Reference no: EM13983475

Research a company that has been in the news due to ethical problems. Evaluate the ethical dilemma under two ethical frameworks. Analyze what part whistleblowers played in the exposure to the company.

Apple and Wintek Trend in Ethical Problems

Less than five years ago, Wintek, an Apple' Supplier ran into two ethical issues. One is using hexane chemical which poisoned and killed nearly 50 employees. Another issue is hiring children as adults who produce apples products. The two issues affect company's suppliers and potentially damage the company's brand and product. Employed children work in unhealthy environment which unfortunately appeared in the public. The news broke out that Wintek hired children and charged with child labor violations. Wintek wanted to fire the underage employees as the cchild labor as the both apple and wintek increasingly became involved in the lawsuits. The Apple and Wintek thought that firing children or underage works would resolve the matter but that had already landed in the morally and ethically violations of children's rights as persons (Arnold et al., 2013). Although Apple Company and Wintek used employment at will to hire and to fire these young people, which did not stop the victims and their families to file lawsuits against apples and its supplier, Wintek. While apple and wintek decision to hire under ages was to pay them with low salaries and sell their products with low cost, the secret of violating the rights of the underage or a child labor was already revealed and that hurt both companies' images.

While apple is known for being incredibly controlling, the companies deal with spending largely financial benefits to its employees and suppliers, led the companies to make that tough decision to hire under ages. While hiring children and letting them work in unacceptable environment or risk mitigation, for instance, doing heavy jobs like packaging, loading and other jobs which could be done by adults, the children's health were badly affected. The employed undergoes were also physically abused. The problem had increasingly extreme leading to their physical weakness, and mentally damage charges against both Apples and Wintek. On contrast, if the Apple and Wintek decided not to hire under ages and then go starving along with their families, then both companies would find themselves in triple dilemma ethical problems. This produces controversial arguments because both Apples and Wintek would both face the lawsuits and become responsible for any outcome conditions that risked the underage their lives.

In order to evaluate ethical dilemmas at Apple and Wintek's situations, the Utilitarian and Kantian theories and other resources obtained from the University's Library would be used in this case.

Utilitarianism and Kantianism Approaches

The Utilitarian Approach argues that the good the more subjective concept of "happiness," as opposed to the more materialist idea of "pleasure."

The utilitarianism helps people make ethical decision with consequences address the large group of people's problems. Ethical decisions instruct people to weigh a different between good and bad our actions produce (Arnold et al, 2013; Neil, 2012). According to Neil (2012), good ethical decision produces the best action that provides the most good or does the least harm (sec.12; p.175). It also produces the greatest balanced of good over the harm. Arnold et al. argues that employers or companies need to create good ethical environment (as cited in Neil, 2012, p.115). An ethical environmental action produces the greatest good and does the least harm for all who are affected. .

Kantianism approach

The Duty-Based Approach or deontological ethics argue emphasized the importance of the personal will and intention to ethical decision making. Kant argued that doing what is right is not about the consequences of people's actions, but about intend action to perform. The ethical action is one taken from duty that is precisely people obligation to perform the action.

Kant discovered "categorical imperative which states that people should act only according to that maxim by which they can at the same time will consider their actions to be universal law. When people act according to a law that they have discovered to be rational according to their own universal reason, they are acting autonomously and thus are bound by duty. If people choose to act this way, they according to the moral law or universal law, they are very the very nature of acting ethically. Kant has also asserted that companies or employers should take into consideration of applying the rights approach in any decision making. Kant argues that the right approach stipulates the best ethical action which protects the ethical rights of those who the action is affected. In similar manner, Kant's categorical imperative emphasizes the belief that all humans have a right to dignity. According to this approach, people can act in way they must treat others in the same way they need to be treated. Kantian's approaches continue to provide ethical and moral principles that are guidelines for any group or individual. Kantian approaches suggest that a free and rational people can choose ethical principles in an initial situation of equality, and that will allow people to do fair action when making a decision. From Kantianism and Utilitarianism approaches, it would be concluded that making good ethical and moral decisions is good source of personal's benefits or a group as a whole. Kant furthers suggested that good ethical decisions require a training sensitivity to ethical issues. Arnold et at(2013) brought the same argument into attention, that companies or employers should provide training programs that address ethical and moral issues in work places. Rob (2010) found that companies which established ethical training programs to explore the ethical aspects of making good decisions weighs ethical and moral skills that impact their choice of a course of action in a decision making. Rob found that following ethical training programs and framework are useful methods for exploring ethical dilemmas and identifying ethical courses of action, and making ethical decision. Therefore, Apple and Wintek, if they had explored ethical training programs and adopted ethical frame work would have guided them in a decision making whether they would have hired under ages or not. The Apple and Wintek reluctant to follow ethical framework had resulted in serious ethical and moral violations and faced off the lawsuits.

Whistle Blowers and Exposition on Companies

Many theorists have made courageous argument about whistle-blowing and employee loyalty. One of those theorists is Ronald F. Duska. Duska' central perception of loyalty, who argues that if whistle-blowing is a disloyalty act, then it deserves disapproval, and ultimately any action of whistle-blowing needs justification. According to Duska, the perception of whistle blowing in a company is when one blows the whistle on one's own team violates team loyalty.

Bowie argues that whistle-blowing violates a prima duty of loyalty to one's employer. A duty of loyalty that prohibits one from reporting his employer or a company's wrong doing.

