Business Issues, Ethics and Whistleblowing - Free Essay Example

Q1. In this case, there are three main ethical issues, as following: Firstly, the two guys are construction workers and they should sign an engagement letter before working. However, the article did not state any content of the contract. Maybe, the contract of employment did not state the fixed working hours due to flexible. They obtain recalling and they need to work on the site. It is also possible that the contract had a fixed working hours but no assigned location. This contract has clauses to restrict the scope of job, time and others. In fact, they should obey employment contract. On one hand, they should not obtain salary over their actual working hours if salary is based at working hours. On the other hand, they should not absent on working day if the contract listed working time. Anyway, the two guys have a legal relationship between them and their employer, and they breached the contract of employment. Thus, they received money over the amount of actual salary. There is conflict of interest between them and the employer. The reason is that the two men did not work on that day but the names were marked into the attendance book. After that, the day was regarded as working day for them and they would rec eive the salary of that day. That is to say, the company still paid money when they did not attend at work. Its expenditure does not equal employeesà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ contribution. It leads to the profit of the company of the employer is less than actual profit. The implication is that its shareholders make less money. In fact, their behaviour would affect third partiesà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ interest and it is unethical. Moreover, they are not honest and straightforward even they justified a number of points why they had done. For example, attendance at work did not mean that the progress was faster. They could work hard to compensate the rest day lost after they were rest and renewed vigor. The productivity would be higher and they had never let Bobby down. In fact, they cannot prove the increased productivity and there is no evidence that it is useful for compensating the rest day lost. In addition, their logic does not make sense. Although their behaviour does not influent othe r workers, it is unfair for them. Because they did not work, they can receive salary on that day. Nevertheless, other workers worked on that day and they got salary that is as same as the two menà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s. The conduct means whether workers attend at work are the same on salary. They breach the code of integrity and are lack of credibility for the company and other workers. According to the article, they expressed everybody knew about the system, seeing it as an incentive to their work or even a bonus. It means they and their colleagues cheat the company together, which is unethical action. The phenomenon does not become rationalization even if all do this event. They do not obey their duties of the employment. Final, Chui also breaks his duty of care since he is responsible for recording books and accounts. He marked the name of two men into the attendance book but they did not recall seeing on the site the day. Thus, it is seen he intentionally violate his duty. Alt hough it does not show whether Chui obtains an advantage, his conduct has been already wrong. If he receives any benefits on this situation, he will breach the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO). Of course, the conduct that the workers offer a benefit also breaks the POBO due to corruption. If it is real, they will be guilty of unethical behaviour and may be prosecuted under the POBO. Except that, he has a duty to report the record for his supervisor who is Bobby. According to the article, Chui had been Bobbyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s right hand man for many years. In this case, he was not honest using his position as he defrauded the attendance of workers. He tried to mislead Bobby and the employer about the workersà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ working day and make some benefits for the two men. To conclude, the above behaviour of the two men and Chui is unethical. Q2. Bobby should blow the whistle due to ethics of right and justice which is one of normative ethical theories. The eth ics of right and justice is not in accordance with the outcomes of a decision and it is based on business ethics. Rights are basic, unalienable, important entitlements that should be protected and respected, including rights to life, freedom and property. In this case, the employer has a right to protect his property but the two guys took some money which they should not own. They also did not respect other people because they did not contribute any manpower and got benefits as same as other working labour. Of course, Bobby was also one of the hard labour and they did not revere others effort. In addition, Bobby has a right to expose the unfair event. Besides, justice is the fair treatment that individuals obtain what they deserve. In other words, everyone strives in a situation and obtains the same benefits, it is fair. Everybody is to have an equal right under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. Ethics of right and justice includes fair procedures and fair outcomes. Fair procedures are that fairness is determined according to whether everybody acquires rewards for his or efforts. This is regarded as procedural justice. Although the two guys said everyone knew about the system and it is seen as an incentive to their work or even a bonus, the point cannot prove by evidence. What is more, Bobby did not know it. That is to say, someone does not know its existence. Their conduct is unfair for other workers since they did not work on that day but they received the salary of that day. In fact, other workers need to work hard on whole day. Thus, they are unfair for others, including Bobby. However, the two men certainly breach the ethics of right and justice. Hence, Bobby should blow the whistle. There are three possible personal consequences of Bobby if he followed my suggestion, as following: Promotion Bobby blows the whistle and then Clint knew the degree and implication of the system. Because the managers or employer have not known the event, the company still pays more salary for the staff. The conduct harms the interest of the company and its shareholders. After knowing the event, the company can avoid this expenditure so that it must reward Bobby. In order to encouraging the behaviour, the company awards him a bonus or promotes his position. His career will be better than prior. Moreover, the employer appreciates an honest employee due to benefits for the company. The reward tells all staff that does not do again and also remains vigilant at all time. Breaking a relationship among colleagues According to the article, the two men indicated everybody knew about the system, seeing it as an incentive o their work or even a bonus. That is to say, a lot of people have used the method in their job even it existed for a long time. Byblowing the whistle, Bobby displeases a great deal of colleagues. After knowing the event, Clint may stop the atmosphere at work and reconstruct the culture of the job. At the same time, his colleagues would lose a chance of making more money. Thus, they will be angry with Bobby even never acknowledge him. Besides, Bobby may become a person at work and it means he is isolated thanks to different from othersà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ thinking. Disemployment When Clint also took part in the system and Bobby blows the whistle, they would make a contradiction between their thinking and behaviour. In fact, Clintà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s position was higher than Bobbyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s and it reflects lots of people of various positions joined the system. They made more benefits in the potential rules, nevertheless, Bobby breaks them. In this case, Bobby is seen as trouble-makers. At the moment, Bobby is victimized and his career prospects in that company will be damaged. He may be fired or people provide him an acceptable bonus if he resigns voluntarily. Of course, he needs to sign an agreement not to disclose the issue to anyone else. What is more, his leave does not affect companyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s daily operation since Clint would promote other colleague instead of him. Q3. There are two most prominent personal factors that might influence Bobbyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s decision, as following: Education and employment General speaking, the type and quality of education, including professional training, may affect attitudes towards ethics. Different major subjects would teach the various scope of content. It also changes peopleà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s critical and independent thinking and views. For example, accounting students should learn Ethic of Code. They know more these knowledge than others so that they should know the implication of breaching ethics. Moreover, they should have higher critical thinking and doubt when they have higher educational background. They would analyze event at different level. If Bobby has higher educational background, he should sense and analyze whether the two men do wrong. He also considers what his duties are and whether there is a contradiction if he does not stop the behaviour. According to his learning, he should know the difference implication when he considers various solutions. Besides, employment experience also affects ethical decision making. When a person owns some working experience, the person should deal with various predicaments easily. Or, the person dealt with the situation in prior entities. Thus, he thinks it is not danger and always does the unethical conduct. If that is real, in this case, Bobby should not expose their event to third parties. To opposite, his working experience tells him that consequence is very serious since his previous colleague was a prisoner by similar occurrence. He must vigilant self and does not conceal the event even they are closed friends. Education and employment are that let them know themselves situations and may reduce the risk of unethical behaviour. Thus, they are too important for Bobbyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s decision making. Personal integrity Personal integrity is an adherence to moral principles or values. It is also people with integrity have a set of personal values that they live up to and follow consistently. Personal values should consistent with organizational values if conflicts are to be avoided. When they disagree with some points on an organizational or business issue, because it conflicts with their personal integrity, they need to face a potentially troubling moral dilemma. The degree of personal integrity influence strongly ethical decision-making. In this case, the two guys did the unethical behaviour but other workers easily accepted as a lot of colleagues do it. If Bobby has integrity and adherence his moral rules, he disapproves them and needs some courage to report it. At the same time, he needs to accept whistle blowerà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s result, such as discrimination by other workers. If he does not have personal integrity, that is to be not adherence his moral requirements, he could give u p blowing whistle. And then, he disguises that he does not know anything even he takes part in this system. Therefore, personal integrity is so prminent for Bobbyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s decision making. The following two items are the most prominent situational factors that might influence Bobbyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s decision. Reward system Context-related factor is that different procedures and systems in every entity offer the context for business decisions and may affect the outcome. Rewards, one of context-related factor, are salary, bonus, health care, commission, fees for extra work, subsidized meals at work, and so forth. Sometimes, partial companies would provide employees a lot of rewards because of encouraging their ethical behaviour. When too much emphasis is focused on motivation to perform, employees may adopt unethical practices to obtain the bonus or commission. Therefore, the design of reward system in a company is very important. If Bobbyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s company has some requirements that the working hour of employees is over than specific hours, they would have an additional bonus. Bobby may not expose the two menà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s behaviour even he also joins the event. The reason is that he may try to meet the number of hours in order to achieving the bonus threshold. It should not encourage , as a result, managers establish carefully ethical reward systems. If Bobbyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s company has a set of perfect reward systems, the above situation should be avoided. The company sets a reward for encouraging employees to blow the whistle. Setting hotline, it does not publish the name of whistle blower and investigate the unethical event. If the investigation proves that it is true, it should pay secretly a bonus for the whistle blower and punish the wrong-doer. In addition, Bobby needs to take a high risk, such as breaking relationship among colleagues. The reward can be regards as compensation. Although fame and wealth cannot buy all nor do all, they are the root of many offences. People easily are induced even if they know they do wrong something. When they successfully do on first time, they will continue the action. Thus, the reward can become a tool of inducing offences. At the same time, benefits also push employeesà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ report. Whether the des ign of reward systems is useful or useless is based on the setter. Therefore, it is too important. Group norms Group norms, another one of context-related factor, are entitiesà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ expectations about how a great deal of members of the group should behave. They are to be a combination of training and experience and suggest what things are done, or not done. They determine how the members of the group are expected to act. Group norms evolve year by year as experience grows and circumstances change. Sometimes, the members would follow the norm and new members quickly learn what is expected. In Bobbyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s working community, it is assumption that employees have a norm that they do not pay attention each other and only concern themselves. What is more, Bobby works there for a long time. He should know the norm and does not have a hand in this event. New staff learns the norm at the beginning of employment and they should know the existing staff would comply with companyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s rules, including some ethical conduct. If Bobby until obey the requirements, he should not harbor criminals as the behaviour will violate the companyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s norm. In this case, the two men indicated many people know the system. It reflects others accept the fact, which is norm. Thus, Bobby may be obedient the system. To conclude, group norm is also prominent for the influence of Bobbyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s decision making. Reference: BBUS B368 Business Issues and Ethics, Unit 1-2: OUHK Andrew Crane Dirk Matten, Business ethics (third edition): Oxford