Business Ethics †Final Exam Essay Sample free essay sample

1. Specify what is referred to as an anti-fraternization policy. Draft a policy sing employee fraternisation. turn toing issues which you deem of import to include in such a policy ( non to transcend one page ) . ( Snoyenbos: 394 ) ( DeGeorge: 226-232 )( LA Times. 03 Feb 2007 ) Anti-fraternization policies aim to hedge possible struggles of involvement that arise from work-related relationships affecting people who are relations or dating/marrying within the company. It is besides designed to halt friendly relationships within the workplace from diminishing productiveness. While it is illegal for employers to halt their workers from fraternising to discourse working conditions ( LA Times. 03 Feb 2007 ) . an ethical and effectual policy should be put in topographic point to turn to the undermentioned concerns: – Stop preferential intervention in the concatenation of hierarchy– Stop unwanted flow of information between departments/divisions– Stop company clip from being used for socialisation alternatively of work In making a system that efficaciously addresses the above concerns while staying ethical. I would outline a policy with the undermentioned constituents: – Clearly outline a method in which concerned employees can work with HR to expose and rectify any workplace-related issues or concerns due to fraternisation between unequal-powered parties.– Clearly lineation which information is to be shared with which parties– Employee monitoring to salvage company clip I would remind employees that their employment is at-will. capable to this policy. Electronic monitoring would be done in an ethical mode. as to the full described in prompt # 5. 2. Define at will employment. Does an employer have an ethical duty to an employee prior to ending his/her employment? ( Smalley v. Dreyfus papers )( Snoyenbos: 328-333 )( DeGeorge: 349-351 ) At-will employment allows an employee to discontinue at any clip for any ground ( or no ground at all ) . It besides allows an employer to end its employees at any clip and for any grounds non deemed â€Å"wrongful. † Open firing an employee due to race. colour. faith. sex. national beginning. age. or disability position would be a signifier of unlawful expiration. Other signifiers of unlawful expiration include firing an employee that is unwilling to execute illegal Acts of the Apostless. firing due to an employee taking a medical leave of absence. firing an employee for neglecting to restrict their constitutional rights ( voting ) . and firing an employee outside of a company’s ain expiration process. As stated in the Smalley v. Dreyfus article. at-will employees â€Å" can non reasonably rely upon their employers’ promises of continued employment. † It is an employer’s right at any clip to end an employee at will. Employers have no ethical duty to an employee prior to ending his/her employment outside of abstaining from â€Å"wrongful expiration. † 3. In no more than two paragraphs. what are the responsibilities of an agent to its principal? In no more than two paragraphs. what are the ethical restrictions. if any. on the exercising of these responsibilities? ( Credit Rating Agencies A ; Conflicts of Interest papers ) ( Snoyenbos: . 151-159. 169 )( DeGeorge: 106-107 ) It is an agent’s responsibility to back up its rule in every manner possible so long as it doesn’t become unethical either via a struggle of involvement or otherwise. Generally. the best manner to guarantee that an agent is back uping its rule is by alining the involvements of these two groups. However. there are exclusions. In the relationship between recognition evaluation bureaus ( agent ) and its rule ( companies paying for recognition evaluations ) . it may be that the evaluation bureaus give dishonest tonss to guarantee continued concern. both for itself and the rule. In this manner. dishonest tonss work to ache those who would otherwise swear the worthiness of an plus as â€Å"rated† but â€Å"not guaranteed† by such recognition evaluation bureaus. Peoples lower in a hierarchy frequently feel that they are non responsible for their actions because they are merely â€Å"following orders† while people highest in such a hierarchy be so far removed from the action they besides shrug off moral duty. Regardless of how you feel. all people are responsible for their actions and their foreseeable effects. In footings of ethical restrictions. there is a â€Å"role responsibility† to the responsibilities that an agent takes on for his/her/its chief. When you take on a function. you besides take on new duties. In exerting these responsibilities. no agent can warrant being immoral. In the instance that trueness to one function creates a â€Å"clash of moral duties. † it must be resolved in the same manner that â€Å"clashes of comparable Prima facie ( first brush ) duties are resolved. † 4. Using a teleological and deontological attack. discuss when is it ethically required to be a whistle blower ( non to transcend three paragraphs ) ? ( Snoyenbos: 379-390 )( DeGeorge: 303-312. 