Ethics and Corporate Responsibility in the Workplace - Essay Example

Ethics and Corporate Responsibility in the Workplace Grade (Feb.1st, Ethics and Corporate Responsibility in the Workplace 1. All the stakeholders in this scenario PharmaCARE Company WellCo CompCARE- a compounding pharmacy operating as a wholly-owned subsidiary of PharmaCARE PharmaCARE and CompCARE management PhRMA board Colberians Consumers/ Medicare, Medicaid, and VA patients CompCARE employees Hospitals, clinics, and physician offices 2. Analysis of the ethics of PharmaCARE’s treatment of the Colberia’s indigenous population and its rank-and-file workers versus that of its executives The PharmaCARE’s treatment of the Colberia’s indigenous population and its rank-and-file workers is unethical, compared to the treatment of its executives. This is because; it is the moral obligation and duty of PharmaCARE to ensure that the Colberia’s indigenous population, as well as its rank-and-file workers are treated in a humane and more decent living and working conditions, which are similar to those of the company’s executives. The rules of workplace ethics requires that the management or the employer should refrain from subjecting employees and subjects to unpleasant working conditions (Anstead, 1999). This is because, the subjection of employees to unpleasant working conditions serves to lower their morale, while at the same time exposing them to dangers, hazards and risks associated with the workplace, which in turn lowers the productivity of the workers, due to injuries, illnesses and intolerable working conditions. The Colberia’s indigenous population is subjected to intolerable working conditions, where the natives have to walk five (5) miles into and out of the jungle to harvest plants that are used in the manufacturing of the drugs by the CompCARE pharmacy, often carrying baskets that weigh up to fifty (50) pounds, when full, yet the indigenous workers are only paid $1 a day. The subjection of the indigenous population to such harsh working conditions, while still paying them the meager pay is unethical on the part of PharmaCARE. Further, the living conditions of the Colberia’s indigenous population is pathetic, while compared to the living standards of the PharmaCARE executives, with the natives living in primitive huts that have neither running water nor electricity. In contrast, the company’s executives live in a luxury compound that has luxurious facilities such as golf course, swimming pool and tennis courts. Similarly, the company’s rank-and-file workers are subjected to hazardous working conditions, where they are exposed to toxins and other pollutants that have affected their health drastically, causing most of them to fall ill and thus lose most of their productive working time to sick leaves. Further, the company has failed to take responsibility over the illness of the workers,and is instead threatening to sack the workers who have raised concern over the non-conducive working conditions they are exposed to. Thus, the PharmaCARE’s treatment of the Colberia’s indigenous population and its rank-and-file workers versus that of its executives is inequitable, discriminative and morally wrong, rendering the actions of the company towards the Colberians and the employees unethical. 3. Determine whether Allen could legally fire each of the three (3) workers—Donna, Tom, and Ayesha The law provides for the rules and procedures to be adopted when firing employees, with the exception of the termination of employment under the ‘Employment at Will Policy’, which allows the employer to terminate the employment for any reason, or without any reason (Deakin& Gillian, 2005). In addition, the employment laws provides that an employer cannot terminate the employment of a worker, based on discrimination, whistle blowing or the exercise of the legal rights of the employee. Thus, based on the above provisions of the law, it is apparent that Allen could not legally fire Ayesha, considering that Ayesha had filed a complaint before the EEOC on the grounds that she had been denied promotion to a supervisory position, because she was a Muslim. The termination of Ayesha’s employment would amount to an illegality, since it would amount to discrimination, considering that the employment laws have prohibited an employer from terminating a worker’s employment, based on gender, age, race, disability or religion (Anstead, 1999). Further, Allen could not legally fire Donna, considering that she had filed for worker’s compensation, after suffering from chronic bronchial problems, which had arisen as a result of the poor and hazardous working conditions that the company had exposed its employees to. The provisions of the employment laws have prohibited an employer from terminating a worker’s employment based on the worker exercising his/her legal rights (Deakin& Gillian, 2005). In addition, the law requires that an employee has a right to claim worker’s compensation, under circumstances where the employee has suffered adverse health based on the poor working conditions at the workplace. Therefore, Allen’s termination of Donna’s employment would amount to an illegality, since it would amount to termination of an employment on the basis of exercising a legal right. Similarly, Allen could not legally fire Tom. This is because; the law has prohibited employers from terminating the employment of their workers, based on whistle blowing by the employees Deakin& Gillian, 2005). In this case, Tom had threatened to whistle blow, through complaining to OSHA regarding the air quality in the lab where he was working being unfavorable. The employment laws has provided that an employer cannot fire an employee because of complaining about