The complex nature of the ethical relationship between employer and employees bestows rights and responsibilities to both. In this case, employee responsibilities include personally attending and completing the training, following instructions of the employer, and to avoid endangering themselves or their colleagues (Brenkert & Beauchamp, 2010). On the other hand, employees enjoy rights to fair wages and taxes from their employers. This implies at least meeting the minimum hourly wage and make prompt wage payments. Furthermore, both state and federal governments require employers to pay taxes for everyone in its employ. Still, the federal government mandates employers to uphold workplace safety standards. Again, employees are entitled to having training venues that are accessible and provided by the employer (Paliwal, 2006).
To the extent that employers need to make decisions that safeguard the health of the company and offer their employees a safe working environment, the former has moral responsibilities. Furthermore, employers should pay their employees’ good wages, offer both good health benefits and working conditions. Crucially, the ethical relationship requires employers to demonstrate the importance of their employees (Shaw, 2014). Similarly, employers shoulder the ethical burden of openness, this leads to empowered and happy employees as they will not feel intimidated by management when it comes to reporting problems or issues. Ethical training bases such employee expectation as it demonstrates that the company values their ideas and opinions (Brenkert et.al 2010).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Paliwal (2006), observes that ethical dilemmas in business present alternative outcomes that are unpleasant yet necessary while conducting business on behalf of any employer. In this case, the dilemma is based on both the ethical reputation of the firm and its business needs. Specifically, the information disclosure challenge as it relates to company products and its customers (Shaw, 2014). In this instance, the employees know that a service they are marketing is about to complete its life cycle and that a new and better product is due for launch in a few months. until then, old product units must be sold. Thus, the dilemma becomes whether should employees inform the company’s customers of the impending launch as this implies that they will buy better quality products at an improved price point or withhold that information.
According to utilitarianism, ethical actions or decisions are those that create the greatest benefit for the majority. Then again, relativism asserts that it is the situation that determines whether an action or decision is ethical (Brenkert et.al 2010). If the company’s clients’ numbers exceed their employee numbers, a utilitarian approach requires the marketing employees to disclose such information. Conversely, if the decision is premised on business efficiency and relativism, then the employees cannot make this disclosure as it will risk the company revenue and their immediate future.
The confidential handling of complaint reports along with following the rules are examples of ethical decisions employees make based on corporate ethics and responsibilities (Shaw, 2014: Brenkert et.al 2010: Paliwal, 2006). Companies have policies to keep confidential both internal and external complaints that benefit morale and keeping sensitive matters private. In the case of harassment grievances, the situation requires investigating and rumors will escalate such circumstances but following set protocol facilitates inquiry. Adhering to the rules also demonstrates ethical behavior. This includes taking the scheduled number of breaks and completing any training module. For instance, taking too many breaks will harm employee morale in team settings. Notably, there are several common approaches employees use to justify unethical behavior. Comparing entails making evaluations between one type of unethical behavior with another to defend a minor wrong. Again, diffusion of responsibility entails groups acting unethically without anyone assuming any responsibility (Shaw, 2014: Brenkert et.al 2010: Paliwal, 2006). Instead, they attempt to justify one another.
References
Brenkert, G. G., & Beauchamp, T. L. (2010). The Oxford handbook of business ethics . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Paliwal, M. (2006). Business ethics . New Delhi: New Age International.
Shaw, W. H. (2014). Business ethics . Boston, MA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
