Exam 3: Ethical Treatment of Employees

Do you believe that OSHA's standards are sufficient to protect the rights of workers Briefly explain.

Epstein claims that the positions of both employers and employees are essentially even with regard to EAW. Do you find this line of argument convincing. Why or why not

According to Ronald Duska in "Whistle-Blowing and Employee Loyalty" we cannot have loyalty to any groups.

Which author(s)would most likely agree with the statement that EAW treats employees as a piece of equipment and does not show them the respect they are due as persons

Central to Duska's discussion is his conception of loyalty. He contends that companies are not groups that may demand loyalty. Do you find his arguments convincing or do you believe that employees may reasonably be required to be loyal to their companies and why do you believe as such

The right to refuse workplace hazards has a fundamental conflict with the ability of a business to operate effectively (if employees refuse to work there can be no production). How should these competing interests be balanced. Support your position with appeals to ethical theories.

In "Whistle-Blowing, Moral Integrity, and Organizational Ethics," Brenkert puts the responsibility for creating an ethical environment and one that support whistle- blowing primarily on our social and political systems rather than individual organizations.

Werhane and Radin in "Employment at Will and Due Process" provide a primarily Kantian critique of EAW while Epstein in "In Defense of the Contract at Will" provides a primarily utilitarian defense of EAW. First, provide the strongest defense of Werhane and Radin's position. Second, provide the strongest defense of Epstein's position. Finally, stake your own position. Which side do you agree with most strongly. Why

In "In Defense of the Contract at Will", Richard Epstein argues that the fairness and morality of EAW contracts negates the significant costs for a company associated with the adoption of EAW contracts.

Companies can free themselves from liability for workplace injuries when employees assume the risk of employment whether the employees were coerced into hazardous work or not.