News Article Week 3 - BUS520-A - Darla Lackey

Last week, a storm hit New York and surrounding areas leading to the city being effectively “closed down.” As a result, an estimated $200 million was lost in New York City alone. Was there anything that could have been done to prevent the closing of the city and the huge financial loss?

In 2012, a program was launched within the National Weather Service (NWS). This plan included staffing Emergency Response Specialists (ERS) within large cities to prepare for extreme weather conditions such as Superstorm Sandy or Hurricane Irene. However, in the last two years, this program has begun to be “phased out.” This decision was made primarily by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), who claim the original plan was to only train NWS workers to act as ERS members.

The decision that is now being called into question is whether it was right, or ethical, for the NOAA to discontinue a program that had proven to be helpful in avoiding unnecessary costs and loss of life in extreme weather conditions.

There are several ways one could examine this ethical decision. First, it is the duty of the government, and therefore government organizations, to protect the people. The ERS program has proven effective many times over. To discontinue it for any reason, be it cost or otherwise, is to make a decision away from the ultimate protection of the people. Of course it is impossible to know what would have happened if the ERS program was established in New York, but it is extremely likely that, if they had been, losses would have been less because this team was trained specifically for this purpose.

Another way to evaluate this decision is from a consequential perspective. After the storm was over, and everyone could look back on it, the answer becomes very clear. The decision to disable the ERS program led to negative consequences. From simply a “good” or “bad” standpoint, it ends up being a bad decision.

Finally, when looking at this decision from the standpoint of categorically imperative ethics, one could see that the NOAA made a wrong decision. If every organization decided to take away the programs that could save the lives of people, or prevent financial losses, results would be dramatic. Welfare could be closed down because of cost, or social security could be discontinued. Banking regulations could be lifted or the protection of property and individual rights could be deemed “unnecessary.” People rely on the government to keep them safe – physically and financially – even if it is subconsciously. The NOAA failed to honor that expectation and their responsibility when they decided to phase out a program that had been proven effective in saving lives and preventing financial losses.

Taking into account costs, benefits, and the work it takes to keep this program going, the NOAA should have elected to continue the ERS program, and improved upon it, so that when future events took place, people would be ready and a plan would already exist. The ERS program costs approximately $50 million per year. Line that up next to what the costs of not having it in place will likely be. There is simply no denying that it is more beneficial to put in the money and effort to have it in place when needed than it is to disband it and hope an emergency plan will fall into place the next time a storm, hurricane, or other natural disaster occurs.

In the example of the recent storm in New York, one can compare the estimated financial loss of $200 million to the $50 million the ERS program requires. The ERS program could have potentially paid for itself through just this one disaster. Each additional weather event in which they proved effective would be pure “profit” for the states in which they served. Not only would having the program be valuable for the protection of the people, which is the most important thing, but financially it would put areas affected by natural weather disasters in a better situation if one were to hit.

The NOAA, and other government organizations, should have worked to keep the ERS program active and well-staffed. Their lack to think beyond “right now” – the cost, the work, the training – to potential benefits or consequences in the future led to extreme losses last week. And there is no way to know what it will cost over time as the nation continues to face natural disasters in the future.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/nyregion/new-york-blizzard.html?_r=0

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102385628#.

 

 

News Article Week 2 - BUS520-A - Darla Lackey

On January 22, ten former McDonald’s employees in Virginia filed a civil suit against the company. They alleged that there was a “widespread pattern of racial and sexual discrimination and harassment. ” They claim the company simultaneously fired at least twelve workers because they were black and did not fit the profile that the company desired at its restaurants.  They claim they were called “ghetto” and “ratchet” by high-level supervisors, and several women claim that their supervisors often spoke to them regarding inappropriate sexual activities, touched them in a sexual manner, and even promised better working conditions in return for sexual favors. When these former employees went to McDonald’s corporate offices, they were re-directed to the franchisee – the one who had just fired them and who had allowed these events to take place.

There are several ethical issues that arise from this case. First, racial discrimination is a clear issue. To refer to a person in a way that is offensive, or that they in any way feel is offensive, is unacceptable. And if the person using the terms is in a position of authority, it is even more so. Not only are they abusing their subordinates, but they are also playing a large part in developing a culture of discrimination. Not only does this violate fair employment acts or discrimination laws, it violates the laws of providing a safe workplace.

The sexual discrimination claimed in this civil suit is also a big ethical problem. There are many sexual harassment laws that protect against physical harassment, verbal harassment, or offering workplace “perks” in exchange for sexual favors. According to the claimants, all of these regulations were violated.

The final ethical issue in question here is the unfair termination of employees based on the color of their skin. Because the store did not want to appear, in their words, “ghetto,” they terminated employees. There are laws that protect against unlawful termination, but they were not observed in this case. The supervisors also held these people to a higher standard by criticizing and disciplining actions that were overlooked when done by a white employee. It seems they were looking for a reason to fire them, and they succeeded.

The franchisee initially faces an ethical dilemma because these things are happening in his stores. He, allegedly, stepped aside and did nothing to stop the behavior. If he knew about them and did not stop them, he is just as guilty as the supervisors who committed the acts. If he took a “hand’s off” approach to managing the store he is responsible because it was his responsibility to make sure people were treated fairly under his leadership. These were not minor wrongdoings one could easily miss; these were severe and constant actions against several people. It is completely unacceptable and indefensible.

The ethical decision faced by the leaders of the McDonald’s company is whether to step in when a franchisee is not acting in a way that the company approves of. The leaders of McDonald’s were approached with the events that took place, and they had the choice of whether to get involved or to look the other way. They chose to look the other way and point these (rightfully) disgruntled employees to the franchisee. It was under the leadership of the franchisee that these events occurred.

The corporate leaders have, up to this point, not made the ethical decision. Even though McDonald’s is a franchised company, it still falls under the McDonald’s brand. Each store should represent the values and culture that McDonald’s has, and if they fail to do so McDonald’s reputation must also suffer. By allowing these events to take place in any of their stores, McDonald’s is doing wrong. The ethical thing would be to step in and take a stand against anything of this sort happening in their stores. By allowing racial discrimination and sexual harassment to take place, and by not stepping in and protecting the people, McDonald’s leadership is sending the message that they do not care about the treatment and well being of the employees within the franchise.

There should be a zero-tolerance policy for any type of discrimination and harassment within the McDonald’s franchise. This should be such a high priority that all potential franchisees are aware of this no tolerance policy and should know that if they allow these things to happen in their stores, there will be severe consequences and the relationship with the McDonald’s corporation may, in fact, be permanently terminated.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/McDonalds-Workers-File-Civil-Rights-Suit-Claiming-Racial-Discrimination-289458841.html

News Article Week 1 - BUS520-A - Darla Lackey

On January 15, 2015, a federal court judge ruled that 300 same-sex married couples must be legally recognized by the state of Michigan. These couples were married during a one-day “window of opportunity” in March 2014 when the law banning same-sex marriage was struck down. The next day, however, that ruling was overturned. Eight of the 300 couples who were legally married that day filed a lawsuit claiming that, because they were legally married that day, their marriages should be recognized by the state.

There are two ethical dilemmas that are being faced in this case. The first is whether same-sex marriage should be legal. This is a significant topic in the country today, and there are strong opinions and arguments from both sides. The second issue, and the one on which the judge actually ruled, was whether same-sex marriages, when performed legally, should be recognized as legal from that point on, regardless of changing laws.

In defense of his decision, the judge adapted a concept from the Bible: “In these circumstances, what the state has joined together, it may not put asunder." He used this argument to defend his decision, explaining that, once a marriage license has been issued, it cannot be revoked. If these marriages, which were legally and reasonable requested, were not recognized due to changing laws, it would undermine the stability of a marriage relationship.

In this case, and due to the circumstances surrounding the marriages, the judge did rule fairly. Same-sex marriage is not ethically right, however for a brief moment the state of Michigan decided that it was. At that point, the couples in question had every legal right, though perhaps not an ethical right, to wed. The legally did what was legally allowed, so is it fair that they have consequences because the government changed its mind? The fact that Michigan then changed its laws is not the fault of the couples, and to deny them the rights previously awarded is unjust.

An extreme example of this would be when women were given the right to vote. If it was decided tomorrow that women were no longer allowed to vote, the country could not go back and “undo” all previous votes cast by women. Women’s historical votes would still remain in effect, yet in the future women would not be allowed to vote.

This ethical dilemma will continue to present itself for two reasons. First, many states have declared same-sex marriage legal and then reversed the decision. There have been news reports of thousands of same-sex couples getting married once a ruling is made. If the ruling is overturned, the prominent question will be whether or not those marriages are still “valid.” A state must, at some point, make the decision and stand by that decision.

In my opinion, the only way this problem will ever be fully resolved is for the government and federal courts to make a final, nationwide ruling on same-sex marriage. It can no longer be a state-by-state issue. This results in people getting legally married in one state, then not being married in another, then being married again because a new ruling has been passed. Marriage cannot be recognized some places and unacknowledged in another. That is impractical. It is unfair and creates a state of confusion regarding what a marriage actually is and who can do it. The federal courts must take the lead and make a decision on what the United States will honor as a legal marriage. Then, regardless of the decision, it must remain in effect. That is the only way to ensure that this ethical dilemma will not keep repeating itself again and again.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/01/15/judge-tells-michigan-recognize-sex-marriages/21802765/