One day the lawyer asks Bartleby to proof a paper for him and the response of Bartleby was “I would prefer not to”. With a response like this you would think that the lawyer would have fired him right away. Instead he finds someone else to do it. To me this was a mistake that he made and would regret later on in the story. The lawyer doesn’t think that Bartleby response was wrong in fact he thinks that it was in fact innocent.
Diane might believe this is a wrongful termination because she is unreliable due excessive sick children. However, there has been no documentation to the matter or performance reviews that mention that she has been counseled on absenteeism. Greg on the other hand could believe that because he cannot work weekends due to religious reasons or disparate treatment he was let go. Cost Club is downsizing therefore, there will be no weekends work to perform or reasonable accommodations to be made on either side. Greg will not win the case based in religion discrimination.
Break Breaker Inc. to some extent obey with some legal rules, but failed to comply with principles of morality and community, contribute to the society by producing honest high quality services, and account the consequence of damaging their reputation. I think that Solomon’s argument is fairly accurate, but everyone’s views are different on this. Some actions may be acceptable to some but unacceptable to others. Ethics provides the bigger picture in the business life and it must be understood. In my opinion, nothing is more dangerous to a business than a bad public image caused by being unethical.
The researcher made several ethical violations due to his lack of ethical consideration. It is unfair to the assistants that the researcher took the majority of the credit for information he had help in discovering. Despite the profession, it is unethical for someone to treat another person with such a lack of empathy. As a result of his unethical behavior, the researcher should be reprimanded by his superiors. References American Psychological Association.
First, he broke the department policy by not video recording the interview which was essential to built a solid case if they had confess in which he claimed the two did. Secondly, he did not have either of the young offenders guardian(s) present which was a grand mistake. Not only did he confess to intentionally crossing the line by avoiding bringing in the parents and including them in the interview he probably is also guilty of coercing them in the confession. According, to the self-incrimination clause it clearly states that any statement made by defendant(s) while in police custody before trail will be inadmissible during prosecution unless the police first warn the defendants that they have the right to remain silent, the right to consult an attorney before being questioned, the right to have an attorney present during police questioning, the right to a court appointed attorney if they cannot afford one, the right to be informed that any statement they do make can
The most important policy concern has always been the “floodgates argument”. This is when judges are reluctant to impose duty on the defendants because the judges fear that it will “open the floodgates of litigation” and unlimited claims can arise out of a one incident. It is considered to be not fair, just and reasonable to impose duty on defendants disproportionate to his fault. It is well illustrated in Spartan Steel v Martin & Co, where the claimant claimed the loss of potential profit which he would have made if the defendant did not negligently damage the cable which provided electricity to the claimant’s factory. However, the courts found that there was no duty owed by the defendant as Lord Denning stated that impose duty on defendant in such circumstance will lead to “no end of claims” .
401(K) has become ineffective because of the corruption of big business, the misunderstanding of and as a result a mishandling of the 401(K) accounts, and its correlating dependency on the market’s success. Making profit is important to people. Most of all, improving the bottom line is the primary objective for major companies. “For Robert Shively, learned that his employer, Occidental Petroleum Corporation, or also-known-as Oxy Pete,” wanted to forgo the guaranteed-employer pension plans for the less demanding 401(K) system where it is based on contributions from employee’s pay rather than from the employer’s profit. This forces the employee to save without any effort but, due to this, workers began to neglect the social security and entirely dropped the use of the original pension plan.
I am concerned that even the owner doesn’t care enough to ensure the safety and well-being of his employees as he said, “You cannot prove that there is an explosion hazard here. You should only come to me when you know definitely that there is a safety issue. I will consider anything else as slander against me and my company. I do not take too well to disloyal
In the primary interest of our entity, its incumbent upon employers to find a right balance between the exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine to avoid liabilities associated with the violations of the exceptions. The company in this scenario has grounds to terminate the supervisor, but I would issue him/her a written warning hoping that this situation can be resolved among us within our company. This is the case where the potential act of whistle blowing would help reveal the wrongdoing of the business world. I strongly believe that it takes a special person with strong morals to take the ramifications of whistle blowing. Losing a prized job, having to down size your life, and your life being wide open to scrutiny are effects of whistle blowing.
Working on an article is a privilege not a right, but I do believe that it wasn’t right when the editors didn’t think they had a chance. I also think that the editors did not encourage them because when Woodward and Bernstein had some of their articles published, no other journalist were re-printing their story. They became worried, and wanted to drop the story, thinking that if Woodward and Bernstein continued it, it would get nowhere. I think the story of Watergate was scandalous. It was an American Political scandal and a conflict in the 1970’s and also led to the resignation of president Nixon.