313-317 ) It is ethically required to be a whistle blower when failure to â€Å"blow the whistle† consequences in any of the followers: – Lifes are endangered ( due to improper service or care )– Legalities are ignored ( FAA ordinances. federal or province jurisprudence. etc. )– Moral duty supersedes trueness to the company There are times when whistleblowing is unethical. every bit good. Whistleblowing before traveling through the proper channels to turn to the issue is unethical. Such an act circumvents policy and plants against any positive development while unceremoniously naming attending to an issue that might otherwise be handled internally. Whistleblowing is unethical if it is exploited for the intent of turn toing societal policies in resistance to one’s political orientation. Such an act is a abuse of whistleblowing. as it serves a personal intent alternatively of a social intent. Regardless of the effect. whistleblowing is ethically required when characteristically immoral patterns are used ( deontological attack ) . When negative effects are likely to happen ( hazard ) . whistleblowing is ethically required – despite a company’s attachment to an ethical model ( teleological attack ) . 5. Identify three types of employee monitoring. Discourse the ethical issues that arise as a consequence of each type of monitoring ( non to transcend one page ) . ( Snoyenbos: 197-212. 338-364 )( DeGeorge: 388-394 ) Some considers email-monitoring ethical. as email systems are belongings of a company. Besides. a company has a right to halt its trade secrets from being sent to unwanted parties. In that sense. it’s ethical. However. email-monitoring is considered unethical if no policy exists saying informing employees of its being. Apart from the deficiency of policy. it is besides unethical to â€Å"impose countenances on employees for non-job related behaviour. † Simply set. it’s ethical to censure and employee for unauthorised usage of an electronic system. but it’s unethical to censure them based on the content of a non-job-related message. Some claim that it’s merely ethical to supervise the content of non-job-related messages if there’s intuition of illegal activity. I’d define â€Å"metric monitoring† as the systematic aggregation of statistics based on calls per hr. key strokes per minute. interruptions per twenty-four hours. etc. Companies believe metric monitoring is ethical because it helps set public presentation outlooks and path employees. Many believe that such monitoring additions emphasis and de-socializes the workplace. finally heavy efficiency ( statistics support this claim ) . Many claim that monitoring is unethical if it’s uninterrupted ( non intermittent ) or if public presentation ratings are based entirely on prosodies. Those who would reason for the ethical execution of metric monitoring suggest that employees help design and implement such monitoring systems. Employees consider drug proving an invasive and unethical pattern. but statistic prove that its execution can drastically cut down work-related accidents ( you mentioned this in category. so you’re my beginning ) . While drug usage may happen outside the workplace. drug usage can still impact public presentation on the occupation. Besides. illegal drug usage is unethical from a legal position. If companies feel that they can supervise the content of personal messages under the intuition of illegal activity. it follows that they can drug prove their employees if they suspect illegal drug usage. every bit good. I did come across subdivisions that discuss â€Å"personality monitoring† of occupation appliers. Such monitoring could be used electronically in the signifier of trials and ratings that occur sporadically. They could besides be used on employees on the occupation. Some say that such trials are unethical because they allow employers to judge employees based on personal information. In some instances. appliers were asked to give entree to their Facebook histories during an interview. While employees ( and possible employees ) may see such patterns as unethical. companies feel that they have a right to judge an applicant’s personality as a step of productiveness potency in its work force. 6. Read the articles in Snoeyenbos on pages 101 and 115. Make you hold with the usage of stakeholder analysis in make up ones minding whether a corporation should take a certain action? Explain ( non to transcend one page ) . ( Snoyenbos: 101. 115 ) While I believe that directors bear a â€Å"fiduciary relationship to stakeholders. † I do non believe that every stakeholder should be valued every bit. The text states that stakeholders should â€Å"participate in finding the future direction† of a house. but I do non believe each type of stakeholder ought to be valued every bit. Types of stakeholders could be directors. employees. clients. providers. or investors. Stakeholders are critical to the endurance and success of a corporation. some more than others. On page 108. the text states that the stakeholder theory does non give primacy to one stakeholder group. I disagree. Not giving more consideration to the group ( s ) of stakeholders more responsible for the firm’s success is unreasonable. In whose involvement should a house be managed? For whose benefit should it be managed? Every house wants to â€Å"internalize the benefits and project the costs of their actions. † Unlike the text. I do non hold that a house is responsible for looking after a community after they leave it ( 108 ) . In much the same manner that an employer is non responsible for one of its ex-employees. houses have no ethical duty to anyone for the adversities experienced due to its going from an country. I denounce the text’s proposition of an â€Å"implicit societal contract. † Corporations should alternatively be held to an explicit. legal model. The text offers 3 unique positions ( 110-111 ) . The Feminist Standpoint Theory and the Ecological Principle are badly flawed and idealistic. The lone practical attack is the Doctrine of Fair Contracts. which bases value creative activity in concern theories and stakeholder instead than societal scientific discipline and ecology. The Feminist Standpoint Theory emphasizes caring for relationships and webs of stakeholders. This is practical and should be viewed as a useful attack to tauten direction. non an ethical one. Though I agree with the Stakeholder Enabling Principle ( 113 ) . equilibrating my ethical A ; concern position forces me to weigh the sentiments of stakeholders in a manner that best demonstrates each type’s consequence on a firm’s success. 