1. Running Head: WAL-MART MEMORANDUM 1
Wal-Mart Memorandum
Romy Reyes
for Dr. Raul Fernandez-Calienes
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
MAN-510-11 MANAGEMENT ETHICS
School of Business/ Graduate Studies
St. Thomas University
Miami Gardens, Fla.
February 11, 2015
2. WAL-MART MEMORANDUM 2
Executive Summary
Wal-Mart brand will reduce its influence in the retail market due to associated with
unethical decision-making and irrational employee handling protocols. Reducing the number of
spouses as subscribers to the benefits program is prohibited under the civil rights act and the
employment codes of ethics. In the legal provisions, employers are supposed to offer equal
opportunities to their employees, as well as equitable benefits to the same individuals as per their
contributions to the organizations’ strategic objectives.
Key words: unethical decision-making, Wal-Mart employees, equitable benefits.
3. WAL-MART MEMORANDUM 3
MEMORANDUM
To: M. Susan Chamber, National Vice President for Benefits, Wal-Mart
From: South Florida Benefits Manager, Wal-Mart
Date: February 11, 2015
Subject: Cutting cost
In response to your memorandum, which stated that I must cut my cost through
discouraging unhealthy people from working at our company, hiring more part-time workers,
and reducing the enrollment of spouses, I have decided to write you this memo. My position on
the issue is that I will not execute the orders that you gave. It is clear that it would be difficult to
enforce your memo. I have several ethical reasons for taking a different stand from yours and I
am aware of the consequences of my position on the matter.
In every society, it is common to have minorities or groups of individuals considered
inferior to the majority in a given population. However, when it comes to employment
opportunities, it is vital to put such people into consideration because they are also part of
society. In regards to affirmative action, it is crucial to provide equal employment opportunities
to everyone in the community, particularly those who are viewed as the minority (Boatright,
2012). Different nations as well as organizations have adopted the principle and they continue to
use it as guidance in reference to providing fair employment platforms. In this case, unhealthy
individuals are the minority. This is because majority of the workers are often healthy.
Therefore, discouraging the unhealthy ones from working at our company is in breach of the
affirmative action. It denies such people the opportunity to work and earn a living just like their
healthy counterparts. This would be denying such individuals a platform to have equal
opportunities when it comes to employment.
Subsequently, I have decided that I will not take part in such actions. This is because I
believe in equal employment opportunities for each individual in society. This is regardless of
their social status. I consider the unhealthy individuals as weaklings who need to be given a
chance to experience equality in the society that we live in today. I consider any action that
undermines them as unethical. Similarly, I consider your move as unethical because it is far from
equality when it comes to creating employment opportunities. Hence, I do not wish to take part
in an act that would deny others an opportunity to equally compete with the majority population
in society.
Moreover, it is unethical to dismiss employees without substantial reasons. In your
memo, you specified that the company should reduce the enrollment of spouses to cut the costs.
Technically, this might mean that spouses in the company should be dismissed. This is because
they are many and they are costly to the organization. In my view, firing employees just because
they are spouses would be unjust dismissal (Fernando, 2010). This implies that the employees
would be dismissed for no reason other than being spouses. According to the set ethical
standards, every individual is entitled to an employment opportunity as long as they meet the
required qualifications for the given jobs. In addition, it would require adequate reason to dismiss
one from their position. For example, it would be unfair to dismiss an employee who has always
been beneficial to the organization through dedication in their work, just because of their marital
status. Their skills, talents, or knowledge are the ones to be considered when it comes to firing
4. WAL-MART MEMORANDUM 4
such employees. In addition, it would be important to consider their overall contribution to the
organization rather than their marital status before thinking of dismissing them. Unless an
employee has engaged in an undesirable act in the organization, it would be unjust to dismiss
them from the company without proper reason such as misconduct or underperformance. Thus, I
am certain that I will not engage in such actions.
Furthermore, it is important that every organization justly compensates its employees.
For instance, it is ethical to hire employees on a permanent basis and give them other
employment benefits. Meanwhile, hiring workers on a part-time basis hinders them from
receiving just compensation (Kaplan, 2014). This is because there are various employment
benefits that they will not be entitled to have because they are not full-time employees. On the
other extreme, full-time workers receive various benefits such as medical cover, in addition to
their wages. However, part-time workers are only paid wages and they never receive other
compensations that other employees receive. In this situation, hiring more part-time employees
would be a way of discouraging just compensation. I believe that all employees are entitled to
compensations that are equivalent to their work. Nevertheless, it is the employer’s responsibility
to ensure that the employees are given the appropriate wages as well as other benefits that the
organization might offer (Kaplan, 2014). Therefore, if you suggest that we should hire more part-
time employees, the organization would be acting unethically. The company would be denying
employees the opportunity to receive adequate wages and other relevant compensations. For
such reasons, I feel that your directive falls short of ethical practices. It would have been
appropriate if your orders called for hiring more full-time workers.
Nevertheless, I am aware that my actions are of disobedience in regards to your
directives. Traditionally, it is important that one should execute orders from their seniors.
However, in this case, I have decided not to enforce your memo. As a result, I am prepared to
face any consequences that might arise. Most notably, I am certain that I will face disciplinary
action for failing to enforce your orders. I know that I will be questioned for my actions and
maybe face a disciplinary committee. Despite such looming consequences, I will stand by my
principles. I believe that ethics are crucial aspects of any organization. Hence, companies should
work towards ensuring that they act according to the prevailing ethical patterns (Fernando,
2010). Most importantly, I know that through the position that I have taken in reference to the
matter, I am aware that I stand the risk of losing my position in the organization. However, I
have put such consequences into consideration and I believe that my principles outweigh them.
Therefore, I will stick to my values because I believe in ethical practices rather than having
regulations that are short of ethics in our company.
In conclusion, I have taken a stand not to execute your directive as specified in the memo
that you had sent earlier. The ethical issues that I have considered when taking the position
include affirmative action, unjust dismissal, and just compensation. I believe that your orders
violate such ethical principles. Hence, I have decided to disagree with you on that matter.
Nonetheless, I am aware of the consequences that I might face and I am prepared for them.
Best Regards,
Romy Reyes
Benefits Manager
5. WAL-MART MEMORANDUM 5
References
Boatright, J. R. (2012). Ethics and the conduct of business. Boston: Pearson.
Fernando, A. C. (2010). Business ethics and corporate governance. Delhi: Dorling Kindersley
(India), licensees of Pearson Education in South Asia.
Kaplan, N. L. (2014). Management ethics and Talmudic dialectics: Navigating corporate
dilemmas with the indivisible hand.
