Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Who Should Pay Final Version
Who Should Pay Final Version
Who Should Pay Final Version
Who Should Pay Final Version
Who Should Pay Final Version
Who Should Pay Final Version
Who Should Pay Final Version
Who Should Pay Final Version
Who Should Pay Final Version
Who Should Pay Final Version
Who Should Pay Final Version
Who Should Pay Final Version
Who Should Pay Final Version
Who Should Pay Final Version
Who Should Pay Final Version
Who Should Pay Final Version
Who Should Pay Final Version
Who Should Pay Final Version
Who Should Pay Final Version
Who Should Pay Final Version
Who Should Pay Final Version
Who Should Pay Final Version
Who Should Pay Final Version
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Who Should Pay Final Version

3,355

Published on

Business Ethics

Business Ethics

0 Comments
3 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
3,355
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
114
Comments
0
Likes
3
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Who Should Pay? Usman Javed Zuberi Dr Muhammad Sharjeel © 2004 by Paul L. Schumann. All rights reserved. 8-
  • 2.
    • In your judgment, and from an ethical point of view, should Turner Construction and/or B&C Steel pay for all or part of the $2,428,000 (if part, indicate which part)? Explain your view.
    8-
  • 3.
    • Case: Turner Construction contracting B&C Steel for the installation of bridge. Turner Construction should restrict B&C Steel to comply all safety measures during installation of river bridge. Turner’s Construction should held partially responsible for this case, for not reinforcing a proper code of ethics for its subjects.
    8-
  • 4.
    • Case :"a pattern of negligence in constructing and assembling the bridge, from the time that the bridge was received until the time it was installed."
    • (1) B&C's trucks carrying the bridge parts were not unloaded where the bridge was to be assembled.
    • (2) B&C's poor planning resulted in several problems in moving the bridge closer to the water, including failure to note the location of a fence, concrete guardrails, and a set of trolley tracks in the bridge's path.
    8-
  • 5.
    • (3) B&C personnel initially assembled the bridge upside down.
    • (4) a B&C truck hit a power wire causing a small fire which required the fire department's response.
    • (5) B&C did not arrange for the power lines to be disabled before the bridge was moved beneath them.
    8-
  • 6.
    • Working Conditions: Health and Safety
    • Facts and Figures
      • Workplace Injuries
        • 4,700,000 workplace injuries and 5,000 fatal on-the-job accidents/yr
          • 10% of the workforce suffers an on job related injury or illness each year
          • resulting in loss of over 31 million work-days annually
    • Cost of work-related deaths & injuries in 2002 is estimated $40 billion of direct costs (medical costs and payments to workers).
    8-
  • 7.
    • $240 billion of indirect costs (lost productivity, overtime, etc.)
    • Trends in on the job deaths & disabling injuries 1970-2001
      • deaths: trended downward from 18 per 100,000 to 4 per 100,000
      • disabling injuries: totals rose from 2.2 million/year to 3.9 million/year
    8-
  • 8.
    • The Firm's Duties to the Employee : the basic obligation the employer owes to the employee on the " rational structure" view are
      • to provide them with the compensation they have freely and knowingly agreed to receive in exchange for their services
      • to provide them with working conditions they have freely and knowingly agreed to accept
    • Main issues relate to the question of how free and knowing the worker's consent.
      • the fairness of the wage
      • the fairness of the working conditions
    8-
  • 9.
    • Contractual Basis of Organization ; focuses on two reciprocal sets of obligations
    • Employees
      • to obey organizational superiors
      • to pursue the organization's goals
      • not to pursue conflicting goals
    • Employers
      • to provide employees with a fair wage
      • and fair working conditions
    8-
  • 10. Organization’s Duties
      • offer wages that reflect the risk-premium prevalent in other similar but competitive labor markets
        • e.g., coal mine owner might compare risk-premiums paid asbestos removal workers
      • provide workers with suitable health insurance programs to cover unknown hazards
      • research the health hazards that accompany each job and make all such information readily available to workers.
    8-
  • 11.
    • The Caring Organization Caring organization approach emphasizes non-power relations: cooperation friendship, respect, care
    • Potential Competitive Benefits for Organizations increase productivity due to reduced friction
