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?
Monday, April 27, 2015
Sunday, April 26, 2015
Is providing benefits a demonstration of good character or a method of control?
People have given accolades to companies such as Google for its benefits to employees. Such things include free access to rental cars, free gyms on campus, and free breakfast, lunch, and dinner. In addition they even have access to Google technology that have not been released in order to get work done (Google Employees Reveal Their Favorite Perks Working For The Company
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/google-employee-favorite-perks-2013-3?op=1#ixzz3YS1vOUOA). However, a rather theoretical argument ensues such work atmospheres. Due to the amount of benefits offered to the employees, one can argue that this allows managers or the bosses to take advantage of employees such as give them wages in an untimely manner. Would it be sufficient to say that people would be less willing to request their wages because of the exceeding amount of benefits that they receive? Does this at all seem like a form of exploitation of workers?
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/google-employee-favorite-perks-2013-3?op=1#ixzz3YS1vOUOA). However, a rather theoretical argument ensues such work atmospheres. Due to the amount of benefits offered to the employees, one can argue that this allows managers or the bosses to take advantage of employees such as give them wages in an untimely manner. Would it be sufficient to say that people would be less willing to request their wages because of the exceeding amount of benefits that they receive? Does this at all seem like a form of exploitation of workers?
Thursday, April 23, 2015
Potential whistleblower here in Rochester?
This is a very recent posting about a fellow Rochester taxi driver from Marketplace Taxi who sent in a video recording of another Rochester taxi dispatcher making offensive remarks about the customers. You can read and watch the news here: http://www.whec.com/article/stories/s3774497.shtml
It has been popping up on social media, so I thought I could share an example of what may qualify as an act of whistle-blowing. Marketplace Taxi has a special partnership with the UofR; on our school's webpage, it endorses Marketplace Taxi as a safe and reliable way of transportation. In the video, the dispatcher is seen on a hidden camera making offensive and racist comments. The owner of the camera is also a taxi driver. She claims that the inappropriate behavior has been going on for five months. What she doesn't mention, or that the camera did not capture on screen, is if she has said or done anything to the offensive dispatcher in hopes to resolve it.
It seems nowadays it's too easy to expose immoral acts by simply turning on the camera. We see examples of this in viral videos of unwarranted police brutality, inappropriate customer service, and more. Do you think this woman should be classified as a whistle-blower? During the presentation on whistle-blowing, there were a couple of conditions to qualify as a whistle-blower, such as appealing internally within an organization about the problem before turning externally. However, like I said about contemporary exposure through fast, efficient cameras, would a regular Joe be considered a whistle-blower if he uploads a video of his employer making inappropriate comments towards something? What if after the video, the company goes through major reformations and overall good comes from it?
It has been popping up on social media, so I thought I could share an example of what may qualify as an act of whistle-blowing. Marketplace Taxi has a special partnership with the UofR; on our school's webpage, it endorses Marketplace Taxi as a safe and reliable way of transportation. In the video, the dispatcher is seen on a hidden camera making offensive and racist comments. The owner of the camera is also a taxi driver. She claims that the inappropriate behavior has been going on for five months. What she doesn't mention, or that the camera did not capture on screen, is if she has said or done anything to the offensive dispatcher in hopes to resolve it.
It seems nowadays it's too easy to expose immoral acts by simply turning on the camera. We see examples of this in viral videos of unwarranted police brutality, inappropriate customer service, and more. Do you think this woman should be classified as a whistle-blower? During the presentation on whistle-blowing, there were a couple of conditions to qualify as a whistle-blower, such as appealing internally within an organization about the problem before turning externally. However, like I said about contemporary exposure through fast, efficient cameras, would a regular Joe be considered a whistle-blower if he uploads a video of his employer making inappropriate comments towards something? What if after the video, the company goes through major reformations and overall good comes from it?
Tuesday, April 7, 2015
The Problem with Corporate Volunteerism
I was reading our upcoming chapter and it discussed corporate volunteerism/civic duty and how this can be pushed upon employees in a negative way (Read more pg 431). The discussion reminded me of another side of this issue I had read about which I think the book has neglected, which is that there are often harms for the non-profit that corporate workers are volunteering at.
