I chose dilemmas in the work place due to many problems with new hires. I feel that in an interview all new prospective hires should be honest. If you are not honest about your work ethic or behaviors it shows clearly within a few weeks. I have had employees with poor histories of past troubles that due to their interview we overlooked. Some workers held their word and turned out to be the best workers we had. Others fell very short from were they claimed to be. An interviewer will choose hires based on your attitude and judgement of your skills and the little they know about you. It is ethically wrong to lie and in the end they will find out. I feel the best trait is to be honest and straight forward. I agree that you should not bad mouth a previous job, but be honest on why you left and how you would like to start fresh in a new environment. An interviewer can respect you leaving a company for mistreatment as long as you move on and do not bring the feeling of mistreatment to the start of a new job. Focus on the positives and be glad you are moving forward to potentially a better job.
1) Describe a supervisor who inspired and motivated you – what were their characteristics or actions that made such a positive impact?
Previously I had a manager that motivated me constantly. He strove to keep me constantly learning even above what my skill set should have consisted of for my job title. He pushed me to work hard to work my way up the chain. He gave myself and fellow coworkers tasks that fit our skill sets the best. He met with us one a week to discuss our concerns for the work place and what we could do as a team to improve. He constantly listened to our input and reasoned with us on what we could and could not achieve at the time period due to resources and budgets. Under this manager I learned the difference between a leader and a boss. He always strove to help us and ensure our safety. He stood up for us within our mistakes and misjudgments and made everything into a way to improve ourselves. This manager has made a positive impact on me, showing me how one day I will want to lead. This took in the Hawthorne effect giving us a say in change but maybe not necessarily changing our physical work conditions
2) Describe a supervisor who was a poor supervisor (un-motivating, indecisive, uncaring, etc.) – what were their characteristics or actions that made you feel that way?
I have recently had a very poor boss. This gentleman believed in what I would call a “scare tactic”. He would constantly tell us we were pathetic, how we should be embarrassed to say this is our work and how needed to do better. The whole team dreaded meetings with him because we never knew if we would walk out unemployed. This job gave us constant anxiety of losing our jobs in the blink of an eye. We were told that if our staff messed up we would be the ones fired due to our failure to essentially force them to learn the policies overnight. We had to check and recheck every move our staff made just to make sure we could ensure the safety of our jobs. This prevented us from getting our work done in a timely manner, and made for a very hostile work environment. We knew we could trust no one because anyone who snitched was rewarded and was deemed by the team as untrustworthy. This job made me realize how different you can be treated under different bosses. I resigned from this job after realizing how I never had anxiety before working there, and how progressing seemed impossible, this job was a stand still.
2. I feel that employees should have a moral right to leave their weapons in their vehicles at work. At my current job they ask that there are no weapons on the premises. Though there is no way to enforce this, without the invasion of person property, I feel weapons should be aloud in personal vehicles as long as they are secured. This could be the matter of life and death for an employee. I recently received an email at my job of another manager in the lower 48 being stabbed multiple times after being hit from behind by a customer. With robbers and customers bearing weapons I feel we should have the right to keep weapons in our own vehicles for our protection as long as they are secured. The difference it could have made for another employee to have a weapon they could have gotten to defend the manager could have lessened his injuries dramatically. I believe companies have no right to ask employees to remove their weapons from personal vehicles. None company vehicles are private property and would take away the rights to a person owning the car to tell them they can not store weapons. I do not feel companies have good grounds to this due to cars being personal property.
3. I agree with the NRA that if companies ban guns from their parking lots would cause a major hit to the second amendment. People have a right to bare arms, I feel being asked to leave a weapon in my vehicle is a reasonable way to keep weapons out of the work place. Many people carry weapons in self defense, and I feel having to leave a weapon at home puts employees at extreme risk. People have a right to protect themselves, having no access to a means of protection for 40 hrs a week when their is most likely to be a need for said protection does not seem right in my eyes. I feel state legislatures have a right to get involved due to the matter affecting the second amendment. This controversy has a direct effect on our second amendment and should not be left up to the jurisdiction of a company.
4. I feel their are circumstances that teachers should be allowed to bring weapons to schools. Granted I feel they should have to take advanced safety courses, check in and out all weapons, and have a military grade security system for storing all weapons. I feel teachers should be able to have weapons as long as the school ensures the safety of the “learning environment”. Theses weapons should be assigned to qualified teachers and the school should ensure that in no way possible a student could gain access to these weapons. I feel it is very reasonable for teachers to carry weapons under the right circumstances. Regarding schools though I feel that other aspects should also be taken such as bullet proof doors/rooms, better monitoring systems, stricter regulations on what is aloud within the school, and more checks to ensure all policies are being followed.
1. For you, what was the most alarming part of this film?
The most alarming part of the film is the extent the corporations will go to in order to meet its self interest. The extent of fulling an interest over the sake of a humans life to me supersedes any definition of greed and is almost inhuman. Ethically I feel this is wrong, growing up I always learned to be kind and to always think of others. As a kid you were taught sharing and helping others. I agree with having and pursuing self interest but corporations have taken this to an unethical extreme in the end goal of making a larger profit.