    • recruitment advantages: due to desirability of working conditions
    • better customer relations: customer loyalty, repeat business, word-of-mouth recommendations
    8-
  • 12.
    • In our opinion, based on above arguments;
    • Both Turner construction and B&C Steel are partly responsible for the accident that caused economic and non-economic loss.
    • Non economic losses for Turner Construction and B&C Steel includes distorted image due to accidents on installation site.
    • John Goodrich, the project superintendent on the Invesco Field construction, testified it was his "understanding that Mr. Elliot was there to help and direct the erection of the bridge, of putting the parts and pieces together.“
    • Therefore; all three parties are collectively responsible for the incident and should pay a part.
    8-
  • 13.
    • In your judgment, and from an ethical point of view, should Elliot be held wholly or partially responsible for his injuries and left to shoulder all or part of the $2,428,000 cost of his injuries (if part, indicate which part)? Explain your view.
    8-
  • 14.
    • Case: Elliot was there to help during the process but he gave late instruction of OSHA all stop due to his impaired judgment during the process of construction.
    8-
  • 15.
    • Moral Responsibility : A person is morally responsible only for those acts and their foreseen injurious effects of deliberate acts or omissions.
    • commission
      • knowingly and freely performing or bringing about
      • what it was morally wrong for the person to perform or bring about
    • omission
      • knowingly and freely failing to perform or to prevent
      • which it was morally wrong for the person to fail to perform or prevent
    8-
  • 16.
    • Mitigating Conditions: partially absolve the agent of blame: diminish responsibility  Circumstances which leave a person uncertain but not altogether unsure about what they're doing.
    • Retributive justice : concerned with the fair imposition of punishments on those who do wrong.
    8-
  • 17.
    • Partly Elliot is himself partly responsible for his injuries, based upon the arguments of moral responsibility and retributive justice.
    • Reasons behind the movement of bridge after Elliot’s OSHA all-stop command should be investigated.
    • Negligence of B&C staff to halt operations held B&C responsible partly for the injuries of Elliot.
    8-
  • 18.
    • In your judgment, is the Colorado worker’s compensation law to which Tuner Construction appealed fair? Explain your view.
    8-
  • 19. 8- Case: The primary purpose of the Colorado workers' compensation act "is to provide a remedy for job-related injuries, without regard to fault." (Colo. 1988). Through an interrelated set of provisions, "the statutory scheme grants an injured employee compensation from the employer without regard to negligence and, in return, the responsible employer is granted immunity from common-law negligence liability." To be afforded this immunity, an employer must be a "statutory employer" as defined by the act.
  • 20.
    • Any person, company, or corporation operating or engaged in or conducting any business by leasing or contracting out any part of all of the work thereof to any lessee, sublessee , contractor, or subcontractor . . .shall be construed to be an employer as defined in articles 40 to 47 of this title and shall be liable . . . to pay compensation for injury or death resulting there from to said lessees, sublessees , contractors, and subcontractors and their employees or employees' dependents.
    8-
  • 21.
    • Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-41-401(1)(a). Relying on this language, the district court concluded that Turner Construction was not a statutory employer because it did "not fall within Section 8-41-401 with regard to its dealings with Mabey." App. IV at 748. The court read the statute as only covering those situations where Mabey was a "lessee, sublessee, contractor, or subcontractor."
    8-
  • 22.
    • We can held someone morally responsible for an injury only when:
        • The person caused or help cause it, or failed to prevent it when he could and should have, and
        • The person did so knowing what he or she was doing, and
        • The person did so of his own free will
    • The primary purpose of the Colorado workers' compensation act is to provide a remedy for job-related injuries, without regard to fault.
    • Therefore, appealing under a law that did not take fault into account is un-ethical.
    8-
  • 23.
    • Compensatory Justice
    • Concerns restoring to individuals what they have lost due to being wronged by another
    • Insofar as possible the wrongdoer should restore the loss.
    8-

×