The article "Drug Testing and the Right to Privacy: Arguing the Ethics of Workplace Drug Testing" by Michael Cranford, discusses on the drug abuse behaviors exhibited by workers in the workplace and the measures to take while interacting with workers who test positive for drug abuse. Michael Cranford presents an argument some worker's rights to privacy are violated in the instance where personal information is obtained and potentially destroys the inherent relationship between the employee and the employer. As much as drug testing is crucial according to the terms of the contract, it should not be used as a loophole to violate the employees' privacy (Brookler 1992).
The author's arguments perfectly support the main ideas presented in the article. To begin with, a contract agreement should not tie up the employee such that they are deprived off their rights to privacy. Privacy is perceived to be an individual's right to free will and "to be let alone," as defined by the "zones of privacy." Citing an example where Cranford states that, a situation where someone is recognized with a debilitating disease is a condition of privacy (George 1981). Cranford argues that when a physician realizes that someone has such illness; it is not an invasion of the privacy but rather to seek efforts to assist the individual in regaining health.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The evidence supporting the main point about rights to privacy is incorporating privacy to the performance of the contract. In a social interaction such as an organization, every employee should be able to maintain their "zones of privacy" despite the terms of agreements. However, some actions may not practically violate the right to privacy despite that it may intrude into the personal life. For instance, eavesdropping to a conversation may not be considered as a violation of the right to privacy because it merely knows something private.
The topic of this article applies in my personal and professional life in shaping the means of interacting with employees and other staff members in matters relating to privacy. For instance, dealing with the best-performing employee who is addicted to drugs would require critical attention and approaches to confront them, as cited in Lewis (1987). The topic advanced my understanding of the need for privacy and the effect that one may feel when their private spaces are violated. Additionally, the article shapes my knowledge of conditions which dictate privacy.
The topic can apply to an organization I am familiar with, which denies the workers the right to worship in other churches other than the Roman Catholic. When an employee is identified to pray or worship in another dominion, they are threatened by demotion or being fired (Simms 1994). The topic can apply in enlightening the employer on the importance of diversity of cultures and worship privacy since the main idea is to work towards achieving the goals rather than the religious life.
The role of leadership in corporate culture is to guide workers in performing their duties despite their cultural backgrounds. It is the role of the leaders to inquire about information from the workers, but the process of inquiry should not impose threats, intrusive, or harmful since the worker's morale would be potentially decreased. The leadership styles should be interactive to give employees chances of contributing to the subjects under discussion for a concrete decision making.
There are unethical practices associated with drug testing, which defer performance levels from employees. Firstly, drug testing should not be used as a means to terminate the contracts between employees since the drug's use does not lead to underperformance. Secondly, drug testing should not be based on the drug's usage by the employees because the achievement of goals is not tied upon drugs use (Cranford,1998). Finally, drug testing should not destroy the employees' autonomy in the legislation system.
In conclusion, leaders should not use the drug testing policy to terminate employees who have records of drug usage. When a leader identifies a worker who is obsessed with drugs, or maybe someone is under medication for a specific disease, they should not gossip about the situation with the other staff members since every individual is entitled to privacy. Additionally, some people can hardly survive without drugs, and this should not be a disclaimer by the leaders to terminate the contracts since a contract is a different entity from privacy.
References
Brookler, R. (1992). “Industry Standards in Workplace Drug Testing” U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics. Personal Journal.
Cranford, M. (1998). Drug testing and the right to privacy: Arguing the ethics of workplace drug testing. Journal of Business Ethics , 17 (16), 1805-1815.
George G. Brenkert (1981). “Privacy, Polygraphs, and Wor”', Business and Professional Ethics Journal 1.
Lewis L. (1987). “Why Drug Testing is a Bad Idea.” Inc.
Simms, M. (1994). “Defining Privacy in Employee Health Screening Cases: Ethical Ramifications Concerning the Employee/Employer Relationship,” Journal of Business Ethics 1.
