Drug Testing And Corporate Responsibility Essays - Drug Control Law

Drug Testing And Corporate Responsibility Essays - Drug Control Law Drug Testing And Corporate Responsibility Drug Testing and Corporate Responsibility: The Ought Implies Can Argument Drug testing has become a hot topic under the microscope recently. The problem is the question whether or not it is morally wrong to test employees for illegal drug use. In order to justify drug testing in the work place one must look to rights, among other things, to determine what sorts of controls are morally permissible. In order to really determine whether or not drug testing is needed one must evaluate the connection between drug testing and the prevention of drug related harm. One theory that that many people use to justify the morality of Drug testing in the work place is a theory that is called Ought Implies Can. Showing that a person was incapable of doing something otherwise blocks the normal moves of praise or blame and therefore absolves the agent of responsibility for a given act. Basically, we believe that persons can not be obligated to do things that they are not capable of doing. If they fail to do those things then they can not be held accountable. To imply the argument to drug testing is not as broad as the previous example. If corporations are responsible for harms caused by employees under the influence of drugs, they must have the ability to prevent these harms. They must therefore, have the ability to test for drug use. This argument is vague to say the least. In the argument there are four distinct senses of Responsible that appear with some regularity in the argument. They are being legally liable, culpable or guilty, answerable or accountable, or bound by an obligation. The first argument is legal liability. If the employee causes harm to a third party while preforming on behalf of the company, the company has to compensate the third party. This is because the firm was acting through the employee thus, the company is held accountable. This is often called Respondeat superior. This doctrine is grounded not in fault, but in concerns of public policy and utility. Because it does not imply fault, legal liability can not be used successfully as an Ought Implies Can argument. Another words, holding corporations legally liable for harms committed by intoxicated employees while at the same time forbidding drug testing is not inconsistent. It can be viewed as another instance of liability without fault. We must be able to attribute more than legal liability to corporations if the Ought Implies Can principle is to be applied. Corporations must be held accountable in one of the other three arguments in order for the argument to work. The culpable or guilty argument takes a different approach. This argument states that an agent, in this case the corporation, should be held morally responsible if the act can be imputed to the corporation. This requirement could be satisfied if it could be shown that the firm intended the resulting harms, ordered their employees to work under the influence of drugs, or ignored the fact that there were employees that were working under the influence of drugs. However, this argument tends to be a little drastic and really can not apply to make the Ought Implies Can theory work either. Clearly in most cases drug use would not simply be ignored. In fact, drug use is quite likely to be prohibited by company policy. Therefore this argument does not justify drug testing. In this third argument corporations could actually be held accountable for the harmful acts of there employees. Through a series of agreements, the corporation delegates its employees to act on its behalf. For these reasons it could be argued that corporations could be held responsible for their employees negligence. If this is the case then corporations should have the right to test their employees for drugs. This last argument which is called bound by an obligation supports drug testing as well under the Ought Implies Can theory. If corporations have an obligation to prevent danger to all of its employees and consumers then they should be able to do what ever is needed to prevent drugs and overall prevent danger. Another words, if corporations have obligations they must be capable of

Economic Influence Over Presidential Election Outcomes

