Although the case demonstrates several ethical dilemmas, the main question refers to the decision Harvey Hillman, Plant Manager at Branch, should make regarding the drinking problem in the company. His choice will have an impact on a number of stakeholders. Firstly, it will affect Branch employees and the labor union. Secondly, it will influence company’s shareholders, since the declining profit margins and absenteeism lower their incomes. Finally, the decisions will have an effect on the Branch’s business partners, its suppliers and buyers, who suffer the consequences of low quality and declining performance of Branch.
Ethical Philosophy
The best philosophy to use for Harvey in this situation is the cost benefit analysis, which allows to compare the benefits and the potential costs of all the options, and to make a thought-through decision. As the future of the company doesn’t look very bright unless the company manages to address the drinking problem of the employees, Harvey should insist on implementing drug testing. The benefits of this course of actions, reflected in higher product quality and lower absenteeism, should outweigh the cost of negotiations with the labor union. However, in order to minimize the conflict, Harvey should search for a compromise, for example by making drug tests mandatory also for professionals.
Perception
Although the cost-benefit analysis of the situation suggests the need to introduce random drug tests for improving company performance, this policy will not be perceived positively by the employees in the organization. That is why it is important to search for compromises and to explain the importance of this policy for the future of the company. On the other hand, the general society may support the new strategy at Branch, since it will help to enhance the quality of their products and raise the standards for ethical and professional behavior in the society.
