Reference no: EM133087179

Bam is a manufacturer and distributor of blasting powder, caps, and explosives. Bam's main plant is in the midwest and employs 200 nonunion employees. You, as Bam's CEO, decide to implement a drug-testing program for all your employees after an explosion occurred at a plant owned by one of Bam's competitors. The accident at the competitor killed 3 employees and destroyed one-third of their manufacturing capacity. The cause of the accident was determined to be carelessness by one of their employees, who was killed in the blast. It was also discovered he had a bag of marijuana on his person, and the autopsy indicated he probably was high on the drug at the time of his death. (Studies show that 50% of all industrial accidents are drug or alcohol related.) In addition, one of the foremen at your company Bam was arrested by police for selling drugs from his home. These two events convinced you, as CEO, that you should take steps to protect your company's personnel and property.

Bam then adopted the following drug-testing policy:

1. All existing employees would be tested whenever there was a sudden, unexplained, or sustained decline in their job performance and/or attendance.
2. All employees would be tested whenever the employee was involved in an accident, violated a publicized safety precaution, or was reported by a supervisor to have acted in a careless or dangerous manner.
3. A random test would be conducted once per year (unannounced). 20 names would be randomly selected by computer for testing.

Two of your employees, Jonathan and Steve, brought a lawsuit against your company Bam, challenging the drug policy.

(a) Jonathan's lawyer brought suit against Bam because Jonathan refused to be drug tested after his job performance declined and his absenteeism increased. Jonathan claimed his job performance was suffering because he was having problems with his teenage son who was addicted to cocaine and alcohol. Jonathan claimed testing him for drugs in these circumstances was a highly offensive intrusion into his privacy because it would hold him up to ridicule in the eyes of his son, and thus destroy any ability he had to influence his son's actions.

(b) Steve's lawyer brought suit after Steve refused to be drug tested immediately after he was involved in a minor accident at the plant's loading dock. Steve's lawyer argued it was obvious that carelessness was not a contributing cause of Steve's accident, and that forcing Steve to take a drug test without demonstrating a decline in his job performance violates his employee rights and is thus discriminatory. Further, Steve's lawyer stated that forcing Steve to take a drug test after his minor accident caused fellow workers and members of the community to suspect that he was a drug user when he is not.

QUESTION: What should you, as CEO of Bam, do? Should you fire both Jonathan and Steve, only one of them (which one), or neither of them? If it is best to fire both or one of them, expose what goes wrong with each of their arguments for refusing the drug test. If it is best to capitulate and fire neither of them, why is each of their arguments against the drug test cogent/sound? Explain. Consider factual issues, ethical values, and consequences. Justify your answer.