Drug Testing At Explo inc.
Case One: Steve
Organizations are mandated to protect their employees from harassment and mistreatment at work by fellow employees or senior managers. The decision by Steve to sue Explo for harassment, therefore, is legitimate considering the case. The practice of Explo and the supervisor is considered unethical in the business environment. Steve had violated none of the drug usage guidelines set by Explo, yet he was subjected to the test for three times while some employees did not take the test at all. The supervisor used his influence to target Steve due to personal relationship disagreements, which was not related to Steve’s performance at work. The drug test policy by Explo results to workers intimidation while the harassment by the supervisor indicates the malice. Harassment and intimidation of employees is unethical in the business environment and affects their performance.
According to the case, the test on drugs abuse proved negative; it also produced several undesirable consequences, including anxiety, oppression, and insecurity. Individuals with the anxiety disorders demonstrate several undesirable characteristics that include poor concentration, irritation, anger, and social isolation. To avoid a case similar to the one at Acme, all the company should ensure that every employee maintains healthy mental and physical status. Steve suffers from several mental conditions making his behavior unpredictable and hazardous to fellow workers and operations of Explo. Steve should undergo testing to ensure his mental stability and capability to work at a chemical facility.
Explo’s decision to subject all employees to mandatory drug tests is an unrighteous interference with their private life. It is unethical for an organization to harass and create the intimidating working environment. The drug testing policy by Explo lacks a guidance structure enabling the supervisor to harass and intimidate Steve for dating his ex-wife. Workers at Explo lack a union to defend their rights allowing the organization to exploit and intimidate them. This act is considered unethical in the business environment.
Case Three: Tim
The decision by Explo to force Tim to take a drug related test immediately after the loading dock accident highlights ignorance and lack of commitment to the employees’ health. Neglecting the employees’ health is considered unethical in the business environment; organizations are mandated to ensure the safe and healthy working conditions to their employees. Tim deserved compensation and Explo funded medical check up to ensure the minor accident would not develop to a life-threatening condition. Explo subjected Tim to drug tests; it was an intimidation technique aimed at masking poor safety conditions in the corporate docks. The drug test conducted immediately after an accident also marked Tim as a drug user to the fellow workers and community members tainting his public image. Tim’s should proceed with a lawsuit, as Explo did not prove that drug abuse or carelessness caused the accident. Explo has a legitimate reason to justify Tim’s drug test immediately after the minor dock accident. Independent data indicate that approximately 50% of the industrial accidents result from substance abuse and employees’ carelessness. Industrial accidents usually cause disastrous loss of property, life, and release of toxic substances into the atmosphere leading to serious health hazards. Drug abuse by the employees hampers their mental and physical ability resulting in industrial disasters as seen in the Acme case study. The drug tests are aimed at ensuring the future safety of the fellow workers and the company resources rather than intimidating Tim.
Client says about us
I would like to express my appreciation for the amazing job you did for me. I am sure I'll get a good grade for this essay. How could it not? Thanks for your help.
Met the deadline and delivered a quality paper. Thanks for a good job!
Hello. Thank you for the good work that you did with my writing assignment. I hope I won't need to use any kind of writing service in the future, but if I do, rest assured that it is your fine service that I will use. Please know that I am a satisfied customer, all the way, and that I will tell as many students as I can about the work that you do.
Thanks a lot, guys! Every time I order a paper, you manage to provide me with what I need and always on time.
You did everything exactly as I asked. It was very important because now I know that you really listen. Thanks!
Subjecting employees to forceful and emotionally disturbing practices is unethical and affects the performance and ability to interact with other workers. Explo had no evidence to prove that the accident in the loading dock was directly related to the use of drugs or carelessness on Tim’s part. The decision to subject Tim to a drug test rather than provide medical attention immediately after the dock accident lacks moral and legal background. The drug test on Tim is a plan to muscle the non-unionized workers; therefore, the lawsuit is justified.
Case Five: Ricardo
Explo relies on a single analyses method to test the presence of an illegal drug in their employee’s circulation system. A single testing method is vulnerable to errors and misdiagnoses; therefore, a second testing method is required to prove the results. Explo uses the EIA test that is inaccurate due to errors resulting from contamination of testing equipment and mistakes by the laboratory technicians. Ricardo was tested positive in the first two EIA tests; however, it could not justify the illegal discharge by Explo. Firing employees requires the employer to prove that abuse of any substance resulted in declined performance and misconduct in the work environment. Explo also failed to use a second authentication testing method such as gas chromatography. The results lack accuracy; therefore, Ricardo’s discharge is void and it should be reversed.
