To: Belinda Lee, CEO
From: Team members
Subject: Human Resource Issues
Date: August 20, 2018
Executive Summary
The main objective of this memo is to explore both ethical and legal concerns involving Shinecall which is a subsidiary organization of Phone and Build. The main motive behind exploring these issues is based on the mistake committed by the human resource department. The department mistakenly sent an email that was intended for one of the US executives to two other local employees affiliated with Shining Sands. Knowing the major disparities in the compensation and benefits schemes, the two local executives have resorted to agitate for their rights. However, John who is the manager of this company has resorted to appointing other two US expatriates. Even though the two US expatriates suit the position, the Shining Sand laws do not permit their entry because of their age. For instance, Dan is 66 while Sarah is 46. With this being said, the human resource manager has decided to fire Ali and replace him with another local employee in Mohammed. Based on this case scenario, Shinecall can alleviate this problem by maintaining its legal structures. This is because the US laws do not apply to employment discrimination. Furthermore, the company’s disparities in payment schemes are supported in its policy. The payments are remitted based on the talents and the competitiveness of an employee. Therefore, scraping off this particular strategy will expose the company to the risk of losing their coveted employees.
Ethical Perspective
In order to understand the case scenario from an ethical perspective, it is important to contextualize the fact that the company’s employees seemed comfortable with their initial wages. Therefore, it is important to analyze the prevailing norms before the disclosure of payment disparities. A norm is always considered a prevailing condition in which the community members are comfortable with. The fact that the outrage came after the disclosure of the payment disparity helps to ascertain that the initial remunerations were reasonable in the first place. In assessing this scenario, it is important to integrate the analysis with the postulations of Donaldson’s Integrative social contracts theory. This theory clearly postulates that the social contacts established among employees help to highlight the social norms acceptable in the community. Given the fact that the local employees are part of the larger community, they influence given norms in the society. However, their influence can only be grounded in the company’s issuance of informed consent. This is because an informed consent will provide the community members with an option to either accept the company’s proposed payment schemes or deny the proposition. This will serve to limit the consequences of coercing individuals to accept terms that they are not familiar with. Shinecall can achieve this strategy by educating the local community on the possible options provided by the company. Furthermore, the community can also agitate for their rights by forming a union in shinecall which will serve to channel their grievances to the concerned parties. The local policy in Shining Sand can also be used to regulate the remunerations allocated for the locals by the company. Such solutions will serve to alleviate tensions in the community’s social contacts. This will be instrumental in establishing acceptable norms in the Shining Sand Local community. In addition, the microsocial contract norm established should intertwine with the stipulations of hypernorms. Hypenorms are all those values that are too important for human survival. Even though it represents social norms, it integrates the key issues in culture and religious beliefs that are fundamental for human survival. According to Taylor Charles, the hypernorms are best understood by those who consider them as channels to gain moral consciousness ( Taylor, 2012). With these theoretical assertions, it is clear that even with the disclosure of payment disparities, the norms governing the shinecall will not change. This is because the initial remunerations were acceptable by the community. Therefore, there is no need for the company to change any payment rules but it can at least adhere to the stipulations of the ceteri parabis .
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Should Expatriates Be Paid More Than The Locals?
The idea of whether the expatriates should be paid more than the locals is a debatable issue that can well be explained in the position of the locals. The locals have the power to establish new norms through their social contracts. Based on an ethical position, Shinecall should remunerate its employees based on the norms governing the local community. However, this move will have a detrimental effect on the company. This is due to the fact that it will have to set up new norms to accommodate the locals’ demands which will violet its policies. Therefore, it is clear that the Phone and Build should not deviate from its initial policies. It is up to the employees to agitate for their rights through the company’s social contracts as postulated in the Donaldson’s theory ( Donaldson & Dunfee, 1994). This is a two-way concept where one action on either side has its consequences, thus it is important to stick with the original norms.
