Ethics of Employee rights and Employer Obligation

Federal law requires that employers pay a minimum wage and pay overtime, although some believe that the concept of a living wage is the more ethical standard. Explain and defend your position on whether you agree or disagree.

Ethically the living wage is the correct option at a superficial observation but, instituting the minimum wage law has caused some harm to businesses and also harmed workers employed by some businesses. Business organizations take advantage of the laws that are not always updated to match the economic changes that have happened that have led to the stipulated minimum wage be insufficient and yet some businesses might be able to pay their workers more but since they meet the minimum wage requirement take advantage. Supply and demand for labor should be allowed to work themselves out and this will be sustainable and make everyone happy in due course satisfying the utilitarian theory of ethics of maximizing happiness and minimizing pain and suffering (Shaw, Barry, Muntean, Issa, Ilott, & Catley, 2021). America is a place known for valuing freedoms and liberty by viewing the bigger picture business people should have the freedom and the chance to do the right thing. For them to pay better wages they must have first the ability to do it without suffering financial losses (Grover, 2016). The principle of minimum wage is a contradiction to freedom which is backed by the libertarian theory, “which places a moral priority on free exchange” (Shaw et.al, 2021). Therefore pushing for the government to pass regulations dictating a living wage, while the business world is not ready may lead to dire economic repercussions.

Is it ethically permissible for an employer to do business with a supplier who acts legally but perhaps "unethically"? For example, many foreign countries do not have the health and safety regulations we consider standard for employees. Is it ethical to do business with those supplier?

Conducting business with foreign countries who may not meet standards outlined in America but do their best to meet the ethical obligations outlined within their countries which may be different when standardized with American ethics is not unethical. Libertarianism promotes for individuals and societies to exercise their judgment of what they perceive to be right and not conducting business based on a difference of views towards ethical standards would be like imposing sanctions which is not fair to those affected (Outsourcing, 2017). Besides, the trade that happens between American businesses and some of these foreign countries where workers' rights are protected helps raise the standards of living for these people who otherwise would have fewer opportunities to make a decent living. Therefore it is not unethical for employers to carry out business with suppliers who act legally but unethically because ethics may be relative and can vary widely from place to place. However, this does not imply that the employer should not make an effort to ensure that the suppliers treat their workers reasonably well depending on the circumstances they have in those countries. Utilitarianism advocates for the maximum net happiness for all concerned in societal interactions (Shaw et.al, 2021). Therefore, if everyone gets something in return for what they give and are satisfied it is not unethical. The Libertarian ideal also supports this in that employers should be allowed to exercise their moral judgment for ethics to work well.

Is it ethical for an employer to require as a condition of employment or use as a consideration for advancement promotion, that an employee participate in organizations apart from the business (ie. community non-profit organizations)? Does the type or nature of the organization make a difference?

Arguing from the liberation standpoint employees are free to accept or decline terms of employment by exercising their free will. Therefore from this approach, it is unethical for employers to require employees seeking opportunities for career advancement to participate in organizations apart from the business because it restricts the ability of some employees to fully exercise their liberty without being victimized by the consequences of not adhering to stipulated workplace policies, rules, and regulations that might disadvantage them. Any activity that is not related to profit creation of the business but is social should be optional and doing otherwise would be unethical in that it would lead to opportunities for discrimination and victimization for some people based on their opinions about such matters. Also taking away the ability for employees to make the decision would reduce job satisfaction by making the workplace to be a place where workers might feel that they cannot be themselves (Grace, Cohen & Holmes, 2014). For example, some businesses may require that their employees participate in religious activities violating the freedom of conscience of individuals who may not be affiliated with those ideas. Everyone including employees is entitled to pursue their self-interest according to egoism and as long as the services they render sufficiently meet their job descriptions they should not be required to participate in organizations apart from the business as this will infringe on their right of independence (Shaw et.al, 2021).

Finally, some opine that employee pay should be tied in part to the compensation of the owner/chief operating or executive officer of the business, with the lowest paid employee being paid no less than a certain percentage of the highest paid employee. Is this an ethical way of determining compensation?

It is unethical to determine compensation by requiring that the least paid employee should be paid no less than a certain percentage of the highest-paid employee. Because business operates on a transactional basis where employees are paid according to the services they render to their organizations, it would be unfair to arbitrarily decide what business should pay because, from the libertarian approach, businesses are entitled to make decisions that would ensure their survival (Shaw et.al, 2021). Alternatively, when viewed through the lens of the utilitarian theory of ethics, people who executives or other high-paid employees must have made some sacrifices at some point in time to reap the privileges they enjoy (Black, 2009). The basis for payment should be by merit to justify the efforts to obtain skills and recognition that often require hard work that is not always pleasant. Determining compensation by guidelines based on employee’s achievement instead of government-dictated policies would encourage individuals to put more effort into being productive which results in conditions for everyone in the long run.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Black, W. K. (2009). The Disastrous Unexpected Consequences of Private Compensation Reforms - Testimony to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Hearing: Executive Compensation: How Much is Too Much? SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1536513

Grace, D., Cohen, S., & Holmes, W. R. (2014). Business ethics. Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press.

Grover, C. (2016). Minimum and Living Wages: Alternatives to Wage Supplements? Social Security and Wage Poverty, 167-184. doi:10.1057/9781137293978_10

Outsourcing: Ethical Supply Chain Issues. (2017). Global Outsourcing Strategies, 279-290. doi:10.4324/9781315254197-32

Shaw, W. H., Barry, V. E., Muntean, D., Issa, T., Ilott, G., & Catley, B. (2021). Moral issues in business. South Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: Cengage Learning Australia.