Great piece by the Boston Globe Business Section with comments from the COO of YMCA Metro North about the pressures non-profits feel in catering to businesses looking to "do good".
Are these complaints justified? Should non-profits be grateful for any and all help or are corporations asking too much?
Great piece by the Boston Globe Business Section with comments from the COO of YMCA Metro North about the pressures non-profits feel in catering to businesses looking to "do good".
Are these complaints justified? Should non-profits be grateful for any and all help or are corporations asking too much?
Monday, April 6, 2015
The Relationship Between Minimum Wage and Unemployment
The topic of minimum wage got me thinking today about a topic that came up in my economics course. It was regarding the burden placed on businesses in providing wages.
It is known that businesses are targeted for giving employees "low wages". But when referring to the idea of unemployment and minimum wage, some would argue that businesses are providing some welfare to society by paying a minimum wage without it being a moral obligation (this is disregarding that it is in fact a federal requirement). In other words, the argument of having minimum wage or no money (i.e. unemployment) at all arises. Is the correlation between minimum wage and employment that strong? Or should these set of people be grouped differently?
It is known that businesses are targeted for giving employees "low wages". But when referring to the idea of unemployment and minimum wage, some would argue that businesses are providing some welfare to society by paying a minimum wage without it being a moral obligation (this is disregarding that it is in fact a federal requirement). In other words, the argument of having minimum wage or no money (i.e. unemployment) at all arises. Is the correlation between minimum wage and employment that strong? Or should these set of people be grouped differently?
This topic may not be relevant to the current chapter that we are covering but it did strike my attention. It is in regards to the consequentialism and is meant to facilitate discussion rather than being posted to make a point.
I remember someone in class mentioning the "timeliness of consequentialism" and in bringing this up it was noted that in certain scenarios, taking time to think about the potential results would lead to bad consequences. In the case where Professor Tresan is lecturing the class and a student begins seizing outside and he is the only one that is capable of saving this person's life. Consequentialists would argue that it would lead to bad consequences if Tresan dedicated a significant amount of time contemplating the consequences of saving the life of this student.
In regards to our decisions, it is reasonable to believe that some of choices are based on intuition at least to some degree. Provided this, I believe that in some cases intuition drives our choices in the sphere of consequentialism. As defined in our readings, an intuitive level of thinking is "generally applied principles" that motivate our very decisions (i.e. kindness, honesty, courage, and loyalty). In general, I believe people are confronted by situations in which they have to react hastily and in some cases intuitively. Given the former example, Professor Tresan would act intuitively rather than sitting to think about the consequences. By this, I mean that he might base his decision to save him on kindness or even some moral inclination given that he is the only individual capable of saving the student's life. After all he is not morally obligated to save the student's life. In essence I believe that intuition is vital in our decision making in happenstances that require immediate reactions. Does anyone agree to what I am saying or is there something fundamentally incorrect about my statements?
I remember someone in class mentioning the "timeliness of consequentialism" and in bringing this up it was noted that in certain scenarios, taking time to think about the potential results would lead to bad consequences. In the case where Professor Tresan is lecturing the class and a student begins seizing outside and he is the only one that is capable of saving this person's life. Consequentialists would argue that it would lead to bad consequences if Tresan dedicated a significant amount of time contemplating the consequences of saving the life of this student.
In regards to our decisions, it is reasonable to believe that some of choices are based on intuition at least to some degree. Provided this, I believe that in some cases intuition drives our choices in the sphere of consequentialism. As defined in our readings, an intuitive level of thinking is "generally applied principles" that motivate our very decisions (i.e. kindness, honesty, courage, and loyalty). In general, I believe people are confronted by situations in which they have to react hastily and in some cases intuitively. Given the former example, Professor Tresan would act intuitively rather than sitting to think about the consequences. By this, I mean that he might base his decision to save him on kindness or even some moral inclination given that he is the only individual capable of saving the student's life. After all he is not morally obligated to save the student's life. In essence I believe that intuition is vital in our decision making in happenstances that require immediate reactions. Does anyone agree to what I am saying or is there something fundamentally incorrect about my statements?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)