- Post your Case Analysis here by Sat 6 Dec.
- Blood for Sale (Case 15.1 p. 679) by Tan Soup
- Cocaine at the Fortune-500 Level (Case 15.2, p. 681) by ABA
- Right to Work (Case 15.3, p. 682) by MoM
- Nike's Suppliers in Vietnam (Case 5.8, p. 243) by Team Success
- By Mon 8 Dec. read the other Case Analyses and then each student individually will choose one to discuss online. Your original post should be 100+/- words. Summarize the problem/issue in this topic: what is the problem? What are the various issues? What is at stake?
- Each student individually will followup by Weds 10 Dec with at least two subsequent responses that reflect substantive engagement in the discussion. 300+/- words. Some avenues to consider in your entries: Do you agree with the study group’s main ethical issue? Their analysis of the situation? Their alternative solution? Their application of our theories? You may focus your comments on the problem/situation in general or on particular points/aspects of the case. Be sure to include references to/application of/even offenses or violations of the various theories we are considering (ethical/economic/rights /justice/environmental). In all instances, at minimum be professional while striving to be scholarly.
Locate the various authors read for this session. Here your discussion should identify where the authors fit – are they for/against? Does an author offer an alternative or merely criticize another’s viewpoint? Is the author offering a persuasive argument or merely an informational paper on the question at hand?
What, in your opinion, is an informed position or resolution to this problem? i.e., from your assessment of the various positions argued by the professional authors read on this topic, does any one of them have a good solution/resolution, or, from working with topic, do you see what may be a better alternative?
*** this assignment plus your in-class case presentation constitutes your Group Work, 20% of your course grade ***
ABA Case Study – Dope Boy Magic
ReplyDeleteCase Resolution Model – Cocaine at the Fortune -500 Level 15.2
Stage I: What is the situation?
Roberto, a libertarian, philosophy professor, and a frequent user of cocaine, has the opportunity to enter into the highly lucrative cocaine distribution network. Roberto is bored with his teaching career, and he is looking for new opportunities. He has established a cocaine connection through old friends in Peru with intentions to sell in the wealthy, Los Angeles market. He has done his market research, and he realizes that cocaine is a 35 billion dollar a year industry. While he recognizes there are health and safety issues with cocaine use and distribution, he has never been exposed to them first hand. Roberto believes that his Peruvian connection is honorable, and that his clientele will not abuse the drug or resell it to others that might be negatively affected. Roberto likes the trade because it is mostly free from government regulation, and this is directly in line with his libertarian views.
Stage 2: What is the moral problem?
There are quite a few moral issues in this situation. Cocaine is a big business, but it happens to be a highly illegal business. The cartels that produce cocaine rule through fear and violence. Many of the manufacturing employees are exploited, and often being used as slave labor. They have no voice or rights. Their situation is comparable to sweatshop workers in the textile industry. Cocaine use also poses serious health problems that can lead to addiction and/or death. Roberto rationalizes that he will not be part of this problem because he will only deal with high end clients. His rationalizations also leads him to the conclusion that he will not be brought into the violence of the illegal trade. He believes that he is immune from the fallout of street thugs, violent cartels, and addiction.
Stage 3: Conclusion
Roberto rationalizes and justifies his desire to become a cocaine distributor/dealer. It fits his lifestyle and political views, so he feels confident that this decision will lead him to great wealth and social acceptance.
Kant would not agree with this because the effects on others are not being considered. In addition, the unethical work environment created to produce the cocaine would violate the Golden Rule.
Utilitarianism would also find fault with Roberto’s actions and reasoning. While cocaine may provide pleasure for some, we have to believe that it does harm to more than it helps.
Consequentialism or ethic egoism theories would agree with Roberto going ahead with his plans to be a high end dope boy. Pleasure would be maximized for Roberto (individual maximization), and it would not matter how it affected others.
It defiantly seems like Roberto is looking at this from a place of wanted ignorance. He sees the problems with the industry but is saying that he is not like that and that his little business will be different. I like your analysis of this case and the break down into different views on the situation.
DeleteABA Case Study – Dope Boy Magic – Case Resolution Model – Cocaine at the Fortune 500 Level 15.2
DeleteThere are clear criminal, moral and ethical violations discussed in this case. As ABA has pointed out, the moral problem goes deeper than the production, trafficking/distribution of the drug. It is a human rights violation to the slave labor, where they are forced to work in horrid conditions with fear for their lives and those of their family members. Roberto has no concern for anyone other than himself and how he can continue the operation fueled by money, power, drugs and greed for more.
In review of the ethical theories and the conclusion, I generally agree with the position of ABA.
Kant’s ethical theory says to treat a person as a means or as an end. If both parties were not a means to the end, then it would not align with this theory; if he were to deceive the workers in a criminal activity based on deception, then the other party could not “agree or consent”.
Utilitarianism is based on the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people. The actions and product of illegal drugs, manufacturing and trafficking do not promote the greatest good for the greatest number resulting in the greatest benefit. One may argue that it does produce jobs, opportunity and revenue – albeit illegal.
However, the consequentialism ethical theory points to this as a “wrong” behavior that will result in “wrong” consequences.
I do find it interesting that on NPR news this morning, I heard that the State of Kentucky is seeking farmers to volunteer to grow experimental HEMP in a variety of “plants”. The third world countries, such as those mentioned in this case, are concerned that the United States and/or certain states that have or are considering the legalization of marijuana will undermine their businesses, forcing them out of business. It seems they have more concern for this than they had for Border Control, Drug Enforcement and Sanctions. It makes a person wonder about many different things, i.e., morals of our people, integrity, and laws.
Case Study 15.2 Cocaine at the Fortune -500 Level
DeleteRoberto is just looking to "score" for profits, this highly intelligent man know the dangers of doing business with the drug Cartel. He is tired of working at the university and want to have the freedom to work at his own leisure. He claim that he uses cocaine for recreation (which is still illegal). Roberto is no different from the common "thug" that stand out on the corner and sell drugs..It is all about money, power, profits and material things. He sound just like the other "scare faces" of the world believing it will not happen to them by falling in the trap of corruptions. Moral "don't get high off your own supply" and how long did he project himself being in the business? Since he did his research on other avenues of this industry? So smart but yet so Stupid!
Utilitarianism--doesn't apply here--his intentions is to sell cocaine, make money and occasionally use for recreation purposes.
Kant theory- doesn't apply- not only is it ILLEGAL but it is morally wrong on all levels, where is the good in this? Treat others they way you want to be treated--sell cocaine, crack, weed and all of the other drugs to people and don't think you are helping harm themselves and others.
Alcohol is an addiction and so is the use of these other recreational drugs out there..So why not make them all legal so everyone can profit from it like they are doing on Colorado with the marijuana they is a "booming" business and the government has their hands and that--Why not open it up to other illegal substances. This is truly sarcasm on my part--but it is so true.
Case Resolution Model – Cocaine at the Fortune -500 Level 15.2
DeleteI read these cases and chuckle. This is an educated man trying to convince himself through 'numbers" and "spreadsheets" that it is okay to illegally buy and sell cocaine. Roberto is bored with teaching so he decides to sell cocaine....makes sense?! He is trying to justify his actions by showing himself the value of providing this business to people. We need to sit him down and tell him to ask himself three questions: Am I doing the right thing? Am I doing it the right way? Am I doing it for the right reason? NO. NO. NO.
When I reflect on Kant's second formulation regarding humanity and doing things for the greater good of humanity, obviously Roberto would be very disappointing to Kant. Kant's theory is about good will, not one part of Roberto's decision is out of good will. He is focused on himself, he is not trying to help anyone by providing them cocaine. It would be one thing if his research proved that cocaine helped cure cancer. But, at this point it does not, so sorry Roberto, you are in it for the money.
I agree with ABA on their viewpoint with Utilitarianism and that it would also find fault with Roberto’s actions and reasoning. While cocaine may provide pleasure for some, it provides more harm than help.
I love your comment on Consequentialism. Very true. Very sad. Luckily they are just theories and hopefully would not be recommended.
Unfortunately, we are seeing this every day with the epidemic of heroin. Highly educated people are seeing that they can make more money selling illegal drugs and not working nearly as hard as if they were back at the office. YIKES! What is this world turning to? Just today there was a raid where 39 people were arrested and 113 different counts charged. Again, just like anyone that is in business the ultimate goal is to be successful and make a profit. What is it going to take so that people do not fall into this trap? My kids can not even go to the park any more without coming across a needle. This infuriates me.
Deletehttp://www.fox19.com/story/27587588/union-township-police-arrest-39-people-in-drug-bust
Maura – I do agree with you on that it is not the right decision, if he sells the cocaine it is not the right decision and definitely not for the right reason. He confesses that he knows that it is illegal but believes he can make a lot of money in the wealthy LA area. I guess money really does speak, in this case! I am not sure that anyone could convenience Roberto that selling the cocaine is ethical, moral or that it uses common sense. He definitely only has one thing in mind and that is wealth. He definitely is not thinking of the well-being of who he would be selling to. Maybe he is really only maximizing the good for himself. I sit here and think about this entire situation. He is only maximizing his outcomes until he gets caught by the law! So in the long run no one has benefited from this.
Roberto is an idiot. His anti-government libertarian ass is going to wind up swimming with the fishes!
ReplyDeleteThe Case – Blood for Sale
ReplyDeleteSol Levin, a stockbroker from Florida recognizes the potential market for safe uncontaminated blood, and founded “Plasma International”. The business has difficulty getting enough donors, and starts to buy blood form people addicted to wine. The market then begins to increase and sales increase. However, some recipients reported they now had hepatitis. Plasma International needed a new source of blood. A West-African tribe was found to have the ideal blood that was needed for donations. It was later revealed that Plasma International was buying blood for 15 cents per pint, and then reselling it in the US for 25 dollars per pint.
A Utilitarian would say that most people would be helped and not harmed. The Africans were paid and people received the desperately needed blood. By receiving the blood more people would live vs. the few cases of reported hepatitis.
Kant would say that the Golden Rule would be those receiving blood should be receiving safe uncontaminated blood and those who have hepatitis should tell the truth before donating the blood.
Another issue is that they are only paying 15 cents per pint and in reality the price they are paying should be closer to the 25 cents in which they are selling the blood for.
oops 25 dollars not 25 cents
DeleteThe study of this course....Ethics....determining the difference between right and wrong...need I say more?
DeleteRight on Maura! Also, does it turn back to individual morals? Someone may think that it is ok but others think it is completely wrong! Utilitarian vs. Kant.
DeleteMy initial thought was how often does this happen? I believe Melissa Brown posted below about Hoxworth. They receive donated blood and then turn around and sell it to hospitals. Is this ethical? It is a non-profit organization. Does this make it any better? I am not sure! The issue that really made me stop and think about the case. Was the amount he was receiving the blood and then turning around and selling it for almost 165% more than what he was purchasing it for. INCREDIBLE!
I guess another thought was why did he go to another country that is exposed to highly contagious diseases. AT this point should the government intervene and provide guidelines and regulations for unethical business owners. I believe the most common sense would be to at least make sure the blood is not infected with other diseases/sicknesses. I tried to research Hoxworth and could not really find what type of guidelines they have to follow. However, I did find that Hoxworth is a non-profit organization. Does this make it any more ethical then what Sol Levin is doing. I would be interested to know what Hoxworth sells their donated blood for. Let me know if you find it.
Case Study 15.1 Blood for Sale
ReplyDeleteFrom the Utilitarian view---the principle of utility--Sol Levin appeared to be helping his fellow citizens here in the United Stated by supplying Florida with abundant amount of blood. He was also paying the people from West Africa for contributing their blood for our needs. Later reports of people contracting hepatitis from Florida International due to the media investigations on the whereabouts of the companies blood contributors.
