Rights Obligations Employers and Employees

8/11/2019 Rights Obligations Employers and Employees

1/39

Prentice Hall, 2001

Chapter Five

Rights and Obligations of

Employers and Employees

Ethical Theory and Business, 6thEditionTom L. Beauchamp & Norman E. Bowie


2/39

Prentice Hall, 2001 2

Objectives

After studying this chapter the student should

be able to:

Examine the advantages and disadvantages of theemployment-at-will doctrine for both the employer

and employee.

Explain the concept of due process.

Discern the difference between public sector andprivate sector employees.

Describe the concept of right to privacy.


3/39


Objectives

Discuss the arguments supporting or opposing

employee drug testing.

Define the term discriminatory genetic screening.

Discuss the arguments supporting or opposing

genetic screening.

Describe the ethical dilemmas genetic screening

creates for insurance companies.

Argue the advantages and disadvantages of

electronic performance monitoring (EPM) for both

the employer and employee.


4/39


Objectives

Stress the importance of personal feedback in

addition to the built-in feedback of the EPM system.

Describe the argument supporting or opposing

whistle-blowing.

Contrast both sides of obligation of loyalty as it

relates to whistle-blowing.


5/39


Overview

Employment-at-Will

Workplace Drug Testing

Genetics

Electronic Performance Monitoring

Whistle-blowing


6/39



7/39 Prentice Hall, 2001 7

Employment-at-Will

Employment at Will and Due Process

Patricia H. Werhane & Tara J. Radin

The authors of this article argue in defense ofdue process and against EAW.

Employment-at-Will- The principle that an

employer may hire, fire, demote, or promote

an employee whenever the employer desires,

in the absence of a specific contract or law.



Employment-at-Will

Due process

Public policy exception

Reasons used to justify employment-at-will The proprietary rights of employers guarantee

that they may employ or dismiss whomever and

whenever they wish.

EAW defends employee and employer rightsequally.



Employment-at-Will

In choosing to take a job, an employee knows he orshe is an at-will employee.

Legislation and/or regulation of employment

relationships further undermine an alreadyoverregulated economy.

Public/private distinction Employees in the private sectorof the economy

tend to be regarded as at-will employees. Employees in the public sectorhave guaranteed

rights, including due process, and are protectedfrom demotion, transfer, or firing without cause.



Richard A. Epstein

In Defense of the Contract at Will

Professor of Law, University of Chicago

The author of this article discusses howemployment-at-will works to the mutual benefit

of both parties.

Fairness of contract at will

Freedom of contract principle



Richard A. Epstein

The utility of contract at will

Monitoring behavior

Reputational losses Risk diversification and imperfect information

Administrative costs

Distributional concerns




Drug Testing in Employment

Joseph DesJardins & Ronald Duska

The authors of this article argue against drugtesting in that it violates the employees or

applicants right to privacy.

Right to privacy involves a three-place relation

between a person, some information, and

another person.




Job relevance arguments

Affects on job performance

Harm to employee, other employees, the employer,and consumers

Determining which jobs have a potential to

cause harm

Potential for harm should be clear and present.

Test employees only when they show a potential to

cause harm.




Limitations on drug testing policies

Effectiveness of drug testing considerations

Does the testing help prevent harm? Does the testing provide relevant knowledge?

Are there more effective methods for preventing

harm?

Six testing possibilities

Testing prospective employees



Michael Cranford

Drug Testing and the Right to Privacy:

Arguing the Ethics of Workplace Drug Testing

Completing a Ph.D. in Religion and SocialEthics, University of Southern California

Dissertation focus is on ethics and technology

The author of this article argues in favor of

workplace drug testing.



Michael Cranford

Privacy and performance of contract

PrivacyAn individuals right to be let alone

A right to control information about themselves

Criteria for obtaining relevant information

Drug testing is not harmful or intrusive.

Drug testing is both efficient and specific.

Drug testing can be conducted in a way thatguarantees a high degree of precision.



Michael Cranford

Questions of justification

Drug testing policy recommendations

Testing should focus on a specifically targetedgroup of employees.

When testing is indicated, it should not beannounced ahead of time.

