Business Ethics - The Choise of Employees to Wear the Protective Clothing - Essay Example

Business Ethics XXXX XXXXX Number: XXXXXXXX of XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX Date of Submission: XX – XX – 2009 Essay Question 1 How would you react to a CEOs statement that, on moral grounds, she had decided to let the workers in her chemical plant decide for themselves (1) whether or not to work overtime in the more dangerous parts of the enterprise and, separately, (2) whether or not to wear protective equipment? Explain and defend your positions on these two questions... Would your positions change if the worker were female and pregnant? Female and of childbearing years? Discuss thoroughly. Solution: Chemical industry is one of the most dangerous industries to work in, and can cause a number of issues which could lead to health problems both in the current period as well as future times. Hence considering the CEO’s statement, of giving the employees the liberty to choose whether or not they would like to wear the protective clothing are not ethical neither is it a right choice on moral grounds. There are numerous chemicals used on a daily basis and in some of the cases there is a high majority the use of the chemicals and the effects of the chemical in terms of immediate or even long term is not recognized. Being a CEO of a chemical company, it is essential and mandatory for them to consider the possible issues that will be faced by the employees in the company. Considering the two main questions of focus here: a) Whether Overtime is hazardous to health and the working environment: Based on the utilitarian theory and ethical concepts, it is seen that overtime is not very beneficial for any employee especially not in a chemicals industry (Blum, 1993). The effects of the chemicals are very high in the normal eight hours job basically. So leaving it for the employees to choose on whether or not to work for higher number of hours is not ethical. It is not even a choice based on the moral grounds and it is necessary that the CEO take up the responsibility to make sure that the employees have a fixed number of hours of work every week. Being a leader for an industry the CEO is expected to be aware of the damages that the chemicals can cause the employees in the time they are exposed to the chemicals, hence it is necessary that the CEO on humanitarian grounds at least ensures that the employees are not permitted to work for higher hours. Also it is the responsibility of the top management to bring in the rules and regulations in the company where the employees need to wear on the protective clothing during the shift hours and at all time while dealing with the chemicals. This should be the case not only for the harmful chemicals but for all chemicals irrespective of the degree of damage it could cause to the employee handling it (Blum, 1993). Although it has been clear from researches and studies that the amount of toxic that is emitted to the employees is poisonous and harmful at different levels. Hence when employees are allowed to work for longer hours, it is clear that the employees would be affected that much more with the chemicals. b) Whether or not to wear protective equipment: Considering deontology theory for this issue, it is seen that the importance of wearing protective clothing is very high in this job. As has also been discussed earlier the protective clothing can help reduce the harm of the chemicals by considerable amounts and can allow the safety of the employees to a greater extent. The use of protective clothing and limited number of hours is a very essential aspect of the job for this portfolio is essential. Although there are a number of employees who will be willing to work a few extra hours, it is ethical and very moral for the top management and the CEO of the company to take the time out and educate the employees of the affects of the extra hours and the dangers that they would be putting their body through each time (Blum, 1993). Considering these issues for women working in the organizations, it is seen that the chemicals have effects on not only the women but also on the men and their fertility. The risk of both the genders being faced with chances of lowered fertility is very high, however when considering a women it is essential that more care is taken. This is simply because various studies have shown that chemicals have an effect on the females at all levels, including, prior to conception, at conception, during pregnancy, on the newborn and on the child as well (ILO, 2009). The effects of the chemicals are adverse on all women during the child bearing age, i.e. 16-45 and hence it is essential that special measures are taken to ensure that the ladies are kept out of the area of direct contact to the maximum possible. This is mainly because the effects does not only cause issues for the ladies but also has a strong effect on the children as well. Thus it is for the benefit of the employees that the company requires to ensure that the ladies have a higher safety levels that need to be followed. These not only fall under the utilitarian and deontology theories but are also humanitarian actions that the company needs to undertake to ensure complete safety of the employees (Blum, 1993). Essay Question 2 For over two hundred years, white males have been the most powerful group in the United States. Through economic exclusions, enforced by laws and reinforced by deep cultural attitudes, there has existed, in effect, a preferential hiring program for white males. In light of that historical reality and the dynamics that remain in our culture, evaluate the contemporary strategy of affirmative action for minorities to bring about more fairness in hiring and promotion practices. Draw heavily from the assigned readings and then explain and defend your arguments concerning affirmative action and "reverse discrimination. In 1965, the orders of President Lyndon Johnson passed an executive