Kant theory --- non consequentialism it is our duty to do what we can as citizens to help our fellow man, women, child by all means necessary. Lying is always wrong, so if when people are being screen to donate be truthful on the questionnaires and maybe they would not had so many cases of the hepatitis outbreak.
Is this morally wrong to sale blood? I can't say yes or no because it is simply a person choice to donate ---Here Hoxworth Blood Centers claims that they do pay for blood it is strictly on a voluntary bases...I know personally they charge hospitals for blood per unit, therefore the centers are profiting. So how is that any different the Sol Levin case--everybody won: Sol Levin got rich, the medical facilities got the blood supplies that was needed: and the West Africans got money for donating.
Cade Study 15.3 Right to Work
ReplyDeleteMegan McArdle talks about the world of auto-workers and their unions and the bail-outs. She feel as if they should learn a new trade and stop bailing the auto industry as a whole and use the money for job training programs.
From a Utilitarian point the unions are there to protect the workers and the auto industry for a reason, it is true manual labor, long hours standing on the feet in an assembly line doing repetitive work can take a toll on these individuals.
Kant theory --- Because these workers are in a very competitive industry they have a high demand for producing cars and car parts. They should be compensated. Many people have made these types of jobs the only way to provide for their families. They all come from different types of background with the common goal live a middle class lifestyle and their unions should do everything they can to accommodate them.
It is not just the automaker fault that the economy went under, it's society as a whole. Nothing is built to last and we as a society is so focused on profits instead of the quality of the products, this is what keeps the economy down. Stop making "mass production" and go back to taking pride in the craft (quality) might help revive the economy.
Some auto companies have downsizing and shipped their production to off shore countries for cheaper production cost. Many people have lost the only job (skills) they knew this will have a negative outcome for the entire community. Some people may not be in a situation to pack their families and relocate or have the resources of starting over--when this is the only life they know. What about the mom and pop businesses that built their establishment because of the auto industry located in the area. It doesn't just affect the auto unions and workers. It's has effected the economy.
Tan Soup Case Resolution Model – “Blood for Sale” - PART ONE
ReplyDeleteA United States stockbroker decided that there was a market for safe and uncontaminated blood, so he started a for-profit company named Plasma International to buy and sell blood. The first issue the company had was that it was purchasing a bodily fluid and selling it for a profit. Second, it bought blood from people who were addicted to wine, and several cases of hepatitis were discovered in the recipients. Third, it chose to make an agreement with West African tribes to buy their blood for “pennies on the dollar.” A newspaper picked up the story and alleged the company had purchased blood at $0.15 a pint sold it at a 167% profit.
The first issue has to do with the selling human fluids and tissue. While there is usually an incentive to donate blood, it can be a dangerously slippery slope to capitalize off your body. People are able to donate other non-vital fluids and tissue for profit, however, where does it end? Do we allow people to sell their marrow, kidneys, lungs, etc.? The second moral issue is the lack of due diligence by the company in its failure to keep its recipients safe from further medical harm by prescreening it for blood borne illnesses. Further, the company used the blood of people with an addiction. This could be considered exploiting addiction, as the addicts could have been giving blood to simply feed their addiction. The moral issues only continued from there when the company exploited the poor African tribes for pennies on the dollar, while selling at an extremely high profit.
Is it ever acceptable to buy and sell bodily fluids or tissue? Where does it end? Is it ever acceptable to exploit people, much less people who have little to no other alternatives (think sweatshops)? Is it reasonable to profit from this type of commodity? Is there not a responsibility on the part of the company to protect its client’s welfare by having procedures in place to test the blood to make sure it is clean?
The medical (and in turn legal) ramifications of these transactions are astronomical. Not only did the company not check its blood properly when it was purchasing it from people within the United States, it then decided to purchase blood from a country known for its abundance of blood borne pathogens such as HIV, AIDs, Ebola, and malaria. If the company does not have the proper testing procedures in place, it could potentially be bringing in an epidemic that the U.S. may not be prepared to fight. Instead of the blood being a lifesaving material, it could easily kill more people then it helped.