Economic Influence Over Presidential Election Outcomes It seems that during every presidential election year we are  told that jobs and the economy will be pivotal issues. Its commonly assumed that an incumbent president has little to worry about if the economy is good and there are lots of jobs. If the opposite holds true, however, the president should prepare for life on the rubber chicken circuit. Testing Conventional Wisdom of Presidential Elections and The Economy I decided to examine this conventional wisdom to see if it holds true and to see what it can tell us about the future presidential elections. Since 1948, there have been nine presidential elections that have pitted an incumbent president against a challenger. Out of those nine, I chose to examine six elections. I decided to disregard two of those elections where the challenger was considered too extreme to be elected: Barry Goldwater in 1964 and George S. McGovern in 1972. Out of the remaining presidential elections, incumbents won four elections while challengers won three. To see what impact jobs and the economy had on the election, well consider two important economic indicators: the growth rate of real GNP (the economy) and the unemployment rate (jobs). Well compare the two-year vs. the four-year and previous four-year performance of those variables in order to compare how Jobs The Economy performed during the incumbents presidency and how it performed relative to the previous administration. First, well look at the performance of Jobs The Economy in the three of the cases in which the incumbent won. Be sure to continue to Page 2 of Presidential Elections and the Economy. Out of our six chosen incumbent presidential elections, we had three where the incumbent won. Well look at those three, starting with the percentage of the electoral vote each candidate collected. 1956 Election: Eisenhower (57.4%) v. Stevenson (42.0%) Real GNP Growth (Economy) Unemployment Rate (Jobs) Two Year 4.54% 4.25% Four Year 3.25% 4.25% Previous Administration 4.95% 4.36% Although Eisenhower won in a landslide, the economy had actually performed better under the Truman administration than it did during Eisenhowers first term. Real GNP, however, grew at an amazing 7.14% per year in 1955, which certainly helped Eisenhower get reelected. 1984 Election: Reagan (58.8%) v. Mondale (40.6%) Real GNP Growth (Economy) Unemployment Rate (Jobs) Two Year 5.85% 8.55% Four Year 3.07% 8.58% Previous Administration 3.28% 6.56% Again, Reagan won in a landslide, which certainly had nothing to do with the unemployment statistics. The economy came out of recession just in time for Reagans reelection bid, as real GNP grew a robust 7.19% in Reagans final year of his first term. 1996 Election: Clinton (49.2%) v. Dole (40.7%) Real GNP Growth (Economy) Unemployment Rate (Jobs) Two Year 3.10% 5.99% Four Year 3.22% 6.32% Previous Administration 2.14% 5.60% Clintons re-election was not quite a landslide, and we see quite a different pattern than the other two incumbent victories. Here we see fairly consistent economic growth during Clintons first term as President, but not a consistently improving unemployment rate. It would appear that the economy grew first, then the rate of unemployment decreased, which we would expect since the unemployment rate is a lagging indicator. If we average out the three incumbent victories, we see the following pattern: Incumbent (55.1%) v. Challenger (41.1%) Real GNP Growth (Economy) Unemployment Rate (Jobs) Two Year 4.50% 6.26% Four Year 3.18% 6.39% Previous Administration 3.46% 5.51% It would appear then from this very limited sample that voters are more interested in how the economy has improved during the tenure of the presidency than they are in comparing the performance of the current administration with past administrations. Well see if this pattern holds true for the three elections where the incumbent lost. Be sure to continue to Page 3 of Presidential Elections and the Economy. Now for the three incumbents who lost: 1976 Election: Ford (48.0%) v. Carter (50.1%) Real GNP Growth (Economy) Unemployment Rate (Jobs) Two Year 2.57% 8.09% Four Year 2.60% 6.69% Previous Administration 2.98% 5.00% This election is quite an unusual one to examine, as Gerald Ford replaced Richard Nixon after Nixons resignation. In addition, we are comparing the performance of a Republican incumbent (Ford) to a previous Republican administration. Looking at these economic indicators, it is easy to see why the incumbent lost. The economy was in a slow decline during this period and the unemployment rate jumped sharply. Given the performance of the economy during Fords tenure, its a little surprising that this election was a close as it was. 1980 Election: Carter (41.0%) v. Reagan  (50.7%) Real GNP Growth (Economy) Unemployment Rate (Jobs) Two Year 1.47% 6.51% Four Year 3.28% 6.56% Previous Administration 2.60% 6.69% In 1976, Jimmy Carter defeated an incumbent president. In 1980, he was the defeated incumbent president. It would appear that the unemployment rate had little to do with Reagans landslide victory over Carter, as the rate of unemployment improved over Carters presidency. However, the last two years of the Carter administration saw the economy grow at a paltry 1.47% per annum. The 1980 Presidential election suggests that economic growth, and not the unemployment rate, can bring down an incumbent. 