Consider a decision and test it thinking ethically

This preview shows page 5 - 7 out of 10 pages.

consider a decision and test it (Thinking Ethically, 2015). We could test the previously mentioned approaches by asking the following questions: Which of these options is the most practical solution to the problem? Which is most likely to work? Which is most resilient? Pragmatically, the best decision is to take the Rights approach because it will give NBD, Elena, and Viktor the opportunity to discuss their salaries and benefits packages in accordance with Serafini’s laws. It will bring a sense of reality and neutrality to the table by pointing out each stakeholder’s legal rights. Nonetheless, this option is most likely not to work because it would bring a set of negative consequences affecting the stakeholders’ wellbeing. As a result, taking the Utilitarianism approach will be the most resilient and most likely to work option. Fifth, NBD should take action on their decision (Thinking Ethically, 2015). Taking into consideration the ethical analysis, our team recommends proceeding with the Utilitarianism approach, which produces the most good and does the least harm to all the stakeholders. The plan of action should be focused on the idea that terminating Elena and Viktor is not the right thing to do. This action would be unethical, and the company will be seen as an entity with no intentions to create or maintain a good relationship with the Country of Serafini and its nationals. It could also be seen as Ethnocentrism and even racism because the company is not willing to negotiate with the nationals, but at the same time is willing to invest in two new executives from America, which would be more expensive. Finally, Max Ciccone should keep Elena and Viktor in their positions and match their salaries and benefits packages equitably to the other eight executives.
Legal Analysis To legally analyze this case, our team will begin by explaining different American laws which can be applied to Serafini’s employment issues, if they worked for NBD’s Headquarters in the United States. In this scenario, the employees of NBD work within the United States. Our country has stringent federal acts that give protections to employees against discriminatory actions. Some of the statutes that affect this case are Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the 1981 amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). These statues affect the situation of Elena, Viktor, Michael, and Beth. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is dedicated to protecting certain individuals’ rights against discriminatory actions due to race, color, religion, gender, or national origin. Under this statute, Elena, Viktor, and Beth are protected from the discriminatory actions taken against them. Elena and Viktor are being discriminated against in terms of unequal pay. Both of them have equal experience and qualifications compared to several other board members and are not being compensated in the same manner. Elena and Viktor can claim the discrimination is due to their national origin as they are the minority in terms of board members. This discrimination also

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture