If I were a human resource manager, I would be ashamed and I would feel like I didn't do my job, and that I just ignored a safety issue that was serious. The lawsuit costed the company a lot money and I would be afraid that I would lose my job over the lawsuit. The courts verdict would affect me greatly and I would be ashamed to go back to work. Their was no explanation as to why the safety complaints were never investigated
This reflects a utilitarian stand-point because the wood dust is a serious problem that could lead to serious injury or worse for every member of the company. By reporting this to OSHA it may lead to fines and consequences for my employer and others at the managerial level but not reporting this could lead to the end of every employee. The reason I chose to notify OSHA is because they are a neutral 3rd party whose only role is to ensure the safety and security in an occupational setting along with responding to allegations against the aforementioned employer. OSHA themselves is basically the top-notch you can get to in regard to employee safety, they have governmental backing and an obligation to come check out an allegation and can put up further road blocks for companies if they don’t comply. 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.
‘Because we walked past them to the computer at the far-right end of the room and i thought it's unfair.' So, the manager acknowledged her mistake, apologized and asked my client politely but he said, ‘his fine that he'll work on the system.’ The limitation i faced by conflict of interest was centered on the organization’s job policy as i would have liked to persuade him to join them as a platform for him to interact with others. I had to seek for help from my Peer involvement Coordinator on the pros and cons of supporting service users and he said, I am not allowed to persuade or influence their decision on a particular course of action, among others. The two examples would have my client benefited from an Independent Advocate but the second example is more likely as an independent advocate is concerned with working from a person centered perspective. The reason being that, it enhance a better support , to focus on an acceptable outcome, to give information to enable him to make an informed decision, to see him as having the most specialized knowledge of his life, wishes and feelings,
It was during this time that the American Red Cross could have showed the country that they were an ethical company. However, many began to question their ethical practices because of how they responded to the crisis. As a result of this, their “benefits of business ethics” was destroyed. ARC failed to properly manage and monitor employees and volunteers which lead to the occurrence of fraudulent activities. There was also a lack of communication amongst FEMA and ARC, which contributed to slow response times in both instances (347).
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” .
Is it right for cruise ships to dump waste into the sea, which will cause environmental damage to marine life, affect the people and land on island nations, just so the cruise ships can gain more revenue by not having to build storage for their waste that will inconvenience their customers? The primary stake holders in this case that are beneficial to the dumping of non-human waste are: shareholders, executives, staff and passengers. The primary stake holders in this case that are harmed by the dumping on non-human waste are: Island Nations, Fisherman and Marine life. The primary stakeholders in this case that’s legal rights are exercised from the dumping of non-human wastes are: The Cruise Ship Companies. The primary stakeholders in this case that’s legal rights are being denied from the dumping of the non-human wastes are: The Island Nations.
This was necessary because the sentence was so inadequate that it needed to be changed for Thomas and his family in order to achieve justice as well as to deter acts of alcohol fuelled violence by emphasising to society that this behaviour is no longer acceptable. The fact that the case was appealed highlights that the law is responsive to meeting society’s needs, but this raises the question why should the public have to ‘outcry’ before justice is achieved for victims. The appeal meant that Thomas’s family had to relive the whole night again therefore it wasn’t in their best interests as instead of saying goodbye and remembering Thomas they had to relive the entire case and events to get an
The offenses are harmful to not only businesses in the United States of America but to the world of business as a whole and are unacceptable. If the law had been in place, many shareholders would have been safeguarded but numerous investors lost their lifetime savings by company insiders. The corporate world is a much more secure place with regards to investing with all of the changes and modifications which are now enforced. I still think there are other actions which can be taken to protect shareholders even though the modifications have significantly improved the procedure. Businesses must develop an ethical balance so as not to take advantage of unknowing shareholders who have invested their lifetime
The lifestyle red flags that could have tipped off the company to the possibility of fraud would be the new expensive cars, the expensive clothes, the houses that his income would not have been able to support. 5. Companies don’t like to prosecute white-collar criminals because they are afraid of how it will make the company look. It makes it look as though they aren’t able to keep control of what is going on internally. The problem with this lies in that others may commit fraud or continue to commit fraud because they know the company won’t prosecute.
The employees may feel a certain way about the layoff of the co-workers and also it may effect how they work. Also another thing is the loss of valuable and knowledgeable employees may affect others too. The new hire people will have no one to ask if they do not understand or know how to perform a task asked of them. This can cause serious problems for productivity and for the patients at the clinic. The last disadvantage I think will be a problem to the Dodge Clinic is employees seeking employment elsewhere because they do not feel there job is secure.