Business Ethics

Business Ethics

Name:

Institution:

Question 1: Abercrombie & Fitch and Civil Rights

In evaluating Khan’s case, the first step is to outline the meaning of job discrimination and the statutes ruling against it. Job Discrimination is the bias of a job applicant or employee based on their affiliation to a certain group. There are three ways describing how discrimination can occur, in this case only one stands out. The decision is based on the employee’s association to the group rather than individuals merit. Having outlined the aforementioned, the decision made by Abercombie was outright job discrimination because Khan was harmed and disadvantaged. The Muslim community has strict rules on the mode of dressing for women, requiring them to cover their heads at all times, the company understood Khan’s case when the offered her the job position. This problem arose after she has already been employed, the move can be said to be against the Islamic faith that in this case it is unethical to discriminate based on one’s group affiliations. The company validates its move by claiming the directive was in accordance with its code on the classic American Style. The argument brought forth is that is that America, in the recent day society has embraced its citizens without discriminating them against their race, ethnicity or religious affiliation. To conclude, Khan has a legitimate claim as she is supposed to be provided with reasonable accommodation by the company.

Question Two: Have Gun, Will Travel… To Work

Weyerhaeuser’s decision in the case study to fire its Oklahoma plant employees who kept guns in their vehicles was fair. There are several reasons that support the decision made by the company against the workers. In the constitution, it clearly states, “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Evaluating this law, one thing stands out, and the law is permissible in government-owned organizations, however, companies such as Weyerhaeuser, which are more privatized, are allowed to make laws that are compatible with their core beliefs. This justifies their move against the bringing of firearms to work regardless where they were placed. Another fact that supports the company’s decision is that the workers violated the rights of the company by bringing the firearms to work thus infringing on the laws enacted in the established against carrying guns into the private property.

Question Three: “Home Depot Adds Benefits”

The workforce usually faces domestic and personal issues while still having to maintain focus at work. This might affect their productivity. In the case study about the Home Depot, two strategies can be derived and implemented to ensure the satisfaction of the employees. The strategies are reliant on the needs of the employees. The first strategy is determining the stressing aspect of the individual employees. This strategy enables the company to identify a problem common to the employee population. This can be done by the HR department where the employees are evaluated. Once the common issue has been identified, the company then goes ahead, to provide the necessary solutions to alleviate the problem. The problem identified should be cost-effective in terms of providing solutions. The approach taken should be friendly; this is because the employees might feel as if their private life is being infringed upon. The potential benefits are that by solving the stressful problems, it will translate to employee satisfaction thus increasing their overall productivity. The pitfall which might present itself is that some employees are opportunistic thus might use the solution to gain side benefits from it. For instance, the case scenario where the Home depot provided a day care for the employees, an member of staff might decide to take someonelse’s child if guaranteed they will be paid for the childcare services rendered thus acquiring side profits.

Question Four: “Protecting the Unborn at Work”

As derived from the case study, Johnsons control had followed the recommended regulations excluding women from environs, which had significant lead exposure especially those in their childbearing ages. This was due to the negative effects the lead exposure had unborn fetuses prior to the employee knowing their pregnancy status. The law however allowed men to continue working in this environs despite of the exposure, which was and still is highly lethal to the neural system and the body. The policy by the company is morally wrong. The company should have considered the male counterparts in a policy that also permits them to work in a safer environment in order to protect their reproductivity   and avoid cases of impotency. This addition should focus in the males in the childbearing age bracket as it protects the future of the unborn from both a male and a female perspective.

Question Five: “CompUSA Executives Allegedly Stole Millions”

The laws in the constitution are passed after there has been intense deliberation on the pros and con of the bill and presentation of the available situations that may arise to weaken the validity of these laws. This evaluation enables the lawmakers to determine whether the law should be passed or not. Once the law has been passed then it should be followed to the letter. The American constitution clearly states that bribery is illegal. From the case study, it is the activities within the company by the brothers instilled fear and intimidation in the workers thus its was not for the greater good of the company or the nations growth but towards self enrichment. The criminal record presented by the case study concerning the brothers also show that their moral and business ethics was found wanting. In the light of the case study, the Fiorentino Brothers made a grievous error in accepting the bribes thus going against their duties to the company. The US based company has the right to file against the Fiorentino Brothers as the practice is prohibited in the state.

Question 6: “The Housing Allowance”

On evaluating the case study of Mutambara, it is clear he had valid reason to live in Old Town. It was out of his moral obligation to help finance in educating his younger nieces and nephews. Despite the fact that he had falsified the receipts of the housing rent from the proprietor and misrepresenting the company, it was out of good intentions. Actions by Garman where indeed whistle blowing. He should have approached the situation from a better angle. For instance trying to find out from Mutambara why he was living in a slum yet he was offered housing allowance to live in better quarters. He would also have asked Mutambara to forward himself in prior to reporting him. These two approaches would have been the best in solving the situation.