1992 Election: Bush (37.8%) v. Clinton (43.3%) Real GNP Growth (Economy) Unemployment Rate (Jobs) Two Year 1.58% 6.22% Four Year 2.14% 6.44% Previous Administration 3.78% 7.80% Another unusual election, as we are comparing the performance of a Republican president (Bush) to another Republican administration (Reagans second term). The strong performance of third party candidate Ross Perot caused Bill Clinton to win the election with only 43.3% of the popular vote, a level usually associated with the losing candidate. But republicans who believe that Bushs defeat lies solely on the shoulders of Ross Perot should think again. Although the unemployment rate decreased during the Bush administration, the economy grew at a paltry 1.58% during the final two years of the Bush administration. The economy was in recession during the early 1990s and voters took out their frustrations on the incumbent. If we average out the three incumbent losses, we see the following pattern: Incumbent (42.3%) v. Challenger (48.0%) Real GNP Growth (Economy) Unemployment Rate (Jobs) Two Year 1.87% 6.97% Four Year 2.67% 6.56% Previous Administration 3.12% 6.50% In the final section, well examine the performance of Real GNP growth and the unemployment rate under George W. Bushs administration, to see if economic factors helped or harmed Bushs reelection chances in 2004. Be sure to continue to Page 4 of Presidential Elections and the Economy. Lets consider the performance of jobs, as measured by the unemployment rate, and the economy as measured by the growth rate of real GDP, under George W. Bushs first term as president. Using data up to and including the first three months of 2004, we will form our comparisons. First, the growth rate of real GNP: Real GNP Growth Unemployment Rate Clintons 2nd Term 4.20% 4.40% 2001 0.5% 4.76% 2002 2.2% 5.78% 2003 3.1% 6.00% 2004 (First Quarter) 4.2% 5.63% First 37 Months Under Bush 2.10% 5.51% We see that both real GNP growth and the unemployment rate were worse under the Bush administration than they were under Clinton in his second term as President. As we can see from our real GNP growth statistics, the growth rate of real GNP has been rising steadily since the recession at the beginning of decade, whereas the unemployment rate is continuing to get worse. By looking at these trends, we can compare this administrations performance on jobs and the economy to the six we have already seen: Lower Economic Growth than the Previous Administration: This occurred in two cases where the incumbent won (Eisenhower, Reagan) and two cases where the incumbent lost (Ford, Bush)Economy Improved In the Last Two Years: This occurred in two of the cases where the incumbent won (Eisenhower, Reagan) and none of the cases where the incumbent lost.Higher Unemployment Rate than the Previous Administration: This occurred in two of the cases where the incumbent won (Reagan, Clinton) and one case where the incumbent lost (Ford).Higher Unemployment Rate in the Last Two Years: This occurred in none of the cases where the incumbent won. In the case of the Eisenhower and Reagan first term administrations, there was almost no difference in the two-year and full-term unemployment rates, so we must be careful not to read too much into this. This did, however, occur in one case where the incumbent lost (Ford). While it may be popular in some circles to compare the performance of the economy under Bush Sr. to that of Bush Jr., judging by our chart, they have little in common. The biggest difference is that W. Bush was fortunate enough to have his recession right at the beginning of his presidency, while the senior Bush was not so lucky. The performance of the economy seems to fall somewhere in between the Gerald Ford administration and the first Reagan administration. Assuming that we are back in pre-election 2004, this data alone would have made it difficult to predict whether George W. Bush would end up in the Incumbents Who Won or the Incumbents who Lost column. Of course, Bush did end up winning reelection with just 50.7% of the vote to John Kerrys 48.3%. Ultimately, this exercise leads us to believe that conventional wisdom - particularly that surrounding presidential elections and the economy - is not the strongest predictor of election outcomes.