Analysis of Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Case

Ethics 1
Name:
Professor’s Name:
Course:
Date:

Ethics 2
The difference between something being legal or being moral has been a question since time
immemorial. Sometimes a decision by the court could seem to be legally right but its moral
standing arouses questions of doubt in the morality of the legal system. In carrying out business,
management personnel have a difficult time trying to strike a balance between what is morally
right as well as legally right. Such a situation is the case of Skinner v. Railway Labor
Executives’. This paper intends to analyze whether the holding of the supreme court was morally
right in terms of business ethics. The deontological approach shall be used to make a deduction
from the details regarding the case.
In the case of Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’, the management of the railway company is
the respondent to the charges of intrusion of privacy. According to the case, every after a train
accident, the personnel in the company involved in the accident are obliged to undergo a urine
test to verify whether or not they were under the influence of drugs. The employees felt that such
obligation was an intrusion of their privacy. In the case it was noted that in order to ensure that
the sample is genuinely from the concerned party, the provision of urine is done under
surveillance. However, the company’s defense was that such a law was put in place after it was
noted that most of the accidents in the past were as a result of negligence on the part of the
employee. In most cases the employees had used either alcohol or illegal drugs.
Amendment 4 of the United states of America Constitution stipulates that every person has the
right to be protected against any kind of arbitrary search. As a result, the amendment advocates
for the provision of a warrant of search before a person’s personal space is invaded (Galiano 47).
This calls for a judge or a magistrate who is non partisan to issue such a warrant. The employees
of the Railway company in the case of Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’, claimed that they
should at least be issued with a warrant before any tests were done on them. However, the court

Ethics 3
held that if the employers were to go in search of a warrant before testing the employees, they
would have no evidence to give the magistrate so that after gong through such evidence, the
magistrate is able to grant a warrant. (Varone 807) Furthermore, this case, according to the
supreme court judges was a very sensitive case. If time is wasted looking for a warrant, the
employer will most probably find no traces of drugs and alcohol in the urine of the employee
because with constant excretion the blood stream is cleaned. On the issue of whether or not
privacy is invaded, the court held that the method being used by the company is the cheapest and
most effective method that was at that time. However, hoping in technological advancement, the
court believed that new methods one day be introduced so as to protect the sense of privacy that
the employees deserve (Hooker 17). It was held that, this kind of search was very necessary
especially because the lives of many are involved. The people travelling by train have the right to
life and therefore it was the responsibility of the management to ensure that no negligence is
present when issuing these clients with transport services.
Deontology involves analyzing whether an action taken by a particular person is wrong or right.
Instead of dealing with the consequences of the actions, deontology deals with the action itself.
Irrespective of whether the consequences are wrong or right, deontology deals with the action
itself. (Gonzales 128) Deontologists acknowledge the fact that there is a very thin line between
what is morally right as compared to what is legally right. The basis of gauging the morality of
an action is whether or not the action is right. There are many scholars that have expounded on
deontology. However, for the purposes of this paper the works of Immanuel Kant shall be used
to analyze the Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ case. Through this analysis the wrongness
or rightness of the action by the railway company’s management shall be dealt with.