Employment at Will free essay sample

1. The Companies: PharmaCARE was a successful and profitable pharmaceutical company. After launching the â€Å"We CARE about YOUR World ®Ã¢â‚¬  initiative, PharmaCARE was able to defeat PAC’s lobbying efforts. Later, PharmaCARE found out their best selling diabetes drug was slowing the progression of Alzheimer’s disease. Subsequently, they established the subsidiary, CompCARE to get the FDA off their backs. Later they found out that in one of their labs there was mold growing in the vents. CompCARE was later sold to WellCo right after the scandal. 2. The Governments: The FDA ensures all of the drugs that are being sold in the U. S. are safe for the patients and now that some people died from the AD23 drug, they will most likely be involved. In order to avoid the FDA restrictions, PharmaCARE opened a subsidiary and went to Colberia. They did this because they want to maximize their profits, which will be hard to achieve with FDA scrutiny. We will write a custom essay sample on Employment at Will or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page OSHA (Occupational Safety Health Administration) is another stakeholder. They may get involved due to the mold and sickness issues that employees have been complaining about. EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) ensures equal employment opportunity for all and advocates for folks who get discriminated because of their gender, race and religion. They may also get involved because of Ayesha’s complaint about her promotion. The Colberian Government is another one of the stakeholders because they allowed PharmaCARE to open operations in their country. 3. The Employees: The employees working for PharmaCARE and the indigenous population of Colberia who is working for CompCARE are also stakeholders in this scenario. Donna was one of the best employees; she always showed up to work and did her work. One day, Allen was told there was mold around the air vents. When the problem wasn’t taken care of Donna became really ill and began missing many days of work. Tom, one of the supervisors, warned Allen about the air quality inside the lab, after Allen made no move to fix the problem, he threatened to tell OSHA. Allen is considered one of the stakeholders because he was the one who ran the operation â€Å"Clean Room. † He had the choice of whistleblowing on the wrong doing or keeping quiet and taking the bonus. Analyzing the Ethics PharmaCARE’s actions towards Colberia’s indigenous population and rank-and-file were very selfish and self-centered. PharmaCARE’s executives were rewarded with luxurious homes that have tennis courts, swimming pools, parks, etc. While on the other hand, the workers in Colberia that were doing the tough work were rewarded only with $1. 00 a day payment for their work. There’s a big difference between the workers in Colberia and the PharmaCARE executives. The Colberia workers are being paid way below U. S. minimum wage and way below what they should be paid. According to Anderson (2004), ethics are explained as the principles and values that define acceptable conduct for business intuitions. He also explains that social responsibility is the obligations of a business organization that maximizes positive impact in its business operation and minimizes its negative impact on society. Acceptability of corporate behavior will be determine by workers, customers, competitors, government and regulatory agencies, special interest groups, and the community. The actions that PharmaCARE took towards Colberia’s indigenous population were one of many examples that reflects an unethical and irresponsible corporate culture. PharmaCARE should have paid the Colberian workers with a fair amount of money for their hard work. PharmaCARE should not have taken advantage of the Colberian environment. Instead of taking advantage of Colberia, they should have focused on minimizing their negative effects on the global society by actually promoting their â€Å"We CARE about YOUR world† concept. If PharmaCARE really cared about â€Å"OUR world† then they would apply the United States requirements to the employees in Colberia. Even though there aren’t any requirements in Colberia for the employees’ pay, PharmaCARE should be good citizens who care about â€Å"OUR world† and not take advantage of the people and the villages in Colberia. They should have also reacted differently to the employee safety issues while applying high standards to their drug manufacturing operations (at least meet the FDA’s minimum requirements). PharmaCARE decided to establish its subsidiary in Colberia to make the most profit while avoiding all the regulations and rules. This careless attitude towards providing a safe environment for its lab workers and its attempt to evade regulatory requirement such as the FDA and OSHA confirms its unethical and immoral approach toward making a profit. From the Colberia operations, to the lab employees’ safety, to the ridiculous profits and the heart attacks that many AD23 recipients suffered, PharmaCARE exhibited a trend of behaviors that contradicts its public claim of caring about people. In fact, it shows behavior that is in line with navigating the legal restrictions while doing as little as possible for everyone else at the account of making as much profit as possible for PharmaCARE and its shareholders and executives. Who should be fired? Allen cannot legally fire Donna, Tom, or Ayesha due to the exceptions of the employment at will doctrine. The employment at will doctrine states employees without a written employment contract can be fired for no cause at all, bad cause, or no cause at all. However, all employees named above have protections under one of its exceptions: †¢Donna: Under the public policy exception, employees cannot be fired for filing a claim after being injured on the job. This shows that Allen cannot legally fire Donna. To decrease risk for his company, Allen should clear the mold from the air vents. The most logical reason for Donna to get ill is by the mold on the vents. Especially since Donna had a perfect attendance record. Donna did the right thing by filling for workers’ compensation because of the chronic bronchial. †¢Tom: In Tom’s case, he threatened to complain to OSHA. Allen cannot legally fire Tom because of the covenant of good faith exception, which protects against trying to act as a good supervisor in good faith. Tom was merely trying to protect his coworkers from becoming ill just like Donna did. Tom also has protection under the public policy exception because the OSHA rules state their