We had difficulty finding moral values in the people of the company who would make such poor choices to make a profit. It was almost a lack of integrity, respect for persons, and responsibility that ran rampant through this company. However, one could consider the people of the tribes that were willing to donate blood for even this small amount of money. It could have had everything to do with integrity, and responsibility. Even this small amount of money in an impoverished country could help their family and possibly the community create a better life. For the tribes it may have had to do with the responsibility and integrity of being able to provide for others. There may have also been a compassion, respect for others, and responsibility piece for the tribe members, if they believed that they were giving the gift of life to other people who were in need.
Plasma International seemed to feel very strongly towards the economic value that they were able to produce. It seemed to outweigh the respect for basic human rights and respect. There may have been an intellectual aspect here as well in that the company thought that they had created a solution to a need in the market.
PART TWO - The conflict here seems to be one between ethics and other values. For this to be a true conflict of values for the company, it, (or its policy-making members) would have to be warring with what it/they believe and what it/they are actually doing. It appears that the company saw a need in the market, and found a way to meet that need for a profit. This did not seem to be a values-based endeavor to make the world a better place, but a way to capitalize on a commodity that they human body creates naturally.
ReplyDeleteKant would say that it is not morally sound to exploit anyone, as no person should be treated as a means to an end. Both the donors and the recipients of the blood were treated buy a means to an end.
Utilitarianism would state that this endevor is in favor of the greater good. The African tribe members are not necessarily injured, and they do receive some compensation which the agreed to, and the blood will go to save more lives. This maximizes the “pleasure/good” and minimizes the “pain/bad.” An argument can also be made that both the tribes people and the corporation are gaining money, so this also maximizes pleasures.
Aristotle would see this as a venture off the golden mean in favor of greed. Letting the want for money outweigh the satisfaction of saving lives is a breach of ethics.
Both Kant and Aristotle would agree that buying and selling blood is unethical, as it is using a person as a means and allowing greed to outweigh human life.
Option 1 – Use only blood procured by medical professionals in a regulated facility in the United States.
Option 2 – Make sure that the blood taken is thoroughly tested for all potential illnesses.
Option 3 – Offer other incentives and ask for charitable giving of blood rather than purchasing it.
Option 4 – Using the British blood donation method mentioned in the passage, have an open donation system where people are neither compensated for donation, nor charged for the receiving of blood.
We believe that combining Option 1 and 2, with either Option 3 or 4, would constitute the most ethical way to procure and distribute blood. These combinations would reduce the risk of spreading illness as well as keeping blood donation about freely giving to save a life versus capitalizing off one’s body. It assures that people are getting the very best medical attention they can without the compromised ethics of people who are only out for profit.
Giving blood is a gift of life. We do not believe there should be a price tag on life. If companies such as this are formed, they should be held to the same medical standards and legal regulations as other companies. This would ensure safe testing and adequate access to life-saving blood for the recipients as well as the humane treatment of the givers rather than the trafficking of a precious commodity.
While supply and demand are certainly relevant, some government regulations should be considered as well. In the United States, blood donors are given questionnaires and their blood tested to ensure there are no drugs or diseases. This company should be held to the same standard.
ReplyDeleteIt is morally and ethically wrong to knowingly pay even $0.15 a pint for something that could potential cause death or disease to others. It is immoral to offer people, who may not know any better, pennies for something that you intent to turn around and sell that blood for a massive profit. There are no ends justifying a means in this case.
There should never be a price on life. Some things should never be bought or sold. All people should have free access to safe and uncontaminated blood when it will save their lives. Making someone pay astronomical prices to stay alive because they are plagued by some unfortunate circumstance is unethical.
One objection to this decision could be that there are not enough willing people that want to donate their blood freely. This creates the opportunity for companies such as this to exist.
The problem could be avoided by being socially responsible. Testing, education and giving back to society, including African tribesman, can show that the company is not purely motivated by greed.
