MYOB: Still good advice

As much as I try not to become an advice columnist like Dear Abby or Ann Landers, readers keep writing in with questions that pose some interesting ethical questions. This week’s question came with a subject line that simply said “Confidentiality.”

“Here’s a dilemma I found myself having to wrestle with this week. Twice this week, early in the morning, a fellow employee has needed to talk with me about work-related items. On both occasions, I noticed her breath was heavy with the odor of vodka. Most people believe vodka has no smell, but it does. I am certain of the vodka smell, and, since it was early in the day, she must have had the vodka before coming to work. We work in an office setting and there is no danger of her injuring someone with a forklift or piece of machinery. She and I are acquainted but not friends. I am worried for her health. While I don’t think I should report her alcohol use to management, should I turn my back and ignore the behavior? Should I mention my concern with her? She appears to function OK at work, but drinking before work is surely a sign of a serious problem. I feel guilty no matter what I do. Suggestions?”

This is an interesting question because of the many different things going on here, including concepts of confidentiality, privacy, and harm. My first reaction is that posing this as an issue involving “confidentiality” is simply incorrect. Based on the information provided by the reader, no type of fiduciary relationship exists between him and the other person. Therefore, there is no question of breaking a confidence.

The case would be different if the reader were a human resources representative who learned of this because the employee had sought help for the problem. It would also be different if the other employee had confided in him, creating an expectation that he would keep the information secret. Therefore, I don’t see a problem with confidentiality at all. If the reader felt there was some compelling reason to address the problem, there’s not much to argue against it.

What bothers me the most here is the lack of just such a compelling reason. The reader says he is “worried” for the woman’s health and the effects of what he sees as a probable drinking problem. While I have to assume that the reader has nothing but the best intentions, I’m always suspicious of those who want to meddle in other people’s lives and justify it with some “concern” for the supposed well-being of the other person.

The workplace issue is whether an individual can do his or her job satisfactorily and whether behavior while on the job is appropriate. Aside from that, what a person does on his or her own time and with his or her own body is really nobody’s business.

One could find good reason to worry not only about closet drinkers, but about smokers, couch potatoes, and people who spend too much time at the gym. However, as long as none of the above activities interfere with their work, it’s best to let them live their own lives. Only the most ardent anti-smoking advocate would go out and preach to the people huddled outside the building indulging their nicotine addiction. And you’d have to be pretty nosy to go through people’s lunch bags to figure out whether they were eating nutritionally balanced meals.

The other danger in this situation is that the reader who posed the question is simply wrong. He didn’t say where he acquired his talent at determining the origin of breath odors, but there are many things that can cause them. Breath odors could come from a medical condition, legitimate medication, or diet. They could also arise from something as simple as an alcohol-based mouthwash combined with the person’s own unique body chemistry. To assume that it’s caused by early morning drinking is walking on pretty thin ice.

If the reader were to confront the person, and the cause turned out to be innocent, the situation could backfire and cause trouble for the concerned reader. At the very least such an intervention, while well-meaning, causes some harm to the innocent employee through embarrassment and an invasion or privacy.

But even if we assume that the employee in question does indulge in alcohol before work, confronting her is fraught with danger. It could still be seen as a hostile act. People who are in denial about a drinking problem are rarely receptive to such approaches. It would be unusual for the affected employee to admit the problem and deal with it after such a confrontation with a casual acquaintance from work.

Contrary to the reader’s initial feeling, this is something best dealt with by management, if at all. If the employee’s performance were deteriorating and it affected operations or if the person were a danger to herself or others, it would be defensible to discreetly bring it up with a supervisor who could deal with it through the proper channels.

Even if the employee’s performance were satisfactory but she had to deal with vendors, clients, or the public, management should know about the situation because it reflects poorly on the organization. In this case, even if the breath odors were harmless, they are a concern because those from outside the company wouldn’t know that and might assume there was a drinking problem also.

My experience in cases like this is that management is usually aware of the situation and is either dealing with it or has chosen to ignore it. For someone — without a compelling reason — to insert himself into the situation is rarely helpful. As Ann Landers and Dear Abby have said for years, MYOB: Mind your own business. It’s still good advice.