Memorandum
To:
Monique Logan
From:
Group 4 TCOM 2010
Subject:
Assignment 4 Collaborative
Date:
15 September 2010
The purpose
of this memo is to inform the company whether it is ethical or unethical to vote
“no” on the president’s idea, based on the four ethical standards.
Summary
These ethical standards
include rights, justice, utility, and care.
Rights concerns Karen’s individual needs and welfare.
Justice concerns how the costs and
benefits of an action are distributed amongst a group.
This directly affects Karen in the president’s idea of an unpaid leave.
Likewise, utility includes the positive and negative effects an action or
decision will have or might have on others.
Finally, care concerns the relationship we have with other individuals
and how their feelings are taken into consideration.
Discussion
Karen’s rights are being
overlooked in the president’s idea for five days of unpaid leave.
Although rights usually deal with dilemmas such as working conditions and
a safe workplace, it may also include smaller issues such as contract problems.
Her contract does not mention anything about unpaid leave.
From the corporate point of view, Karen wanting to have a vote on the
president’s idea may look like a more of a personal desire than a right.
However, when a person is being forced to take five days of unpaid leave
without notice that such an action could take place in their contract, it is
unethical.
I believe that would be
unfair to have everyone take five days of unpaid work. From a personal level I
believe Karen should not have to be forced to take five days of work with no
income. It would be just to cut the one person who is putting the company in a
tight money situation. I don’t believe it’s fair for everyone else to be forced
to take unpaid work time due to one employee.
However, based on the ethics
standard of justice it would be unethical to vote "no” in this situation. The
standard of justice is described as being the good for the whole group of
people. Being just would mean everyone should make pay cuts to effect the
greater good of the company. Even the president reducing his salary is a
statement of justice because, not just his employees but himself is making
changes to keep that one person employed. Everyone’s pay across the board is
decreasing making the choice ethically just.
Next, utility is another
principle of ethics outlined by Manuel G. Velasques (2006). I believe that Karen
should vote “no” to fight for a better ethical outcome. There are several
negative effects that will produce when employees are laid-off. The company can
cut back on labor costs but they also reduce production and sales. Utility is an
ethical issue to help resolve this conflict. Voting “no” would be in the best
interests for Karen’s company.
Now, Karen’s company is in
an ethical dilemma and needs to lay-off somebody. Time is running out so the
decision is ruled by a unanimous vote. The company is only concerned about the
money they will save, but they need to consider that economic impact it will
have on the community and the financial hardship of the laid-off workers.
However, if an employee is good at what they do and gets laid-off then
production and quality will go down. When sales are at a low then companies fire
employees and when sales are high they hire employees. This is known as ethical
utility. The best interest for Karen’s company would be to make budget cuts
somewhere other than laid-off workers. A better way to build ethical utility not
mentioned by M. G. Velasques would be to have a strong team and stick with them.
Whenever sales are low then make some cuts in paid salary, and when sales are
high the team deserves raises.
Although, Karen is one of
the only people to not be supporting the president’s idea, she is not in the
wrong. Every employee has a right to his or hers opinions and to express those
opinions. The best way to express an opinion is voting. The vote is anonymous
and she would have the chance to make an impact. This relates very closely to
the term Ethics. Ethics is the study of the principles of conduct that apply to
an individual or a group. Manual G. Velasquez, an ethicist, outlined four moral
standards that are useful when dealing with ethics. Care is particular standard
which concerns with the relationships we have with other individuals. The closer
a person is to us, the more care we owe that person. Therefore, we have greater
obligations to members of our family than we do to others in our community.
This standard is a perfect
example of why Karen needs to stand up to the president about taking five unpaid
days leave. Of course there is the possibility of someone getting laid off, and
that person could possibly be Karen. However, she is working a job so she can
make ends meet for herself and her living conditions. That is more important
than anything could possibly be within her community, and her workforce. Karen
is looking out for herself and that is more important than caring for her
co-workers. At this point her co-workers are her enemies, because they all fight
for the chance of staying and not getting laid off.
It would be ethical to vote
no on the president’s idea. In fact, it would be unethical not to vote at all on
the subject. She needs to express her opinions and according to the “Ethical
Moral Standard”, care, she needs to look out for herself and her family’s
own necessities before others.
Recommendation
Manuel G. Velasques did
outline four major standards for ethical dilemmas. However, the outline of
rights, justice, utility and care do not guarantee a companies’ positive
production. In Karen’s dilemma she needs to discuss where budget cuts could be
made to prevent the five days of unpaid leave. I believe Karen can not vote
“yes” on the president’s decision because of her financial situation. Ethically
she is speaking her voice to improve the company and her career.
I believe that Karen should vote her
choice “no” and suggest rebuilding the company’s utility.