It could also have been avoided had the United States, adopted the British blood donation model. This model provides blood to those who need it at no charge, and does not pay the donors for their blood.
Case Study 5.8 Nike suppliers inn Vietnam
ReplyDeleteThe problem in this case is about allegations against Nike for the epidemic “Sweat Shop” conditions.
Because of harassment of their workers-(supervisors using abusive and humiliating practices), Nike audited 569 factories and found the following:
Morally relevant facts:
Physical and verbal abuse practices
25%-50% of their contractors restricted their workers access to use toilets and drinking water during the work days.
Non-moral relevant facts (e.g., legal, economic, psychological, etc.)
Low wages - $1.84 a day
Working 60 hours a week – penalized if they refused
Some of the Vietnam plants formed a union to insure their worker better working conditions. Nike claimed they had a fine code of conduct put in place. Nike claims they did not tolerate such behaviors and took “immediate and effective measures to deal with these issues.
Nike fired some managers and new managers had to take training course on ethic behaviors.
Also, the Code of Ethic, were translated into 11 different languages for all the workers to read and have on hand for their review.
The economic non-moral values important to persons shows where Vietnam government seemed more concerned with foreign countries investing there than they were with working conditions for their people.
The social non-moral values important to persons showed how horrible working conditions affected workers personally along with their families.
The national culture of Vietnam is forged in Communism and therefore everyone who is of poor class is treated as the value that the powers that be consider is just for that class of persons. Vietnam’s minimum wage is $45 US dollars per month. That normal wage would indicate that as far as wages are concerned there is no ethical conflict. Nike contractors pay in access of $48 per month. The mistreatment of workers is an area of value conflict if the Nike workers are worth the billions of dollars that Nike products are generating.
The theory of consequentialism (Utilitarianism) is an ethical theory based on some ultimate value (for humans). Actions are permissible in so far as they maximize consequences. But for whom are the consequences maximized? In the case of the workers at the Sam Yang factory the consequences were maximized to them for just being workers. The maximum pleasure is enjoyed by all the customers throughout the world who enjoy Nike products.
Kant’s theory based on duty apply to workers in Ho Chi Minh City simply because in all of this all that is seen of the workers is that they are going to work every day or starve to death. They have no choice but to live by duty and obligation but it seems as though they are being treated like they are harden criminals of some sort.
The only options in the case is the implementation of code of ethics in which would have to be policed by Nike executive representatives. The other is the management of Sam Yang factory being true to the agreements of the potentially unionized workers. Both of these options are favored by the virtue ethics theory that is also called character-based ethics. An executive-upper management human being should treat a lower level employee human being as a human being just the same.
The rightness of various outcomes will only remain possible if all parties responsible live up to their obligations and agreements
The wrongness of the outcomes will continue with the past problems if Nike officials begin to turn a blind eye at the problems as they were doing when the problems surface.
The option living by the code of ethics is the only way to solve problems of unethical morals.
In review of Team Success Case 5.8 – Nike’s Suppliers in Vietnam, the main ethical issues are as defined, inhumane treatment and sweatshop conditions, low wage and inability to meet basic human needs. The analysis of the situation was thoroughly outlined and detailed and offered alternatives and application to theories.
DeleteTeam Success detailed several references to the offenses and violations of ethical theories, human rights and poor economic conditions. They also detailed the injustice at the hands of corporate greed.
What I found interesting in the case is that this is a good example of a company trying to promote Social Responsibility. They have made changes in pay, in conditions, in rights of workers – it would appear that these are all of the correct measures. It is interesting that they and other companies search for countries with the lowest cost labor, versus ensuring a fair wage, education and giving back to the community. There needs to be a balance between profitability for stakeholders and humane and fair treatment of workers.
Case Study 5.8 Nike suppliers inn Vietnam
DeleteWe have actually talked about Nike and their issues as well as many other companies in other classes. I feel Team Success did a great job of outlining the case.
The issues at hand are negligence of the company and putting the proper controls in place, poor treatment of employees including conditions and pay.