environment has to be safe. It is very unsafe for the employees to go to work everyday with the bad air quality. Allen should not fire him for trying to obey the law and keep the workplace safe for his employees. To help minimize risks, Allen should get someone to inspect the lab and make sure everything in the air is good. †¢Ayesha: In Ayesha’s case, Allen cannot legally fire her under the implied contract exception. There was an implied contract between Ayesha and Allen that Ayesha was going to promoted to supervisor, she was a good worker and she really believed that she was going to be promoted to supervisor. This probably happened as a result of some interaction(s) between her and management, whether through verbal promise or otherwise where she was led to believe that she should be promoted. To minimize risk, Allen should promote with a condition that she must perform in order to stay at the position. This will ease Allen’s concerns about her abilities and skills to get the job done. Also as a result, Ayesha will also stop thinking that it is her religion that is stopping her from being promoted. Will Whistleblower Policy help PharmaCARE The whistleblower policy is used to help protect employees from getting fired for reporting wrongdoing. Companies with strong ethical corporate cultures should have a robust whistleblower policy in place that is coupled with a clear, well-understood, and well-communicated code of ethics. It should be noted the presence of a whistleblower policy alone is not enough as many such policies are merely ink on paper and reality of the corporate culture can be create a hostile environment for those who dare raise their voice. In some cases, for example, employees fear to blow the whistle because they know that they will consequently face discrimination from their coworkers. In the case of PharmaCARE, a whistleblower policy would benefit Allen because he would no longer be left with the tough decision of whether or not he should listen to his boss and fire all of them and keep his mouth shut or to do the right thing and tell authority about this issue. If Allen does the right thing, he could address the employees’ safety issue from the mold in the air vents. This goes without mentioning the possible health effects and risks the mold could have on the drugs being made in those labs. Allen will benefit from the whistleblower policy because he’ll be protected from losing his job. If Allen decides to be a whistleblower on his boss, he might receive hate from his boss if he gets punished for telling Allen to keep quiet about the bogus prescriptions. Moreover, Allen should blow the whistle on his boss before someone blows the whistle on him. Someone could easily blow the whistle on Allen because he is the one who found out about the mold in the air vents and did not fix the problem. He was also ordered encouraged doctors to write down the names of bogus patient names, which is literally fraud and is illegal. PharmaCARE’s Environmental Stewardship PharmaCare’s managers embraced a corporate culture in which unethical behavior and made immoral business decisions were just a means to end. In order to avoid the high FDA standards and cut some corners, they established the subsidiary CompCARE with operations outside the U. S. where the FDA rules do not apply. They were also cutting corners with safety issues in the workplace. Many of the employees working in the lab, started becoming very ill due to the fact that there was mold inside the air vents. After being warned about the mold in the air vents, management decided to ignore the issue and pretend like there is nothing wrong. Next, they were encouraging doctors to commit fraud. Finally, after they began selling AD23 to hospitals, clinics, and physician offices, many patients died from heart attacks, which tied to that corporate culture that failed to do proper testing and/or careless about reporting those results as possible side effects. The managers were probably well aware of the possibilities and decided to take the risk anyway with plans to sell at the right time. And this is precisely what happened. Legally, it would have to be proven that executives knowingly did that before anyone is held accountable. Although they may not be illegal, was it really the right thing? An example of something similar to what PharmaCARE has done was the Enron scandal where unethical behavior was wide spread, namely the company’s finances. Aiding in cooking the books were independent organizations that were later fined but no one was criminally indicted. According to Clarkson et al, The Enron debacle was the largest bankruptcy in the history of U. S. business. It will always remain as a symbol of unethical behavior to management. Enron was made up of two pipeline companies that work emerge into a large Energy trading company. The company realizing it’s immense growth, they entered the online energy trading market. Most of Enron’s employees owned a large part of company stock. As time passed by, competition increased and Enron began diversifying water and establishing power plants in Brazil and India. Enron’s employees began to get greedy, and runs managers would receive bonuses on whether or not they met their goals. This caused then to inflate future earnings on energy contracts. After going bankrupt, many of Enron’s shareholders lost a lot of value money in the stock they owned. Purpose of CERCLA Act The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) was enacted in December of 1980 by U. S. congress. The CERLCA was established to prevent the distribution of hazardous waste at abandoned sites. The CERCLA gives power to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to inspect and cleanup abandoned waste sites. In 1986, the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) amended it. The clean up provisions are the most powerful part of CERCLA whereby they describe the process of clean and more importantly hold responsible parties for its cost. These provisions also cover the substances and their hazardous designations, to include: †¢ The Clean Air Act (CAA) †¢The Clean Water Act (CWA) †¢The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) †¢The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) In the case of PharmaCARE, the CERCLA provision that would most apply is the TSCA where its employees would be protected against environmental pollutants and toxic substances that may seriously impact their health. PharmaCARE’s liability would apply for air pollution and toxic substance submission under the CAA and the TSA respectively. References