A) Do you believe corporations are legal persons? Why or Why Not?
In my personal opinion I feel a corporation should not be defined as a person. A corporation in the film was defined as a large group of individuals working together to benefit a business. This to me does not fall in the category of a legal person. I feel a corporation should be as it is, not a legal person but a group of individuals. I feel to have a corporation be a legal person is a bend on the laws that have taken specifics out of context to better protect the corporation.
- How can you justify the role of “sweatshops” after reading the article?
After reading “In Defense of “Sweatshops”” by Benjamin Powell I have learned a lot of interesting facts that are not commonly publicized by news reports or articles. In this article it helps to justify the role of “sweatshops” by pointing out the common error that many Americans compare workers wages to the American economy. The research in this article shows that on average sweatshop workers earn more on average than the average worker in their area. Most sweatshops are established in less developed countries, this sets average wages for that country dramatically lower than in American. When Americans hear these low numbers they assume that it is well below living standards based on their personal lives. In these countries this wage in in fact on the higher end based on living standards. To protest and remove sweatshop workers would result in workers from children to adults to look for the next best paying alternative job. When protesting the use of child labor, many young children who were laid off turned to worse alternatives such as prostitution. Instead of boycotting sweatshop products and protesting their existence we should work to improve working conditions and benefits.
2. Do some research and read at least one other article(s) with the opposing view. What are the arguments against sweatshops? Provide the reference (you can read the article below from the Collegian, but you can’t use it as your research).
The arguments against sweatshops are the poor work conditions. The article “Fashion Crimes” gives many facts about the mistreatment of sweatshop workers. Many employees are forced to complete contracts in order to work, keeping them for potentially years. Workers who break this contract face legal punishment. Workers tend to work in unhealthy conditions. Workers face below standard health and safety regulations in their workplace due to companies cutting corners for profits. Workers are often abused and punished for regular actions such as bathroom breaks. These conditions can be argued as cruel and inhuman. Companies use middlemen to run these factories in order to claim that they do not directly correlate with the treatment of workers.
3. What should large conglomerates do regarding the use of “sweatshops?” Defend your position with facts from another article.
I feel that the large conglomerates should continue to use “sweatshops”. Given this I feel that as the existence of sweatshops continue the work conditions should slowly conform to a more human and safe work environment as to a pace that does not cause massive unemployment due to loss of profits. With the use of gradual implication of regulations for work conditions I feel that we can not only help to improve the safety for workers but also minimize the impact of the increased spending to prevent unemployment. According to the article “Why the World Needs Sweatshops” these shops are beneficial. These factories are usually set up in underdeveloped areas of the world, with this new job creation in stimulates that areas economy causing it to build. With the implication of these factories also brings in newer technology and helps to improve the development of the area. Workers may have harsher work conditions but on the contrary the alternatives to these conditions tend to be far worse. In the article it uses the example of unemployment. The article also argues that due to the harsher work conditions as incentive to get workers these factories usually pay slightly above the standard of living to compensate for the undesirable work conditions. Given this information I feel we would be hurting the people and the economy of the areas that currently have sweatshops if we tried to eliminate them or even just boycott the products. I feel we should take an alternative approach of working to better the conditions for these workers but also working to minimalism the impact of these regulations. To instill all human work conditions immediately may cause companies to cut back on workers due to increase spending and even lower the wages due to increase demand for jobs. This would be hurting the people that already depend so heavily on these wages to stay out of poverty. I feel we should work to implement safer work conditions while working to keep workers employed.
Reading about prima facie obligation brought me to think of a promise I did not keep to my parents. Like most young kids who are close to their parents they hear the story that that will never grow old and stay their little girl forever. My parents always made me promise I would live at home till I was forty. Shortly after I turned eighteen I knew my home town in New York was not the place for me. I loved my home town but could not reach my goals if I stayed there. After I graduated I took a leap of faith and broke my promise to my family. I moved from New York to Fairbanks Alaska to follow my dreams and reach closer to my goals. This relates to prima facie obligation because I broke my promise to my parents to take a step that in many eyes is morally right. I broke the promise to better myself and to progress my own life. Since then I have kept a strong relationship with my family and continued on the path to reach my goals.
How do we develop our ethics? What are the primary sources for us to develop our ethical position?
As people we first develop our ethics through our parents. How a person was raised has a major influence on our ethical value. Our parents will tell us what is right from wrong at a young age, causing our morals to conform to what they believe in. Learning what is right from wrong based on our parents beliefs will start to form our conscience. As we mature we slowly change our morals based on the society we are in, creating conformity. We adapt our morals to our beliefs/religion, work, and the people we spend our time with. Someone with a strong business ethics from work will have vastly different morals than someone who has ethics with concrete religious influence. The structure of how we develop our ethical positions lies within the path we take in life.
People comprises their morals based on life experiences creating uniqueness in ethical beliefs from person to person. This difference in views, yet slight overlap is the start on the debate of ethical positions.