Mob:
+919741410271
BUSINESS
ETHICS
CASE -1
Joan, an employee of Great
American Market, was warned about her excessive absenteeism several times, both
verbally and in writing. The written warning included notice that "further
violations will result in disciplinary actions," including suspension or
discharge.
A short time after the
written warning was issued, Joan called work to say she was not going to be in
because her babysitter had called in sick and she had to stay home and care for
her young child. Joan's supervisor, Sylvia, told her that she had already
exceeded the allowed number of absences and warned that if she did not report
to work, she could be suspended. When Joan did not report for her shift, Sylvia
suspended her for fifteen days.
In
a subsequent hearing, Joan argued that it was not her fault that the babysitter
had canceled, and protested that she had no other choice but to stay home.
Sylvia pointed out that Joan had not made a good faith effort to find an
alternate babysitter, nor had she tried to swap shifts with a co-worker.
Furthermore, Sylvia said that the lack of a babysitter was not a justifiable
excuse for being absent.
Questions:
1.
Was
the suspension fair?
2.
Did
Joan act responsibly?
3. Should
she be fired?
CASE-2
You own a cement company,
and deal with most the local contractors for cement, sand, etc. You have a
reputation of high quality products, and for good customer service with your
customers. Your foreman has just run the standard quality control tests you have
performed regularly on your products. When the test results are ready, you
discover that the new batch of product is 9% less durable than your usual
material. It is still well above all industry standards and meets all building
codes and requirements for the purposes for which it is intended, but it is,
nevertheless, not up to your usual standards. Throwing it away would cost your
company many thousands of dollars.
You decide to sell
the cement anyway.
Questions:
1)
Should
you tell your customers?
2)
Should
you discount the price?
3)
Should
you tell your employees, so they will be knowledgeable with the customers?
4)
Would
you use this cement on foundations for your own house?
CONTACT: PRAKASH
Mob:
+919741410271
Fred, a 17-year employee with Sam's Sauna, was fired for
poor job performance and poor attendance, after accruing five disciplinary
penalties within a 12-month period under the company's progressive disciplinary
policy. A week later, Fred told his former supervisor that he had a substance
abuse problem.
Although
there was no employee assistance program in place and the company had not been
aware of Fred's condition, their personnel director assisted Fred in obtaining
treatment by allowing him to continue receiving insurance benefits and approved
his unemployment insurance claim.
Fred
subsequently requested reinstatement, maintaining that he had been rehabilitated
since his discharge and was fully capable of being a productive employee. He
pointed to a letter written by his treatment counselor, which said that his
prognosis for leading a "clean, sober lifestyle" was a big incentive
for him. Fred pleaded for another chance, arguing that his past problems
resulted from drug addiction and that Sam's Saunas should have recognized and
provided treatment for the problem.
Sam's Saunas countered that
Fred should have notified his supervisor of his drug problem, and that
everything possible had been done to help him receive treatment. Moreover, the
company stressed that the employee had been fired for poor performance and
absenteeism. Use of the progressive discipline policy had been necessary
because the employee had committed a string of offenses over the course of a
year, including careless workmanship, distracting others, wasting time, and
disregarding safety rules.
Questions:
1)
Should
Fred be reinstated?
2) Was
the company fair to Fred in helping him receive treatment?
3)
Did
the personnel director behave ethically toward Fred?
4) Did
he act ethically for his company?
5)
Would
it be fair to other employees to reinstate Fred?
CASE-4
In
January of last year, the S.S. Vulgass, an oil tanker of the Big Dirty Oil Company
ran around in the area just north of Vancouver, spilling millions of gallons of
crude into the waters and onto the beaches of British Columbia and southern
Alaska. The damage to the beaches and wildlife and consequently to the tourist
industry, the ecology and the quality of life of the local residents is
incalculable, but in any case will require many millions of dollars for even
the most minimal clean-up.
The ship struck a small
atoll, well-marked on the navigational maps, but it was a dark night and the
boat was well off course. On further investigation, it was discovered that the
Captain of the Vulgass, Mr. Slosh, had been drinking heavily. Leaving the
navigation of the ship to his first mate, Mr. Mudd, he retired to his cabin, to
"sleep it off." Mr. Mudd had never taken charge of the ship before,
and it is now clear that he misread the maps, misjudged the waters, maintained
a speed that was inappropriate and the accident occurred. Subsequent inquiries
showed that Captain Slosh had been arrested on two drunk driving convictions
within months of the accident. The Vulgass itself, a double-hulled tanker, was
long due for renovation and, it was suggested, would not have cracked up if the
hull had been trebly reinforced, as some current tankers were.
R. U. Rich, the Chief
Executive Officer of Big Dirty Oil declared the accident a "tragedy"
and offered two million dollars to aid in the clean up. The Premier of British
Columbia was outraged. Environmental groups began a consumer campaign against
Big Dirty Oil, urging customers to cut up and send in their Big Dirty Oil
credit cards in protest. In a meeting to the shareholders just last month, CEO
Rich proudly announced the largest quarterly profit in the history of the Big
Dirty Oil Company. He dismissed the protests as "the outpourings of
Greenies and other fanatics" and assured the shareholders that his
obligation was, and would always be, to assure the highest profits possible in
the turmoil of today's market.
Questions:
1)
The
question is, who is responsible? Who is responsible for the tragedy &
Why?
2) Against
whom should criminal charges be leveled?
3)
What
should be done, if anything, to punish the corporation itself?
4) What
about the CEO?
In your opinion,
what should have been the decision of CEO?
No comments:
Post a Comment