An article published today in the New York Times studies the relationship between beauty products (specifically those related to nail salons) and reproductive issues and cancers. It alleges that the chemicals used in the various polishes, solvents, glues, and hardeners have been linked to these sort of issues and can be especially problematic for salon workers who are constantly exposed to the products. Meanwhile, industry leaders continue to deny any causal relationship, claiming that the chemicals are used in trace quantities that render them harmless.
This strikes me as another case of miss-aligned incentives where business leaders can continue to make large profits by denying that there is anything wrong with what they are doing instead of working to deal with the issues. It is reminiscent of tobacco companies with lung cancer and fossil fuel based utility groups and climate change.
Here is a link to the article: <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/11/nyregion/nail-salon-workers-in-nyc-face-hazardous-chemicals.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news>
Friday, May 8, 2015
Net Neutrailty
http://business-ethics.com/2015/04/29/0921-examining-success-for-net-neutrality-a-lesson-in-digital-power/
As we move farther into the digital age, the issue of net neutrailty is sure to gain more and more traction. A recent failed merger between Time Warner Cable and Comcast was the result of public backlash at the idea of the internet being domineered by a single entity. But should we consider the internet a public or a provate good? In that vein, do we each have a right to thw internet, the same bandwith and speed, for just paying for wifi? Or should there be different tiers of charges where customers who pay more get faster services like streaming and high speed search engines?
My take on the issue is congruent with Obama's and recent FCC proposals. The goal would be to have net neutrailty become a virtual certainty by protecting and placing restrictions on what these media giant companies can charge and restrict. More regulation does not necessarily make a better society, but at the same time these regulatioms seem to surely prevent a hreat deal of harm.
Another thing to take into account is what value consumers place on the internet. Do they view it almost as a negative right? I certainly would be appalled if internet access was made slower to me simply because of my income standing. But, as always, there are 2 sides to the issue.
What do you guys think of net neutrality? Of the future of media?
As we move farther into the digital age, the issue of net neutrailty is sure to gain more and more traction. A recent failed merger between Time Warner Cable and Comcast was the result of public backlash at the idea of the internet being domineered by a single entity. But should we consider the internet a public or a provate good? In that vein, do we each have a right to thw internet, the same bandwith and speed, for just paying for wifi? Or should there be different tiers of charges where customers who pay more get faster services like streaming and high speed search engines?
My take on the issue is congruent with Obama's and recent FCC proposals. The goal would be to have net neutrailty become a virtual certainty by protecting and placing restrictions on what these media giant companies can charge and restrict. More regulation does not necessarily make a better society, but at the same time these regulatioms seem to surely prevent a hreat deal of harm.
Another thing to take into account is what value consumers place on the internet. Do they view it almost as a negative right? I certainly would be appalled if internet access was made slower to me simply because of my income standing. But, as always, there are 2 sides to the issue.
What do you guys think of net neutrality? Of the future of media?
Thursday, May 7, 2015
Follow-Up to Whistleblowing Presentation: Collateral Murder by Wikileaks
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0
This is a link to the video mentioned during mine and Keer's presentation on whistleblowing.
It entails raw combat footage from the events that occurred that day. Viewer discretion is advised.
This is a link to the video mentioned during mine and Keer's presentation on whistleblowing.
It entails raw combat footage from the events that occurred that day. Viewer discretion is advised.
3-D Printing and Free Speech
Last night WIRED.com posted an article about a law suit against the state department filed by Cody Wilson, that claimed that the state department had infringed upon Mr. Wilson's right to free speech by requiring him to remove some of his company's blueprints from the internet. You may remember Cody Wilson's name because he and his company Defense Distributed released the first publicly accessible set of blueprints for a 3-D printed pistol roughly 2 years ago.
We talked in class a fair bit about what gun makers and sellers have a moral obligation to do in terms of controlling what they sell and who they sell it to. Defense Distributed's mission strikes me as a very interesting twist on that discussion because they are not actually selling or manufacturing weapons. They are, however, deliberately choosing to distribute the blueprints so that anyone can make a weapon if they have a consumer grade 3-D printer. On the one hand this strikes me as highly problematic. Is there really any moral difference between selling a gun to an individual with a high potential for misuse (think people with a history of violence or mental instability) and making guns available to them? On the other hand, restricting the posting of the blueprints does seem to violate the free speech rights of Cody Wilson. The blueprints really are essentially his ideas and thoughts in picture and schematic form (basically the same as an artist's paintings or sketches) and it does seem as though he has at least a default right to share them as a result of his right to free speech along with basic property rights. This does, however, strike me as a case of the type of free speech that we might be willing to restrict because it can cause immediate harm to others. We might want to prevent the publishing of this type of information for the same reasons that we make it illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater but that doesn't necessarily mean that his rights haven't been violated.
