Let’s say Warren Buffett and Bill Gates engaged former Senator George Mitchell to investigate corporate America to see whether there is a pervasive drug problem among employees. After two years of investigation, Mitchell reports that the use of illegal drugs is indeed pervasive. There is reliable information that Buffett, Gates and other big-time executives have known this all along, have conspired with union leaders to limit or even eliminate drug testing in the workplace, and have allowed drugs to be used because they help employees perform at higher levels of productivity. Earnings are up. Stock prices are up. Executives make more money. Employees make more money. Consumers are buying products and services at record levels. When pressed for an explanation, Buffett, Gates, other corporate executives, labor leaders and employees say what’s good for America’s pasttime is good for corporate America.
Today, there is a difference between the baseball workplace and the normal workplace. For at least a couple of decades, drug testing has been used with increasing frequency in all kinds of companies and organizations. Unions may have initially opposed it but no more–at least, not in any kind of meaningful way. In the private sector, a positive drug test will usually result in discharge–or significant discipline before a second positve results in discharge. This is largely true in workplaces with unions and without them. In the public sector, drug testing is more restrained because of constitutional limitations, but it’s done there as well–just a few more hoops for government employers to jump through. And courts across the country have sanctioned the use of drug testing in the workplace.
So what gives? Why the difference between the baseball workplace and other workplaces? I mean, for a long time, everyone has known that drugs have been widely used in baseball by some big time players to enhance their productivity. Why hasn’t baseball copied corporate America, introduced a tough drug testing program, and canned violators? Despite what’s being said now about this so-called scandal, nobody cared enough to do anything about it–not Bud Selig, not the owners, not the managers, not the players or their union, and not the fans. Why? It’s easy to say that money was the reason, but the fans weren’t making any money. Despite their alleged concern about the impact baseball drug use is having on kids who play the sport, fans were paying a lot of money to attend the games, making the sport more profitable than it’s ever been. So, I guess it was the money.
What does the “steroids era” in professional baseball mean? Maybe more than we want to admit right off the bat (no pun intended). There’s noise about the Mitchell report, but I don’t see outrage. There’s handwringing about its impact on potential hall of famers, but I don’t see shame. There’s pontificating about accountability, but I don’t see any. There’s talk about all the tainted money made during the sterioids era, but I don’t see anyone giving any of it back. Mitchell’s only concern seems to be that some of the players were cheating to improve their numbers, not that what they were doing was illegal. Indeed, he cautions against prosecuting the cheaters for their illegal activity.
Again, what does this mean–for all workplaces? Illegal drugs have become ok in certain circumstances. If injecting anabolic steroids, human growth hormones, or some drug yet to be invented will increase profitability or if smoking marijuana or snorting cocaine will make employees more productive (as some employees have always argued), then, well, gosh. We must stay competitive with the Chinese, who do have, after all, a plentiful supply of their juiced teas to give them an edge.
Notice I’m not talking about heroine or LSD or meth or crack cocaine. Not the bad drugs. I’m talking about the good drugs. Drugs that improve productivity and profits, not through their direct sale but through their enhancement of abilities. If certain baseball players can extend their careers while hitting 70+ home runs or throwing heaters clocked at 90+ mph, I’m thinking there are CEO’s, mid-level managers, frontline superviosrs and shop floor employees who can kick it into a much higher gear.
In another decade, will baseball have gotten tough with drugs and drug testing, or will American business have gone soft? Will drug testing even be an employment law subject? Will drug testing policies have gone the way of dress codes requiring a coat and tie? Will Buffett and Gates call Mitchell out of retirement to make another report on what everyone already knows?
I’ll confess there’s some hyperbole in this post but not nearly as much as in the Mitchell report. There’s a pretty good chance that the steroids era in the baseball workplace isn’t over at all, and there’s a pretty good chance it’s just beginning in other workplaces. The Mitchell report may mark a sadder day than we thought.