Reasons for Differences In Salary If One Is Send To Shinecall
The payment disparities disclosed in Shinescall is a delicate one. However, it is important to understand the criteria in which expatriates are selected in their home markets. In most cases, such individuals are hired based on their talents and competitiveness in a given are. Therefore, for an expatriate to be deployed in Shining Sand, he or she must have negotiated for the payments before being hired. In line with the demands of the Shining Sand locals, it is important to figure out that the expatriates deployed in the foreign country must have been hired from different competitive environments which clearly justifies the differences in payments. Thus, in the event that one is sent to Shining Sand to represent the company, it is important to adhere to the company’s policies. This is because one has the power to bargain for his or her salary accepting the terms for hire.
Legal Assessment Of The Situation
In the event that Dan, Sarah, Mohammed and Ali all worked for Phone and Build company in America, then they will all be protected under the laws stipulated in US EEOC. This policy clearly protects individuals against any form of discrimination. For the case of a 66-year-old Dan, he will be protected under the age discriminatory section of EEOC. This concept is clearly stipulated in the 1967 employment Act which highlights regulations for age discrimination. In line with this case scenario, the law clearly enumerates that it will be illegal for an organization to discriminate an employee based on age ( Rothenberg & Gardner, 2011).
As an employee in the United States, denial of a work visa is a clear violation of civil rights. Therefore, for the case of Sarah, the civil rights regulations will apply. The US civil rights act of 1964 clearly highlights that it is an offence to harbour any kind of discrimination towards hiring an employee based on age or race. With this assertion, it is very clear that the case of Sarah would not have happened in the event that she was a worker in the US.
Also, the EEOC regulations will protect Ali since Mohammed is any other individual to be considered for hire. Therefore, sacking Ali on the grounds that he instigated the problems experienced by the company is a discriminatory act that violets the EEOC rules.
Regarding the position of Ali, the US government rules clearly stipulate that it is an unlawful act to punish an employee who is freely agitating for his rights. This action is normally termed a “protected activity” since the employee has the mandate to seek clarification in any area he or she feels oppressed.
The Application Of The Listed Laws
When assessing the laws that will be applicable for Ali, Sarah, Dan and Mohammed, it is important to understand if the four individuals are protected by the US EEOC policies. In line with this assertion, both Ali and Mohammed will not be recognized under the EEOC policies since they are not US citizens. With this being said, it is clear that the EEOC rules will only apply to Dan and Sarah who are US citizens. In the event that a US citizen works in a foreign country, then the law clearly states that they will be protected under the “Title VII, the ADEA or ADA.” Also, the law stipulates that “An employer will be considered a US employer if it is incorporated or based in the united states or if sufficient connections with the US.” Thus, given the fact that Shinecall is connected to Phone and Build which is established in the US, helps to ascertain that the postulations of EEOC will apply. Hence, the US citizens affiliated with shinecall will be protected by the postulations of this law.
However, the foreign law defense opposes the postulations of EEOC by stating that any foreign expatriates who trades in the foreign country should adhere to the rules governing the country. Therefore, in the event that the US citizens abide by the postulations of EEOC, then they will be will be violating the rules governing the foreign country. In the case of Dan, he will be able to lose his appointments since the foreign law imposes strict laws on the age limit. Finally, given that that shining law does not have laws discriminating women from any job opportunity. Thus, it is expected that Sarah will be liable to the EEOC regulations while in shining Sands.
References
Business Ethics in a Nutshell. (2010). Business ethics in a Nutshell: What is ethics. P. 1-7. Retrieved from https://umuc.equella.ecollege.com/file/6aa8bfb8-7053-4fed-94f6-2547e454c501/1/web/viewer.html?file=https://umuc.equella.ecollege.com/file/4c7d21e7-e1fb-4482-9c47-b68cbbcd37dd/1/BusinessEthicsinaNutshellWhatisEthics.pdf
Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1994). Toward a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contracts theory. Academy of management review , 19 (2), 252-284.
Rothenberg, J. Z., & Gardner, D. S. (2011). Protecting older workers: The failure of the age discrimination in employment act of 1967. J. Soc. & Soc. Welfare , 38 , 9.
Taylor, C. (2012). 3/Ethics of Inarticulacy. In Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity (p. 64). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
