Business Ethics - Business Ethics From a business...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Business Ethics From a business perspective, working under government contracts can be a very lucrative. In general, a stream of orders keep coming, rising incomes and growing company as a whole. Falls obvious to work this way is both higher quality expected as well as research and documentation required for government contracts. If a part is not working properly can cause minor problems, and problems that can lead to serious consequences, as in the case of National Semiconductor. When both the culpable component and company are, the question arises of how extensive these consequences should be. Is the company as an entity liable or do you look for in employees within that company? From an ethical perspective, we should analyze the mitigating factors of employees and their superiors, along with the role of others in the failure of these components. Then would have to analyze the final decision from a business perspective and we have to examine the macro issue of corporate responsibility to try to find a solution for these cases. The first mitigating factor involved in the National Semiconductor case is the uncertainty on the part of employees in the functions assigned to them. It is possible that during the test procedure, the employee could not tell which parts were tested under government standards and trade rules. In some cases, may even have been misinformed on the final consumers of the products tested. In fact, ignorance on the part of employees are totally exempt from any moral responsibility for damage arising from your work. If you decide that an employee is fully justified, or is given some moral responsibility, should be considered individually. The second mitigating factor is the duress or the threat that an employee might suffer if I continue with its task. After the false evidence was completed in the National Semiconductor labs, the documentation department also had to falsify documents stating that the parties had passed the government test standards. From a legal standpoint and ethical, both testers and the writers of the reports were merely acting on direct orders from a superior. This was also the case that the plant in Singapore refused to falsify documents and were later falsified by employees of the plant have been in California before being submitted for approval committees (Velazquez, 53). The writers of the reports were well aware of the situation however, acted this way in the instruction of a supervisor. Acting ethically thus becomes a secondary concern in this type of environment. As stated by Alan Reder,. . . if they [employees] feel they will suffer reprisals if they report a problem, are not likely to open the mouth. (113). The workers knew that if the reports were not falsified that would come under questioning and perhaps their jobs would be in danger. While working in these conditions is not entirely an excuse employees from moral fault, which begins the reporting process to determine the order of the chain of command of superiors
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 09/20/2011 for the course BUS 475 475 taught by Professor Webster during the Winter '09 term at University of Phoenix.

Page1 / 8

Business Ethics - Business Ethics From a business...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online