10091417Topic9EmployeesandtheWorkplace

7/29/2019 10091417Topic9EmployeesandtheWorkplace

1/8

INTRODUCTION

Figure 9.1: Drug testing for job applicantSource: http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/jlv/lowres/jlvn482l.jpg

TTooppiicc9

Employees andthe Workplace

9

By the end of this topic, you should be able to:

1. Define employees right to privacy;

2. Identify the moral grounds a company has to take prior to hiring ofemployees; and

3. Identify instances leading to violations of privacy

LEARNING OUTCOMES
http://www.cartoonstock/http://www.cartoonstock/


2/8

TOPIC 9 EMPLOYEES AND THE WORKPLACE 129

During an interview, the interviewer may request the job applicant to take a drugtest as shown in Figure 9.1. Why do you think a drug test is necessary? What isthe rationale behind this request?

Companies want to protect themselves, their employees and their customersfrom avoidable harm. As a result, they believe that they need to know about thepersonal history and habit of their employees to guard against fraud, theft ofproprietary information or harmful acts that employees might do under theinfluence of alcohol or drugs.

Does a company have the right, in its own interest, to this kind of information oris it an unwarranted intrusion on the employees privacy? This is an issue whichwe will explore in this topic.

RESPECTING EMPLOYEES RIGHT TOPRIVACY

9.1

Any company has the right to protect itself from fraud, loss of proprietaryinformation and trade secrets, and from harm to its facilities, employees,customers or to the public it serves.

Since employees can be a potential source of these harms, managers often need toinvestigate the personal history of their job applicants. Some companies use pre-

employment tests to get a reading on their employees level of honesty.Polygraph tests, for example, were used in the past by many companies as a pre-employment screening device but the practice is now illegal.

Figure 9.2 shows a man undergoing a polygraph tests, which is used todetermine the level of honesty that an individual possesses.

Figure 9.2: Polygraph testsSource: http://www.akhbarassociates.com/newspi.html


3/8

TOPIC 9 EMPLOYEES AND THE WORKPLACE130

Managers may also want to monitor or even attempt to restrict the private-lifeactivities of those on the payroll to ensure that they do not pose a threat to the

business. The questions are:

(a) How far can managers invade a prospective or current employees privacyin the interests of the enterprise?

(b) Does a companys right to protect itself always override an employeesright to privacy?

ACTIVITY 9.1

Check with your Human Resource Manager. Find out the extent towhich your employer can test his or her employees. Compare your

findings with your coursemates. Then, summarise the findings byusing a mind map.

Companies may install sophisticated devices such as closed-circuit television(CCTV) or computer software in order to monitor the movement of theiremployees in the office and in the computer network.

Figure 9.3 shows the image taken by a closed-circuit television which enables theemployer to monitor his or her employees movement.

Figure 9.3: The monitoring of employees movement through closed-circuit televisionSource: http://isafesoft.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/businesses1.jpg


4/8


ACTIVITY 9.2

Discuss the following questions.

(a) How far can employers invade a prospective or currentemployees privacy in the interests of the organisation?

(b) Does an organisations right to protect itself always override anemployees right to privacy?

ACTIVITY 9.3

There are cases in Malaysia where employers are found to check ontheir employees social life through social networking sites such asFacebook.

Source: http://itblog.ws/category/social-networking/Discuss the above statement in relation to the intrusion of employees right

to privacy.

SUBSTANCE ABUSE9.2

No company wants to be placed in jeopardy by employees who cannot performtheir duties due to the influence of drugs or alcohol. Nowadays, due to thewidespread abuse of alcohol and drugs, many employers fear they mayunwittingly hire an addict or alcoholic. Consequently, testing for drug use is apre-employment requirement in many businesses. The question is: do companieshave a moral right to drug-test employees?The right not to have ones privacy invaded is not absolutein the sense that a person may never waive it. In the interest of showing a potential


5/8


employer that he or she is not a possible threat to the company, a job applicantmay agree to being tested for drugs.

Likewise, it seems evident that a company is morally justified in insisting ontesting job applicants for drug use as a protective measure, especially where thesafety of customers and other employers is at stake. The company requiring thetests, however, needs to ensure that:

(a) The tests are accurate; the applicant is permitted to provide evidence thathe or she is taking drugs under a legitimate medical prescription.

(b) The results of the tests remain confidential and will be made known only tothose who have a legitimate need to know.

If these precautions cannot be reasonably observed, then the company has no

right to demand the drug tests.

The following are two questions that are related to employees drug testing:

(a) What about testing people already on the payroll?(i) That means training supervisors in proper techniques of recognising

signs of abuse;

(ii) It may also mean testing after the fact, if an employee has beeninvolved in an accident that has harmed others or has causedextensive property damage; and

(iii) It is a small comfort to find out that an employee was high on drugsor drunk after he or she had caused a fatal airline, train or busaccident. That unhappy conclusion explains why employerssometimes resort to random testing of all employees in occupationswhere the risk of harm to people or property is high shouldemployees make a mistake.

(b) Is random testing of employees morally justified?The principle of probable cause seems applicable, meaning that testingfor drug abuse is legitimate only if an employer has a valid suspicion thatan employees work performance is being adversely affected by drug use.

It is arguable that only two circumstances could justify any testing ofemployees:

(i) Valid suspicion that a particular employee is on drugs; or(ii) Statistically valid evidence that the incidence of drug use among the

suspected employees is significant.


6/8


It would be particularly applicable in jobs where the safety of other employees,customers or the general public would be threatened by impaired jobperformance. If random testing ensures satisfactory results, it seems that it is

morally justified as long as all employees are equally subjected to it.

SELF-CHECK 9.1

What are the factors that need to be taken into consideration before anorganisation intends to conduct a drug test on its employees?

ABUSING EMPLOYEES9.3Have you ever encountered a situation where your employer, who is in angerand unable to control his or her emotion, scolds you loudly in front of your co-workers? As shown in Figure 9.4, it is probably not uncommon for bosses to flyinto a rage at their subordinates.

Figure 9.4: An employer scolding an employeeSource:http://www.inmagine.com/lilyoh-006/ptg00927587-photoBosses may scold their subordinates for a number of reasons, usually due tofailures related to work. However, employees may even be threatened with theloss of their jobs for such failures as:
http://www.inmagine.com/lilyoh-006/ptg00927587-photohttp://www.inmagine.com/lilyoh-006/ptg00927587-photohttp://www.inmagine.com/lilyoh-006/ptg00927587-photo


7/8


(a) Not agreeing to falsify the financial statements, or(b) Refusing sexual advances, or(c)

Not trying to get out of jury duty, or

(d) Refusing to commit deception on behalf of a union or a companySuch instances involve a clear violation of privacy. It is certainly necessary to letan employee know that he is not performing satisfactorily. However, that is notsomething other employees or managers, who are not in the persons direct lineof supervision or who will not likely ever supervise that person, have a right toknow.

Everyone is entitled to his good public reputation. Finally, using threats to try to

force employees to violate the law is a kind of invasion of privacy. It intrudesinto the persons realm of conscience and puts him in legal jeopardy.

For the natural law moralist or any rights-based moralist, these instances areevidence of employee abuse, of violations of human dignity and respect forpersons. Therefore they are considered as immoral. It is unlikely that a utilitarianmoralist would ever argue that these practices are morally justified and wouldproduce good results on the whole. As for cultural relativist, it is unlikely thatsocietal customs anywhere in the world would accept this kind of treatment atthe workplace.

SELF-CHECK 9.2

What are the aspects that might be regarded as an intrusion to theemployees privacy?

To reinforce your understanding, answer the following questions.

EXERCISE 9.11. In your own words, describe your understanding of employees

right to privacy.

2. As a personnel manager of a company, what would be yourpreparation prior to hiring prospective employees?

3. Under what circumstances is random drug-testing of employeesmorally justified?


8/8


An employee has the right to privacy and no one, not even the employer,has the right to intrude into the employees privacy.

Companies want to protect themselves, their employees and theircustomers from avoidable harm.

Companies need to know the personal details such as the history and habitof their employees in order to guard against fraud, theft and harmful actsthat employees might do.

Random testing for substance abuse may be morally justified if there isvalid suspicion and strong evidence that a significant number of employees

may be abusing alcohol or using illegal drugs. Scolding employees in public for poor work performance is a violation of

their privacy. Everyone has the right to his public reputation, and only thosewho need to know about a persons performance should hear about it.

Threatening a person for refusing to do something immoral or illegalinvades a persons conscience or puts him into legal trouble and is aviolation of privacy.

Natural law moralists would regard any abuse of an employee as morallywrong, while utilitarian moralists would find it justified only in extreme

circumstances where the overall good demands it. Cultural relativistswould have to determine whether the particular community in which theabuse occurs would tolerate it.

Drug test

Employee abuse

Employee privacy

Polygraph tests

Random testing

Substance abuse

10091417Topic9EmployeesandtheWorkplace

Documents

Transcript of 10091417Topic9EmployeesandtheWorkplace