Explo has a legal and moral background to discharge Ricardo. Ricardo violated his working contract with Explo regarding the use of illegal drugs by the Explo employees. Drugs hamper the mental and physical performance of users resulting in unsound and hazardous decisions. Ricardo was tested positive twice for toxic substance in breach of the employer to employee working agreement. The agreement stated that employees who fail the drug test twice are subject to permanent discharge; therefore, the discharge is legally warranted.
Explo decision to fire Ricardo for failing a drug test twice is warranted according to the contract agreement. Independent data indicate that 50% of industrial disasters result from disregard for safety measures by the employees under the influence of drugs such as marijuana and alcohol. The argument based on the testing method is weak considering that Ricardo accepted the use of the EIA test in the work agreement. The case does not require evidence of misconduct or performance decline to be justified. Working under the influence of illegal drugs hampers the judgment and physical ability of the users. Ricardo is a hazard to himself, fellow workers, and the factory infrastructure making it necessary to discharge him.
Case Four: Jonathan
Organizations should dedicate resources to cater for the employee’s welfare such as the health and wellbeing of their families. It is a violation of personal privacy and intimidating practice to force employees take drug tests as in the case of Jonathan. Explo has a moral obligation to understand personal problems facing the employees and provide them with support. Jonathan clearly indicated that his son’s addiction to drugs challenged his ability to attend all working days as required. However, Explo chooses to subject Jonathan forcefully to drug tests undermining his authority in his son’s rehabilitation process. Disregard of Jonathan’s personal challenge and subjection to drug test highlight the unethical humiliation of employees by the organization; Jonathan’s lawsuit, therefore, is warranted.
The performance of Explo should not be affected by the personal problems of employees. Explo’s decision to subject Jonathan to a drug test aims solely at understanding the factors causing his absenteeism and low performance. Jonathan has a performance contract with Explo detailing his expected output and situations that warrant a drug test. Explo possesses the right to terminate Jonathan’s employment or take disciplinary action for breach of the contract. Jonathan blames Explo for violating his privacy and authority to his son and for unlawful drug testing. Explo’s performance should not depend on employees’ personal problems as it creates room for inefficiency. Jonathan’s case is groundless as he blames Explo for privacy intrusion while still using the private condition of his son as an excuse.
Explo’s drug test on Jonathan meets legal standards under his performance contract. Jonathan’s poor work record including absenteeism and low productivity can be easily judged as a drug related problem. Explo clearly indicates that all employees must take the test in case of a sudden and unexplained decline in performance. Jonathan did not take precaution steps such as applying for a leave to cater for his son that resulted in unexplained absenteeism leading to poor performance. The role of Jonathan as an authority figure does not involve Explo; therefore, Explo acted legally to ensure the continued productivity of the organization.
Case Seven: Ray
Explo terminated Ray’s contract after he had been tested positive twice in a random drug test. The termination did not indicate poor work performance or misconduct as the reason of the termination. Explo also failed to prove that Ray had taken marijuana while working. The decision by Explo to deny Ray unemployment compensation is illegal and means exploitation of employees. State employment regulations direct that an employee fails to qualify for unemployment compensation only if proven that the layoff resulted from misconduct or poor performance. Under these conditions, Explo lacks a legal background to justify the failure to accept Ray’s unemployment compensation claim.
Explo’s decision to deny Ray unemployment compensation is warranted. Ray’s working contract with Explo clearly indicated that employee’s who fail the drug test would be subject to immediate discharge. The contract does not include any point mandating Explo to pay or satisfy unemployment compensation demands by employees discharged on the basis of drug abuse. Ray violated the terms and conditions of his contract, secretly working under the influence of marijuana. Working under the influence of a drug is a grave misconduct that can result in poor decisions and workplace accidents. Explo, therefore, is not mandated to accept Ray’s unemployment compensation demands.
You can ask us “write my case study” on this or any other topic at 123HelpMe.org. Don’t waste your time, order now!
Explo’s referring to the unemployment compensation law is void and biased. Explo did not indicate and prove that Ray’s discharge had resulted from a workplace misconduct or poor performance. Explo also did not prove that Ray had taken marijuana during the agreed working hours. The law provides that an individual can fail to receive unemployment compensation only if discharged due to indiscipline and poor performance. Explo fails to prove any of the two points; therefore, it is mandated by the Law to satisfy Ray’s unemployment benefits demand.