7. You are the human resources manager at a publically traded company. Draft a policy associating to the giving and reception of gifts by sales representatives at your company. ( Snoyenbos: 169-178 ) After reading pages 169-178 in the Snoeyenbos text and pulling from our category treatment. I’ve formulated the undermentioned policy. Bullet list format is. to me. the most effectual manner of stand foring a company policy: – All gifts given in surplus of $ 75 must be made public cognition. – All gifts received in surplus of 40 % of your day-to-day wage must be made public cognition. – Any gift offered to you in surplus of 150 % your day-to-day wage must be refused. – Gifts from company contacts are capable to these regulations even if delivered to your place. – No gift can be considered an advertizement – all are capable to this policy. – No strip nines on any company’s dime ( lest this be your concern ) . – Use of disbursal history to supply gifts in surplus of $ 75 may ensue in your rewards being docked to compensate/repay the difference. 8. Specify insider trading. Discuss whether insider trading is ethical. ( Trade Secrets NYLJ papers )( Snoyenbos: 181-196. 394-397 )( DeGeorge: 224-232 ) Insider trading can be defined as deliberately obtaining or conveying proprietary information that doesn’t belong to you. Under 18 U. S. C  §1832. insider trading is illegal when there is an purpose to change over such information to the economic benefit of anyone other than the proprietor. It is besides considered illegal if the entity merchandising the information has knowledge that such an act would wound the proprietor of the information. When person commits insider trading for the economic benefit of person other than the proprietor and it causes injury to another party. there is no ethical land to back up insider trading. To forbear from wounding another party is a societal duty every bit good as an ethical duty. The receiving of information via insider trading is a slightly different scenario. sometimes referred to as â€Å"misappropriation. † If inside information is used for the economic benefit of one party without hurt to another. I am of the sentiment that it is lawfully undue yet ethically justified ( like Charlie on D230 ) . It is my sentiment that those who divulge inside information are ethically responsible. non the people who receive it. 9. Identify the legal and ethical duties that a board of managers has in the operation of a publically held corporation ( non to transcend one page ) . ( The Moral Instinct papers )( Snoyenbos: 63 )( DeGeorge: 185-187. 194-201. 233 ) â€Å"The Sole Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits† is the rubric of a chapter get downing on page 72 of Snoeyenbos. The rubric entirely speaks volumes. The same text believes that board members should be separate from direction. but are morally responsible for the tone of the corporation. What other ethical duties do the board of managers have? A corporation has a â€Å"societal duty to make no harm† and is â€Å"morally responsible for its actions to the general populace or to the society in general. † With the Pinto instance. cost-benefit analysis entirely is non plenty to carry through such a moral duty. regardless of legality. What more can be said of legal duty? Milton Friedman ( 199 ) believes that corporations and those who control them have a societal duty to adhere to the Torahs in topographic point. but have no other legal duty. I agree with Milton. This is the entireness of legal duties imposed on a board of managers. The bulk of what I’ve learned in this class can be understood byturn toing the different types of duties that exist. My analysis of the relationship between ethical duties and legal duties of a board of managers and the company they control is as follows: Legal duty ends with the jurisprudence. It is up to society. the populace. and lawgivers to make and implement Torahs. non the corporations and their boards of managers. A company and its board of managers aim to increase net incomes by any legal agencies necessary. Economic inducement is the most powerful force drive development – non moralss. That is portion of the concern and human status. of all time present and changeless! There is a quasi-philosophical duty that we as worlds have to protect each other ( make no injury ) and of course take duty for those we affect. It’s easy to amoralize corporations. However. corporate determinations are made wholly by worlds. so human duties should be present in concern activity. excessively. However. it’s most practical to guarantee â€Å"humanitarian† behaviour via a legal construction.