any illegal activity within the workplace or the organization, which may include health and safety violations (Kohn, 2000). Therefore, the termination of Tom’s employment would amount to an illegality, under this provision of the employment laws. 4. The whistle blowing opportunities, obligations, and protections that could benefit Allen Opportunities Allen has a whistle blowing opportunity to expose the violation of employee safety and health measures by PharmaCARE and CompCARE companies, which have in turn affected the health of the companies’ workers adversely. Secondly, Allen has a whistle blowing opportunity to disclose the illegality committed by PharmaCARE and CompCARE, involving the manufacture of defective AD23 drugs, which have in turn caused over 200 cardiac deaths. Protections Allen enjoys whistle blowing protections as provided under the first amendment of the constitution, which guarantees any individual the freedom of expression, which includes the freedom to give opinions and raise alarm regarding an illegality or legal violations on public issues or the duties that an individual is assigned (Kohn, 2000). Under this provision of the law, Allen is protected against any action that the employer may take, in case of expression of opinion or complaint regarding the working conditions of the employees within the company, which is a matter of personal and also public interest. In addition, Allen enjoys the protection of the laws of employment, which provides that all employees have a right to dignified, humane and reasonable conditions of working, which enables unhindered execution of job responsibilities, while also providing opportunities for job enrichment and career development (Deakin& Gillian, 2005). Under this legal provision, Allen is protected against any retaliatory action by the employer, on the event that he expresses his concern over the lack of humane and dignified working conditions within the pharmacy. Obligations It is the obligation of any supervisor to make the necessary disclosures regarding the violation of safety and health measures within the organization, failure to which the supervisor is liable to a legal action, including termination of his/her employment (Kohn, 2000). Therefore, Allen has the obligation to disclose and air concern over the lack of the necessary public safety and health measures within the pharmacy, which has in turn endangered the lives and health of the workers. Secondly, any supervisor within an organization is under the obligation to disclose an illegality, including fraud, waste of public resources, or the endangering of public health (Kohn, 2000). Therefore, Allen has the obligation to disclose the illegality of the CompCARE pharmacy to manufacture and sell of AD23 drugs which have caused over 200 cardiac deaths. Benefits Through taking advantage of the existing whistle blowing opportunities, obligations and protections, Allen would benefit from avoiding a possible legal action being taken against him, since the law provides that a legal action can be taken against a supervisor who fails to honor the obligation of disclosing any illegality or the violation of public health and safety measures by an organization (Kohn, 2000). Further, Allen would benefit from protection against job loss, which is a disadvantage suffered by a supervisor who fails to disclose the illegalities performed within his/her organization. 5. Assessing PharmaCARE’s environmental initiative against the backdrop of its anti-environmental lobbying efforts and Colberian activities The purported environmental stewardship offered by PharmaCARE’s environmental initiative is worse. This is because, while the company purports to be a leader in environmental matters, it has launched anti-environmental lobbying that has adversely affected the environment especially in Colberia, eventually endangering the indigenous species in the country, which the company has extensively exploited and applied to manufacture drugs. 6. Analyze the original purposes of and the changes to Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) The CERCLA was originally intended to establish a tax fund that would enable the federal authority to respond to releases of hazardous wastes by chemical and petroleum industries, which would endanger the public health, though initiating both short-term and long-term cleanup exercises to avert any health and intoxication hazards to the public (EPA, 2011). The subsequent changes to this Act, through (SARA) has served to introduce complex experiences involved in the waste cleanup exercises through introducing innovative treatment technologies, increasing the size of the trust fund and increasing the public participation on making decisions, regarding how sites should be cleaned up (EPA, 2011). The (CERCLA) provision applicable to the PharmaCARE’s scenario is the “provision for liability of the persons involved in releasing hazardous wastes in their sites” (EPA, 2011). This provision is applicable to the scenario because; it establishes responsibility for the company to be liable to adverse effects caused both to the environment and to the public, thus imposing on PharmaCARE, the obligation to minimize hazardous waste release. References Anstead, S. (July 6, 1999). Law versus Ethics in Management. University of Maryland University College. Deakin, S. & Gillian, M. (2005). Labor Law. Hart Publishing. Kohn, M. (2000). Concepts and Procedures in Whistleblower Law. Quorum Books. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (December 12, 2011). Superfund: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) overview. Retrieved January 1st, 2014. From http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/cercla.htm Read More