When a company is as large as Nike is it is hard to know everything that goes on with in the corporation. I feel this was a wake up call for them, and they reacted pretty fairly by the systems they put in place.
Another company that had similar issues because of their outsourcing was Mattel. They had issues with lead in paint and magnets and had to do a major restructure just like Nike. I feel both stepped up to the plate, and have rebounded positively.
You just wonder how the poor treatment of people occurred. You would think Nike would have had some sort of a team that would oversee each plant. Apparently this was not the case and that is why they were in the situation they were in.
I do agree with Lorain and Social Responsibility. That is a great thought.
15.2 - Blood for Sale
ReplyDeleteShould you be able to sale peoples blood and body parts in order to make a profit? This guy Sol Levin found a way to make a dollar out of $.15 literally. He used a supply chain that was vulnerable due to an addiction in order to profit off of his own business. There are a few ways to look at this but I don't believe that you should be able to use addicts of all people to donate blood.
A utilitarian would say that this blood is being used for the greater good and that by providing blood more people could be helped. On the other hand this man had a good position as a stock broker and decided to start this business for himself and do something that would make "him" a lot of money. You could look at this as ethical egoism in a way.
Kant would not believe in Sol Levin's way of conducting this business and he would not use the addicts blood in order to help others. However if people were providing uncontaminated blood then Kant would look at this as a way to help others similarly to his example of helping a family member. It would be morally sound to donate blood for people in need had you been clean and doing it for the right cause. If you lie or deceive someone in any way in order to benefit off of them then Kant would view that as immoral.
Case 15.4 Right to Work - Mom's on a Mission
ReplyDeleteThe author of this article, Megan McArdle, is speaking about the human costs of not having the auto bailout. She basically is stating how she is against the she is against the UAW, but does not want to see its demise. She said the UAW is perhaps the grossest example of something toxic about what a lot of Americans Unions have turned into.
Megan speaks about the Unions and how they are a pain with pay and/or benefits with companies. She says she feels sometimes they "kill" a company, and that she feels sorry for the individuals who aren't involved in the union. When Megan is speaking about the union she is referring to American car companies in particular. Megan also talks about the negotiations that take place between a company and unions and how she feels that they don't push for people to work hard to get paid more. Megan is anti job protection and seniority rules.
Next she actually explains a little of her background and how when she graduated school she had an amazing opportunity in New York to make over $100,000 as a consultant...then 9/11 occurred. She lost many friends and co-workers but also lost that job opportunity. Megan struggled for eighteen months to find a job. She talked about the insecurities that came along with this. She states that when she finally did find a job, it paid 1/3 of what her initial job paid. Megan then goes on to say that although her job paid a lot less, she wasn't in the position most auto workers were that lost everything (and they had children and wives). So, she reflects and states she would never wish ill will on these people.
Her conclusion is that things that don't work need to fail. She says that we can't keep all companies alive.
Our resolution to this is for UAW employees to make change happen if they, like Megan McArdle, are fed up with how they are treated. Either quit and get a job that isn’t part of the UAW or propose changes to their representative so that change can occur. Typically unions are slow to change. Unions are established to treat the unit of workers consistently and fairly and to give the employees safety in numbers. This is not always the case. We agree that not all businesses need to succeed. Sometimes things need to fail – and when this happens, the business owner needs to step back and re-evaluate the reasons this failed, and re-approach the business from a different angle or perspective and try again.
We agreed that Megan McArdle’s point of view probably caused significant controversy for the UAW and the autoworkers. We felt the opposing perspectives deserved further explanation.
The UAW probably feels they provide a service to autoworkers that was non-existent decades earlier. Unions were originally established to protect workers from unfair pay, long hours, and unsafe work conditions. UAW more than likely felt that a government bailout was necessary and an extension of their representation of the autoworkers. After all, the men and women working in the factories can’t be blamed for the fall of the industry. The autoworkers relied on their respective companies to make good ethical business decisions on their behalf.