John Boatright suggests that whistle-blowing is the voluntary release of non public information in which members of the organization have morally right to protest outside the channel of communication to the public about wrong doing, inappropriate or illegal conduct within the organization (Arnold et al. 2013, p.180). According to Duska, when a company does something that may harm a society, an employee does not have an obligation of loyalty to a company and that employee has a right to whistle blow. The companies or employers ca not incur a duty of loyalty, and therefore, there is a non-moral dilemma of whistle blowing since an employee does not have an obligation of loyalty to a company. If a company does not have kind of things that are properly objects of loyalty, then whistle blowing needs no more justification. Duska contends that the idea of loyalty to a company imposes barriers and negative stigma to those that whistle-blow. Within the premise of loyalty to a company, whistle blowing is seen as conflicting with obligations to act in the interest of your employer and not to reveal confidential information. Support to those that do whistle-blow and their conduct and actions are mislabeled as being dis-loyal to the company. Duskas argument contends that an individual is not being dis-loyal to the company when whistle-blowing, but are being loyal to their community. That moral justification of right or wrong should not be hindered by the non-existent duty of loyalty to the company.

Duska has stated that loyalty must be a reciprocal process, in this I disagree. As a retired Navy Officer, I was loyal to my country, and my flag, neither of which are moral agents nor are they able to reciprocate. Loyalty amounts to acting in another's best interests and that may mean qualifying what seems to be in one's own interests, but it cannot imply that one take no steps to protect oneself from the immorality of those to whom one is loyal. The reason it cannot is that, as has already been argued, acting immorally can never really be in a person's best interests. It follows, therefore, that one is not acting in a person's best interests if one allows oneself to be treated immorally by that person.

Considering the principle of positional responsibility, an employee or an employer has responsibility to report wrongdoing and morally obligates to report their leaders who might correct or prevent problems to out of control (Arnold et al., 2013). Wolff (2014) asserts so that whistle blowers expose companies to the public eyes when they have chances to reveal the violations of ethical and laws against employees in the work place. The U.S. EPA appears to offer no reward at all for private citizens who blow the whistle on polluters, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a nonprofit group that supports whistleblowers. Because they expose companies or individuals who break the laws, the government agencies rewards them. Whistle blowers are considered the private citizens and they deserve the rewards because they bring unknown information and deep knowledge of complex companies and their frauds. On contrary matter, whistle blowers who work for a company or an organization violate environmental laws and who come forward to expose their organizations. Wolff noted that, despite the U.S Justice Department tries to stop big companies from violating the laws and the rights of an individual at work, many companies still have strong holds on whistle blowing. The Justice Department raises million dollars to maximize reward to whistle blowers to continue exposing companies especially those with financial crimes.

According to Daniel, Snowden and Assange, information whistle blowers provided has let to many disclosures of fraud in the U.S. Whistle blowers have paved the ways to bring big business or companies to the public eyes which reduces violations of ethics, moral rights and laws.

There is improvement over many corporate scandals over many years as whistler blows come out strongly breaking silent and threatening from their current or former employers. Such companies are forced to observe ethical framework or they continue to face lawsuits which might their business being shut down.

Impact of EAW on Employees and Employers

Harcourt, Hanansay and Lam (2012) found that the dismissal of employees has dramatic impact on their livelihoods, self-esteem, and future career. EAW protects employers more than employees. The dismissal of employees influence the relationship in workplace and affects the organization or company's functions. According to Harcourt et al. (2012), the dismissal affects both employees and employers in two ways. In the first way, when an employee is dismissed, it will an employer a certain period of time to hire a new employee. In a second way, the dismissed employees goes for unemployment and the unemployment reduces his or her incomes.

Avakian and Roberts (2012) backed Harcourt's argument that employment at will gives both employees and employers right and freedom of choice to make. For example, an employee decides to quit jobs any time whether with his or her employer's knowledge or not. In every the same view, employers, employment at will provides employer with the freedom of making choice as to hire and fire or right to rehire them or not. Therefore, the right of the employer to order the employee to do his or her order or will that may be defined in the employment contract (Avakians & Roberts, 2012, p.89)

According to Eidsness and Spencer (2011), employment at Will acts in absence of common law and controlling contract. This gives employers rights to hire, promote, demote or fire whomever and whenever they want employment terminated. Harcourt, Hannay and Lam (2013) assert that employment at Will is mostly found in the private workforce. According to Harcourt et al. (2013), most of private workplaces do not have union agreement or legal statue, public policy or contract. Those employers without unions take employment at will in their hands to dismiss employees for a good cause, without good cause or contract (Arnold et al., 2013; Roehling, 2003). Since they do not unions to discuss the matters, the employers may dismiss employees for causes morally wrong without being guilty of legal wrong. In contrast to EAW, for those primarily in the public sector, are under the policy of Due process. Due process is a means by which an employee has the right to appeal a decision in order to get an explanation of the action and an opportunity to argue against it.

Epstein argues EAW is adopted not because it allows the employer to exploit the employee, but rather because over a very broad range of circumstances it works to the mutual benefit of both parties, where the benefits are measured at the time of the contracts formation and not at the time of dispute. Either party may terminate the relationship. He supports his argument by stating the freedom of contract is a basic liberty akin to our freedom to choose marriage partners or religion. It is an unacceptable violation of that freedom for government to interfere with our ability to create our own contracts. If terms are unacceptable then that is the responsibility of that party since he freely entered into the employment relationship, yet both retain the freedom to leave the relationship at any time. The employee has the right to terminate their position, and seek other employment they may find more acceptable. This provides a mutual benefit to both parties, meeting the needs of the employee to find a position they are comfortable and capable at, and the employer having a capable and productive workforce. The employer has the burden to position themselves such so they attract and retain the best and the brightest, and the employee has the burden of self-improvement, and a demonstration of commitment to the company.