Ethical Theory and Business
Read the case "The Reluctant Security Guard" on pages 318-321 of your text.
Text: Ethical Theory and Business 7 Beauchamp and Bowie Prentice Hall
CASE STUDY Reference: Ana Pinedo and Tom L. Beauchamp, "The Reluctant Security Guard. "Case Studies in Business, Society, and Ethics." Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 1998.
As a manager at Blue Mountain Company, you have been asked to handle the situation with David Tuff. Describe what ways, other than dismissal, you would use to handle this situation.
In the assignment be sure to address the following:
Do you feel the security guard took the right action? Would you have taken the same action? Why or why not?
Do you feel it was unjust to fire the security guard? Why or why not?
What are other creative ways other than dismissal that you would have used to handle this situation?
Question: "The Reluctant Security Guard"
In the case study "The Reluctant Security Guard", I do believe that the security guard took the correct action regarding putting drunk drivers out of the mall parking areas onto the highway. I would have, in this situation, acted in a similar manner as he. By this I mean I would have contacted my superiors and spoke of alternatives other than putting intoxicated drivers on the highway that may cause harm to others as a result. Taking this into consideration, drinking and driving is unlawful and the security guard swore to protect and obey all lawful orders under the supervision of the police in the said city.
The security guard did try the proper channels without success therefore; he should have abided by their rules because he was in their employment. If there was something he did not like, he should have resigned and then went public if he chose to do so. In my opinion, both parties were to blame for their decisions made concerning the way this situation was handled. Yet, still the security guard worked for this company, and regardless they make their own rules and you, the employee, must abide by them.
Whistle blowing is the release of information by a member or former member of an organization that is evidence of illegal and/or immoral conduct in the organization or conduct in that is not in the public interest. It is something that can only be done by a member of the organization. The difference is due to the fact that an employee is expected to work only as directed, to go through channels, and especially, to act in all matters for the well-being of the organization. The information involved is typically obtained by the employee during his or her employment as part of the job; such information is usually regarded as confidential so that an employee has an obligation not to reveal it. To go public with information that is damaging to the organization is generally viewed as violating a number of obligations that an employee has as a member of the organization. The information is generally evidence of some significant kind of misconduct on the part of an organization or some of its members. This could involve issues about practices that are legal but contrary to the public interest. Information of this kind could alert the public and aid consumers in counteracting the lobbying effort. The information must be released outside normal channels of communication. In both internal and external whistle-blowing, the information must be revealed in ways that can reasonably be expected to bring about a desired change. The release of information must be something that is done voluntarily. Whistle-blowing must be undertaken as a moral protest, the motive must be to correct some wrong and not to seek revenge or personal advancement.
Whistle-blowing is the voluntary release of nonpublic information, as a moral protest, by a member or former member of an organization outside the normal channels of communication to an appropriate audience about illegal and/or immoral conduct in the organization or conduct in the organization that is opposed in some significant way to the public interest.
How Morally Justified?
An agent has an obligation to obey all reasonable directives of the principal. That is interpreted to exclude illegal or immoral acts. An agent is privileged to reveal information confidentially acquired in the protection of a superior inters of himself or a third person. Protecting oneself from legal liability can reasonably be held to be a superior interest as can preventing some serious harm to others. It is ...
My thoughts and suggestions on if the security guard took the right action; if I would have taken the same action; and why or why not; my feelings on if it was unjust to fire the security guard? Why or why not; other creative ways other than dismissal that you would have used to handle this situation?