The utilitarian approach to unions would be whatever works best for the greater good. The decision would be split on this since not everyone agrees that unions are the best solution. Kant believes that …………….and according to the consequentialism theory………………
Ooops the end did not post correctly....we will fix this! Sorry!
DeleteAddition for Moms: Kant would be in favor of unions as long as they acted upon what is in the charter of the union. The unions duty is to protect its workers but acting morally.
DeleteIn review of MOM Case 15.3 Right to Work – I believe the main ethical issue is why the government should bail-out the auto industry. The UAW has bargained and negotiated so many contracts for the union workers that they have become overpriced and unskilled craftsman. In reading this case study, it sounded like a page taken right of Sennett’s Case for the New Culture of Capitalism. Older people who had a skill or a craft, used to working in a militaristic assembly line. As technology improved efficiency, fewer workers were needed, but the unions still kept pushing for higher wages. Many of those jobs were eliminated or outsourced or factories were relocated to cheaper labor in other countries.
ReplyDeleteThe alternative solution is easier said than done. I live in Batavia and several of the largest employers were Ford Transmission Plant, Milacron and Georgia Pacific. After 9/11 and the downturn in the economy, Ford shut their plant and gave workers severance packages and educational opportunities, some were transferred to Sharonville plant; Milacron filed bankruptcy and let more than three-fourths of their employees go without severance and Georgia Pacific closed and relocated to South Carolina. Some could say that it is the employee’s fault, they became drunk on high wages, but they were givers to the community, payers of taxes, involved in school events with their kids. It’s easy to say quit your job and get something else, but when you have a down-turn like this one, the Case study is right, your lifestyle changes. I saw people lose everything and I’m not sure how you recover from that by bailing out a dinosaur.
The application of theories with the utilitarian seems the best fit – the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
Case 15.3 Right to Work
ReplyDeleteI think MOMS and all the respondents point out some very valid and interesting points in regards to this case. The focus of this article is whether or not tax payers should foot the bill for the bailout of the automotive industry. The picture is painted that the UAW and union excesses are mostly to blame for the condition of the industry. Ms McArdle thinks they made their bed, and they should have to sleep in it. It is fine if the UAW wants to kill the companies through "high wages" and "excess demands," but do not come crying when you are broke and out of a job. I am sure we all have images of over paid auto workers taking advantage of the system. The workers and the UAW have been vilified as the main culprits in the down fall of the American auto industry. Right or wrong this is how Ms. McArdle has structured her argument. Unions or no unions, Ms McArdle claims that she does not want to see companies propped up artificially. Her hypothesis is that the workers and their representatives are mainly responsible for the failing industry.
The continued existence of the American auto industry is at stake. Iconic brands such as GM were on the potential edge of extinction. What would this say to Americans? What would this do to the economy? What would the world think about the U.S. if our most iconic automotive brand was allowed to fail? What sort of precedence would this set? A whole lot was at stake.
Right to Work (Case 15.3, p. 682) by MoM
ReplyDeleteThis is definitely a case where greed got in the way of the auto companies and they were trying to make as much money as they could then when 9/11 and the downturn in the economy hit they were at a complete loss. The unions have raised their wages and tried to increase benefits etc... for a long time. It's to the point where people would just get laid off either with or without a severance package. You feel bad for these people who put most of their life into their job just to let go due to unfortunate circumstances. You would think that the government would have helped them out but we all know how that goes.
Utilitarianism on the other hand would be for the union as they are trying to do what's best for the overall group. If you look at Kant's theory he would say that you should not use people to benefit yourself and would be completely against the companies who didn't offer anything to their employees upon shutting down the business.
MOM's did have some very valid points in regards to rather we as Americans should be responsible for paying taxes that covers the auto industry bailout.
In any business we should hate to see it fail unless the business was operating carelessly but we should not be at fault for the greediness of these auto companies who's executives were taking ridiculous salaries. There should be a cap on how much these guys can make especially in the case of a fallout where they could lose their business. You can't make others liable for their mistakes.