out for their wellbeing
  • Employees – violated less restrictive contractarianism: not doing their job/what they’ve agreed to do, being negligent on the job
  • Bennie Jett –Stage 4.5: saying what he can to get Bowie’s approval at the time; egoism: only cares about himself and not the company; Stage 1: doing what you can to receive benefit; Stage 2: doing what he can to not be reprimanded
  • Use that list to think about where the ethical conflicts between the main people’s values, principles, Gilligan/Kohlberg steps, motives and intentions, and theories are: Bowie could possibly violate his employees in order to improve production by firing workers who refuse to use the EAP; ethic of care vs. act utilitarianism
  • Bowie vs CIP: trying to what’s best for company but doesn’t want to be put into awkward situation  more restrictive contractarianism
  • Express what any one decision would be (hypothetical proposal made  person “x” should do action “y”) #1: implement the drug test
  • State the positive reasons (values, general moral principles, factual claims, derivative moral judgements, ethical theories, Gilligan/Kohlberg steps, character’s motive, intention, and the circumstances, evidence in the case, research you have done, etc.) that support your decision #1: would improve employee productivity; random drug tests;procedural justice: everyone would be tested; commutative justice/more restrictive contractarianism: everyone treated in the same way, testing everyone the same way minimizes harm to those at bottom and top, those with positive tests have the opportunity to do the EAP in order to stay with the firm; act utilitarianism: benefits company and employees to get a chance to improve their behavior; less restrictive: policy  employees have a duty to follow through with it;
  • Criticize your decision negatively for its ethical costs and ethical shortcomings (values, general moral principles, factual claims, derivative moral judgements, ethical theories, Gilligan/Kohlberg steps, character’s motive, intention, and the circumstances, evidence in the case, research you have done, etc.) that count against your decision #1: employees may become dissatisfied with the drug test out an assumption that they’re on drugs; rule utilitarianism: even though some employees may not like the drug testing morale will not decrease, produces a more productive environment; less restrictive contractarianism/Kohlberg Stage 5: do what you’ve agreed to do, take/administer the drug test because it’s company policy; retributive justice: suspicion and threat of firing when there’s no concrete evidence they did anything wrong threat of firing with no probable cause does not fit the possibility of drug testing; malevolence: could cause emotional harm
  • Express what any one decision would be (hypothetical proposal made  person “x” should do action “y”) #2: don’t implement the drug test
  • State the positive reasons (values, general moral principles, factual claims, derivative moral judgements, ethical theories, Gilligan/Kohlberg steps, character’s motive, intention, and the circumstances, evidence in the case, research you have done, etc.) that support your decision #2: employees wouldn’t complain about having to take the test; the employees don’t feel violated; ethics of care/Gilligan Stage 5: takes into account that the employees have feelings and privacy that must be respected
  • Criticize your decision negatively for its ethical costs and ethical shortcomings (values, general moral principles, factual claims, derivative moral judgements, ethical theories, Gilligan/Kohlberg steps, character’s motive, intention, and the circumstances, evidence in the case, research you have done, etc.) that count against your decision #2: productivity would stay the same; substantive justice: not keeping shareholders and parent companies in mind when taking action, could merge with sister company which could cause layoffs;
  • Express what any one decision would be (hypothetical proposal made  person “x” should do action “y”) #3:enact policies that will boost morale of workers and bring back their loyalty (increases productivity by having a better work environment)
  • State the positive reasons (values, general moral principles, factual claims, derivative moral judgements, ethical theories, Gilligan/Kohlberg steps, character’s motive, intention, and the circumstances, evidence in the case, research you have done, etc.) that support your decision #3:act utilitarianism: produces the most good for the most people, the company benefits because their workers are more productive, the employees benefit because they have a better work environment and feel valued and trusted; more restrictive contractarianism: employer minimizes harm done to the workers by not putting them under emotional stress and questioning their loyalty/trust
  • Criticize your decision negatively for its ethical costs and ethical shortcomings (values, general moral principles, factual claims, derivative moral judgements, ethical theories, Gilligan/Kohlberg steps, character’s motive, intention, and the circumstances, evidence in the case, research you have done, etc.) that count against your decision #3: may not actually fix the problem; people could take advantage of the system and continue using the drugs; may be viewed as deceptive/insincere
  • E4: do nothing, let the company be absorbed