Employees who test positive for drug abuse should

be permitted the opportunity to resolve theirabusive tendencies and return to work withoutpenalty or stigma.


19/39



20/39


Joseph Kupfer

The Ethics of Genetic Screening in the

Workplace

Professor of Philosophy, Iowa State UniversityWhat is genetic screening?

Discriminatory genetic screeningA process

used to exclude workers from jobs based on

their genetic make-up.


21/39


Joseph Kupfer

Technical limitations Has the gene been located or just simply correlated

with other DNA material?

Is knowledge of other family members necessary todetermine the presence of the affecting gene?

Causal limitations Does the affecting gene require other genes to

produce the disorder? Does the gene cause the disorder with inevitability

or just create a vulnerability to the disorder?


22/39


Joseph Kupfer

Privacy considerations

Control of information

AutonomyJustice considerations

Genetic screening indicates merely a

predisposition for a disorder

Not the inevitability of the onset of the disorder

Unjust to penalize someone when it is not known

they will contract the disorder


23/39


Joseph Kupfer

Could be used to unjustly weed out people for

employment, education, etc.

Could be used to deny certain types of benefits.


24/39


25/39


Genetics

Ethical dilemmas for insurance companies

Unfair discrimination and insurance

classification Purpose of classification

Distinguishing between high- and low-risk

individuals

Ethics of insuring by classification


26/39


Genetics

Employer health care insurance

Community ratingThe employer is charged an

amount per employee based on the average costs

in the employers region.

Experience ratingThe insurer charges different

rates to different employers based upon the

experience of the employees over a rolling

average.

Self-insuranceThe employer takes on the risks

instead of the insurer.


27/39


Genetics

Recommendations to address genetic

screening problems in the insurance industry

Let the insurance industry continue as usual withthe current laws and encourage these companies

to use all available information to decide whether or

not to accept an individual as a possible risk.

Include passage of legislation which allows for

some type of controlled discrimination, but which

prohibits insurance companies from discrimination

against individuals with specified genetic markers.


28/39


Genetics

National health care in which the government

would insure everyone, and simply allow no

discrimination to occur.

Genetic information for preventive health care


29/39



30/39



Ethical Issues in Electronic Performance

Monitoring (EPM)

G. Stoney Alder Management Professor, Western Illinois University

The author of this article argues that the

difference between ethical or unethical

electronic monitoring is found in the way theorganization designs and implements the

system.


31/39


32/39



Arguments against EPM

Invasion of privacy

Increased job stress and health problems Dehumanizing

Decreases the employees quality of work-life

Two way communication during the design

and implementation phases is important.


33/39



Rules for ethical monitoring

Involve those who will be subjected to monitoring in

the system design.

Inform employees of monitoring practices.

Supplement electronic feedback with human

interaction.

Make feedback supportive, non-punitive, and non-coercive.


34/39



35/39


Ronald Duska

Whistleblowing and Employee Loyalty

Professor of Ethics, The American College

The author of this article argues that theemployee does not have an obligation of

loyalty to a company and that whistle-blowing

is permissible, especially when a company is

harming society.


36/39


Ronald Duska

When, if ever, is whistle-blowing permissible?

Purpose of whistle-blowing

Employee loyalty to the company v. companyloyalty to the employee

3 philosophical positions about loyalty

Idealists

Social atomists Moderate position


37/39


Daryl Koehn

Whistleblowing and Trust: Some Lessons

from the ADM Scandal

Cullen Chair of Business Ethics, University ofSt. Thomas in Houston

The author of this article focuses on whether

whistle-blowing fosters or destroys personal,

corporate, and public trust.


38/39


Daryl Koehn

Whistle-blowingPersons who sound an

alarm from within the very organization in

which they work, aiming to spotlight neglect orabuses that threaten the public interest

Effects of whistle-blowing on trust

Reasons why an employee would consider

whistle-blowing


39/39

Daryl Koehn

Whistle-blowing should be an option of last

recourse

Companies and employees need to work together(two-way communication) building trust to avoid

situations where employees feel whistle-blowing is

the only option to address their concerns.

Rights Obligations Employers and Employees

Documents

Transcript of Rights Obligations Employers and Employees