Who Should Pay Final Version

5,132 views

Published on

Business Ethics

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

No Downloads
Views
Total views
5,132
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
6
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
140
Comments
0
Likes
3
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Who Should Pay Final Version

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

×