In any case I would be curios to hear people's responses to this version of the firearms debate because I do think that it introduces new elements and conflicts between rights and a desire to reduce risk of harm. Here is a link to the original article for more information: <http://www.wired.com/2015/05/3-d-printed-gun-lawsuit-starts-war-arms-control-free-speech/>
We talked in class a fair bit about what gun makers and sellers have a moral obligation to do in terms of controlling what they sell and who they sell it to. Defense Distributed's mission strikes me as a very interesting twist on that discussion because they are not actually selling or manufacturing weapons. They are, however, deliberately choosing to distribute the blueprints so that anyone can make a weapon if they have a consumer grade 3-D printer. On the one hand this strikes me as highly problematic. Is there really any moral difference between selling a gun to an individual with a high potential for misuse (think people with a history of violence or mental instability) and making guns available to them? On the other hand, restricting the posting of the blueprints does seem to violate the free speech rights of Cody Wilson. The blueprints really are essentially his ideas and thoughts in picture and schematic form (basically the same as an artist's paintings or sketches) and it does seem as though he has at least a default right to share them as a result of his right to free speech along with basic property rights. This does, however, strike me as a case of the type of free speech that we might be willing to restrict because it can cause immediate harm to others. We might want to prevent the publishing of this type of information for the same reasons that we make it illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater but that doesn't necessarily mean that his rights haven't been violated.
In any case I would be curios to hear people's responses to this version of the firearms debate because I do think that it introduces new elements and conflicts between rights and a desire to reduce risk of harm. Here is a link to the original article for more information: <http://www.wired.com/2015/05/3-d-printed-gun-lawsuit-starts-war-arms-control-free-speech/>
Further Research about Employee loyalty
Nowadays, employees tend to be less and less loyal to their company. Here is an interesting video about firms whose employees are the least loyal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U5pUKoT550
In my presentation, I introduced David E. Soles's three concepts of loyalty. He gives that conclusion that employees do not have any obligation to keep loyal. However, it seems not that true in the real world. It is one of the top reasons that company lose their customers. The high turnover rate plays a negative role in firms' performance. Some economists think that if a firm cannot keep its employees long enough, it cannot keep their customers long enough too. Sometimes employees lose loyalty because they are not treated well by firms, sometimes because of other reasons. And for the firms, it is hard for them to know how loyal is their employees, it is hard to measure.
A research from Wharton analyses this problems in depth.
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/declining-employee-loyalty-a-casualty-of-the-new-workplace/
What do you think? Is loyalty important?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U5pUKoT550
In my presentation, I introduced David E. Soles's three concepts of loyalty. He gives that conclusion that employees do not have any obligation to keep loyal. However, it seems not that true in the real world. It is one of the top reasons that company lose their customers. The high turnover rate plays a negative role in firms' performance. Some economists think that if a firm cannot keep its employees long enough, it cannot keep their customers long enough too. Sometimes employees lose loyalty because they are not treated well by firms, sometimes because of other reasons. And for the firms, it is hard for them to know how loyal is their employees, it is hard to measure.
A research from Wharton analyses this problems in depth.
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/declining-employee-loyalty-a-casualty-of-the-new-workplace/
What do you think? Is loyalty important?
Free coffee may not bring happiness (2012)
A nice gesture turned for the worst when a North Carolina police officer was given a free cup of coffee at Starbucks. Upon receiving his coffee, the lid popped from the cup, causing the coffee to spill on his thigh and groin area.
The officer is suing Starbucks for $50,000 to cover medical fees, claiming this stress led to reactivation of his pre-existing condition: Crohn's disease. As a result, he had to have a large part of his small intestine removed. The officer claimed he did not think the coffee was "that hot." Additionally, the officer's wife stated that she was also affected because she lost her "intimate partner"
http://www.wral.com/hot-coffee-lands-raleigh-officer-starbucks-in-lawsuit-battle/14622348/
This event can be linked to the 1994 Liebeck vs. McDonald's Restaurants case from the textbook.
What are your thoughts on this case?
The officer is suing Starbucks for $50,000 to cover medical fees, claiming this stress led to reactivation of his pre-existing condition: Crohn's disease. As a result, he had to have a large part of his small intestine removed. The officer claimed he did not think the coffee was "that hot." Additionally, the officer's wife stated that she was also affected because she lost her "intimate partner"
http://www.wral.com/hot-coffee-lands-raleigh-officer-starbucks-in-lawsuit-battle/14622348/
This event can be linked to the 1994 Liebeck vs. McDonald's Restaurants case from the textbook.
What are your thoughts on this case?
Monday, April 27, 2015
Responsibility in Supply Chain Managment
Last night, HBO aired an episode of John Oliver's show "Last Week Tonight" that featured as its main segment a criticism of major clothing retailers for failing to ensure that their products are not being sourced from groups that behave in ethically problematic way towards their employees (ie sweatshops of those that employ young children). Here is a link to the video:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdLf4fihP78>
One of the main criticisms that was levied was that companies are paying lip service to attempting to remove products made in sweatshops from their stores but don't seem to exert much effort in determining where exactly their clothing is coming from. I take it that most people think that employers have some moral responsibility to ensure that their products are not being made in a way that violates the rights of or is harmful to the workers that make them (I recognize from our in class discussion of similar cases that some of the class will not agree). The question is, to what extent does that responsibility extend out into complicated supply chains? How much effort must a company make to ensure that it's subcontractors are behaving in an ethical manner?
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdLf4fihP78>
One of the main criticisms that was levied was that companies are paying lip service to attempting to remove products made in sweatshops from their stores but don't seem to exert much effort in determining where exactly their clothing is coming from. I take it that most people think that employers have some moral responsibility to ensure that their products are not being made in a way that violates the rights of or is harmful to the workers that make them (I recognize from our in class discussion of similar cases that some of the class will not agree). The question is, to what extent does that responsibility extend out into complicated supply chains? How much effort must a company make to ensure that it's subcontractors are behaving in an ethical manner?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)