order which required federal contractors to take affirmative action to ensure they were not discriminating among employees. Since then the US government has taken a number of steps to increase the inclusion and representation of women and other minorities in areas of employment, business, education etc. This has been developed in two paths, one being the legal path and the other path includes public debates. The contractors have been set down with time tables and goals to ensure that there were no racial or gender preferences in the selection processes (Fullinwider, 2005). Even if the minority class person and qualification would prove to be very beneficial for the and highly credential. Although there is no clear preference or help that is provided. In an attempt by George Sher to try and justify reverse discrimination is a clear proof: "The crucial fact about [white males who suffer reverse discrimination] is ... that unless reverse discrimination is practiced, they will benefit more than the others from its effects on their competitors. They will benefit more because unless they are restrained, they, but not the others, will use their competitive edge to claim jobs which their competitors would otherwise have gotten. Thus, it is only because they stand to gain the most from the role of the effects of the original discrimination, that the bypassed individuals stand to lose the most from reverse discrimination"(Beckwith & Jones, 1997). This highlights the preferential treatment that is present. Reverse discrimination refers to the fundamental where the majority is given importance. For instance, in gender discrimination the men generally fall into the category of reverse discrimination unlike the women who face discrimination. It refers to the importance that is given to the majority while discriminating a set of people. Reverse discrimination falls under Title VII or the 14th amendment of the US constitution and also under the equal protection clauses of the state constitutions these prohibit any sort of preferential treatment to any individual or group. The normal kinds of discrimination suits that occur are based mainly on race, gender or age (Gillian, 2003). With the amount of attention that has been provided to the white males in the society it has been noted that the attention that is given is very high. However in the current situations this has changed to a great extent and the question of whether the white male should be given preferential treatment over the better qualified candidates, in terms of the hiring and promotions practice is quite controversial. This is keeping in mind the utilitarian and deontological considerations. These considerations in general favor the affirmative action as a whole. Preferential treatment normally includes two major facts, forward looking which classifies under the utilitarian and the backward looking which categories under the deontological types (Beckwith, & Jones, 1997). In utilitarian argument, there is a strong ad vocation for preferential treatments. It seeks to highlight the benefits that are likely to be gained when a few of the jobs are provided to minorities on the preferential basis. This however gets more complicated when there is an urge by the fact that people differ over what constitutes relevant and appropriate benefits. In common utilitarian argument, there is generally a strongly favor for the preferential hiring. These claims that include things like a) break down stereotype; b) this allows the minority people to be role models for the other groups of minority people, c) Also provides for better service to the minority clients more effectively, d) this also leads to a reduction of being excluded in the minds of the minority groups, in terms of the jobs in desirable positions. Also in the affirmative action literature, it is clear that the utilitarian arguments are equal and opposite counter arguments. It has been noted by Michel Rosenfeld, a professor of human rights, that: "One of the principal drawbacks of the pure utilitarian argument in favor of race- and gender-based affirmative action is that it seems to justify the use of race or gender for purposes of excluding blacks or women. Indeed, if, for example, whites are so hostile to blacks that hiring the latter would generate such tension and discontent on the job as to lead to a net decrease in efficiency, it would seem perfectly justified under the pure utilitarian position to refuse to hire blacks on account of their race"(Roseland, 1993). While on the other hand famous author Richard Wasserstrom argues that while importance is laid on taking qualifications into account to gain good consequences, so is the affirmative action which is justifiable on similar grounds. This however does not include the discrimination of candidates based on their qualifications versus the distinguishing factors which are relevant to the final goal. Hence it is essential that the white males are not given any extra preference based on their background of being white but is more important that the qualifications are looked into. References Beckwith, F. J., & Jones, T.E., 1997, ‘Affirmative Action: Social Justice or Reverse Discrimination?’, September 1997, Prometheus Books Blum, A.A., 1993, Towards industrial democracy, Contemporary Review v263.n1532 (Sept 1993): pp120(7). Fullinwider, R., 2005, ‘Affirmative Action’, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 4 march 2005, Accessed on 30 July 2009, Retrieved from Gillian, F., 2003, ‘The reverse discrimination Trap’, Workforce, Jun 2003, Vol. 82, Issue 6, p 106 http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/entries/affirmative-action/ ILO, 2009, Your health and safety at work, Male and female reproductive health hazards in the workplace, Accessed on 23rd July 2009, Retrieved from http://actrav.itcilo.org/actrav-english/telearn/osh/rep/prod.htm Rosenfeld, M., 1993, ‘Affirmative Action and Justice’, p. 99, 27th January 1993, Yale University press Read More