Kant’s categorical imperative requires that others be treated as ends and never as means.
In what way could the argument be made that the employees at AA are being treated as means, and therefore Charney’s plant is unethical no matter how high his salaries may be?
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Far from the assumption that garments at AA are ethically made, there exists violations depicting that the company does not comply with the moral obligations it is required to fulfil. While alluding to the categorical imperatives, it is apparent that employees are indeed being treated as means. For instance, the idea that the company targets immigrant workers who cannot demand competitive wages. AA can claim to be the best paying garment maker, however, based on the standard rate of payment of workers in Southern California, it is apparent that the company employees are being underpaid. Besides, workers were found to be using Social Security numbers and other identifying documents that had been purchased, stolen, or just plain invented which is unethical.
Besides high pay, the company provides workers with considerable freedom to set their own work pace and schedule. The company also provides a stock purchase program. Do either or both of these factors alleviate the charge that the workers are treated as means and not ends? Could a libertarian argument be useful here?
Despite the seemingly high pay, a libertarian argument cannot be useful here especially since the company does not fully comply with the requirements of the industry. It is apparent that workers are best sourced outside the confines of the country. Besides, the company is aware that such workers have nowhere else where they can seek for work since their social security numbers are questionable and they are illegal immigrants at the mercy of AA. Since AA`s workers possess no bargaining power, the libertarian argument does not apply.
Eighteen hundred of AA’s five thousand workers were using false papers and Social Security numbers to get their job. Charney knew all about that but chose to overlook it.
Leaving the law aside, how can that overlooking be justified ethically by reference to the perennial duties?
Perennial duties denote how human beings should act. Under this assumption, the aspect of false papers is not a significant consideration while referring to ethical conduct. So long as the company employees do not engage in crime such as stealing and they also promote the welfare of individuals in the society, they are deemed to be acceptable in the society, hence, AA cannot be held liable for hiring such workers.
Leaving the law aside, how can that overlooking be criticized ethically by reference to the perennial duties?
The ethical responsibility to others which is an element of perennial duties is against the company`s action of overlooking. The business has a duty to ensure that all its workers are ethically compliant to the societal regulations. In this case, being documented is an ethical obligation of every employee and this is something that AA should adhere to irrespective of how morally upright the employee is.
Charney and AA support illegal immigrants in two ways: by giving them jobs and by organizing popular protests in favor of their legalization (the motto of their political operation is Legalize LA ). Ethically, are these two activities recommendable or not? Or, is one recommendable and the other not? Explain.
Ethically, both activities are not recommendable. First, Charney and AA appear to be using these employees as a means. They are aware that the greatest weakness that their workers have is their undocumented status, and, they are, therefore, willing to ride on that by supporting popular protests in favor of their legalization, whereas the main idea here is appeasing them enough to get them to work for the company dutifully which ends up being unethical. It would only be unethical if Charney and AA does not stand to gain from their actions.
Assuming it’s wrong for illegal immigrants to be working in America, who deserves the sterner ethical reprobation, Charney or the illegal workers? Explain in ethical terms.
Based on ethical terms, AA deserves sterner ethical probation. The reason is due to their actions of hiring undocumented immigrants knowingly. Besides, it is possible that the immigrants might be unaware of the laws prohibiting their employment. The Immigration Reform and Control Act stipulates that even if the employer hires such workers unknowingly, they are still bound to face disciplinary action, implying that they are liable to face criminal and civil action. Going against such laws is an aspect of ethical violation which makes Charney and the company liable.
Is it wrong for illegal immigrants to be working in America?
Yes. The Immigration Reform and Control Act prohibits immigrants from working in America. An employee ought to fill form 1-9 in the best way possible so that they can be aware of the necessary requirements they ought to request from a potential employee. Any undocumented immigrant is bound to face deportation upon being discovered. The employer, on the other hand, is held accountable and is likely to face criminal penalty of up to $3000 per illegal immigrant recruited, face up to half a year imprisonment or be liable to pay $1000 fine in the event of a civil penalty ( Brusseau, 2011 ). All these point to the fact that illegal immigrants are not allowed in America.
The basic and natural rights of mainstream rights theory include the following:
Life
Freedom
Free speech
Religious expression
The pursuit of happiness
Possessions and the fruits of our work
How can these rights be mustered to support Charney’s hiring and keeping workers he knows are in the country illegally?
Any resident of the United States is entitled to the basic and natural rights mentioned. Charney`s hiring and keeping illegal immigrants is justifiable since he is fulfilling their freedom to possessions and the fruits of their work. Implying that the workers have the right to get the proceeds of their work. Besides, by organizing protests for them, he is fulfilling their freedom of speech, since they have a right to express themselves and lobby for the changes that they would like to be enforced in order to validate them.
How can these rights be mustered to ethically denounce Charney for hiring and keeping workers he knows are in the country illegally?
While the rights might appear to support Charney`s act of hiring immigrant employees, they are in direct contravention of that. The rights should not be construed to mean that undocumented immigrants can be employed. If they were supported, they would result in more employers like Charney seeking to hire undocumented immigrants who are comfortable with little pay. The rights are meant to protect humanity from general forms of violation and should, therefore, not diminish labor protections seeking to offer protection to the employment of legal citizens of the United States.
Thinking about those workers, do these rights give them an ethical license to use false Social Security numbers and identifying documents? Why or why not?
No, they do not. False representation in terms of lying about one`s documentation status is unacceptable. Ethically, there are no rights which guarantee one the freedom to provide fabricated information to potential employers. The reason is based on the precept that immigration fraud by means of false documentation is a moral turpitude which constitutes a crime under the United States law ( Cascio & Lewis, 2019 ). Such illegal documentation can deny the workers an opportunity to enter the U.S.A legally in the future upon their deportation.
Eddy Lepp ended up in jail for his medicinal marijuana garden. Dov Charney sleeps in a million-dollar beach house. Is this fair?
It is extremely unfair. The law clearly stipulates the actions that ought to be levelled against anyone found guilty of employing undocumented immigrants, yet no action appears to have been taken against Dov Charney, other than the requirement for him to fire 1800 workers. Eddy Lepp, on the other hand, had grown marijuana plants for medicinal use which is lawful under California law yet was given a 10 year prison sentence.
References
Brusseau, J. (2011). The Business Ethics Workshop, v. 1.0. Flat World Knowledge, Washington, DC .
Cascio, E. U., & Lewis, E. G. (2019). Distributing the Green (Cards): Permanent residency and personal income taxes after the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Journal of Public Economics , 172 , 135-150.
