Mandatory drug testing

The majority of employers have adopted mandatory random drug testing on their employees, arguing that the enormous damage caused by the pervasive use of drugs in our society carries over into the workplace. Typically the tests involve taking urine or blood samples under close observation, thereby raising questions about personal privacy as well as privacy issues regarding drug use away from the workplace that is revealed by the tests. 

Present & defend your view concerning mandatory drug tests at the workplace.

In your answer, take account of the argument that, except where safety is a clear & present danger, as in the work of pilots, police & the military, such tests are unjustified. Employera have a right to the level of performance for which they pay employees, a level typically  specified in contracts & job descriptions. When a particular employee fails to meet that level of performance, then employers will take appropriate disciplinary action based on observable behaviour. Either way, it is employee performance that is relevant in evaluating employees, not drug use per se.

What do you think?

Drugs are very dangerous so, the company does this random test trying to reduce the drug abuse. In my opinion this test is useful if the people know that they can lose their jobs because of drugs. For the privacy, I can say this is an issue that can affect the future development of our life. On the other hand, some jobs need full attention for people and property safety like a pilot; he must be fully aware because his job is  a very risky job.  

THE COLLAPSE OF A BUILDING IN BANGLADESH

      A tragedy that will not be forgotten in Bangladesh happened on the 24^th of April 2013, and was considered to be one of the worst structural accidents ever in modern human history. This is the collapse of an eight storey building in the suburbs of Dhaka. The building contained shops, apartments and many clothing factories.  According to the Bangladeshi government, 1128 people died and 2515 were injured and most of them with serious injuries.

     A thorough investigation was done and many issues were the reason to this tragedy, but negligence from the building`s owner was said to be an important reason. The building was designed for only apartments and shops and not for factories, because it wasn’t strong enough to support the weight of the heavy machinery used in these factories. A day before the collapse, inspectors issued warnings to evacuate the building after noticing huge cracks that caused an alarming attention, but workers were forced to work after being threatened by the factory managers with losing their jobs if they did not come to work. Some shops accepted the inspector`s warning and closed their shops, but some just neglected the warning of evacuation issued by the inspectors. Another major reason that should be taken under consideration is the fact that the construction companies use cheaper building materials in order to create vast amount of profits, without caring about the dangers that might come through using these cheaper materials. This is being done because of a corrupt administration, regulations are not followed and thus no inspection is being done during the building of the structure.

      Such a tragedy should be taken with great ethical concerns and the safety of workers should be the first priority to all companies or building owners. This tragedy shouldn’t have happened if the authorities issued firm and strict regulations that should be followed by the construction companies and also by the owners of buildings. Specifications should be adjusted and strict punishment to those who neglect these specifications, in order to implement the safety of the workers and to save the lives of innocent workers.

        Greed and the making of faster profits will always be the reason for many major problems that will face the poor. Governments all over the world should implement strict rules, and firm regulations to preserve the safety of people. Many people in poor countries are forced to work in severe working conditions without the protection of authorities. The world community and the major worldwide organizations should stand together to help the poor countries and preserve the safety of workers all over the world.

Reference:

1.  http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-22476774

2.  http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/14/world/asia/bangladesh-building-collapse-aftermath/

3. http://www.business-humanrights.org/Documents/Bangladeshbuildingcollapse

Human rights

The American Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The Declaration was largely the work of Thomas Jefferson, who later became the 3rd President of the United States. It is really the basis of what we call rights ethics.
This basically rests on the view that all human beings have human rights. Human rights are not legal rights. They are universal and so democratic. They fit in with what Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg address (November 1864) described as 'government of the people, by the people, for the people'.
Human rights rely on the belief that other people have a duty to respect our rights.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau:

"Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains" That was the first sentence of Rousseau's "The Social Contract."

This was the concept of ‘the noble savage’.

Thomas Hobbes:

"In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently, not culture of the earth, no navigation, nor the use of commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

Aluminium cans

 

Approximately 1 billion are produced in the USA each year. The first can was designed in 1958 by Kaiser Aluminium. This metal proved ideal as it was a lightweight, flexible material that allowed manufacturing of the bottom & sides of the can from a single sheet, leaving the top to be added after the can was filled.

 

The first cans were opened with a separate opener but this was inconvenient so Ermal Fraze designed a small lever attached to the can which was removed as the can was opened.

 

The design was workable but after a while it created an ethical dilemma:

In that time most of people were buy the cans without realizing the hazard could be caused. After sometime people start analyze some hazard for human and environment. Human get injured and environment spoiled.

 

So in 1976 Daniel F. Cudzik invented a simple, stay-attached opener of the sort familiar today.

 

 

As improvements were made in the design & production of aluminium cans, various ethical problems arose concerning:

 

   

     a.      Human safety:

          During store and transportation of bottles maybe catch some dirt so, that could affect human.

 

      b.     Environmental pollution: 

      

        The usage of soft drink will increase so, the waste will increase. Some people do not care which hazard the environment. Recycle is one of the solutions but still need more weariness how is prevent the environment pollution.

         c.      Convenience:   

     

      Much faster and efficient way to dispense and store. Easy to carry and use, especially beneficial for people with back problems or disabilities.

 

 

          d.     Money:

Some companies can redeem many of the cans and bottles they buy. They pay the deposit when they buy the product, so redeeming these empties is a great way to recycle, while putting a little change back in to them.