Speaking Out About Malt

Speaking Out round treat Case 8. 3 Page 404-405, clean-living Issues in Business The baptistery of Whitewater Brewing and bloody shame Davis touches upon several views and virtuous issues that atomic number 18 not particularally black or white. Case 8. 3 specifically deals with a chore called Whitewater Brewing Co. Whitewater Brewing, as its signalise sounds, is a manufacturer of alcoholic refreshments, look at its brands to various consumers. The hold in particular focuses upon a specific Whitewater product, provide.R afterward is being targeted to match other similar products that be bottled in a 40 snow leopard size of it. The unfortunate part is that these 40 ounce size refreshments are not only popular with inner-city teenagers but in the field of honor where Whitewater sells these 40 ounce products in that respect is already a community alcohol related problem. Whitewater is not in foreign territory, numerous other companies already submit sold similar pr oducts in the kindred area targeting the same clientele. More greatly due to its popularity this product produces level-headed revenue for Whitewater. pattern into this scenario an employee of Whitewater Brewing Co. , bloody shame Davis, an Associate Vice President. bloody shame has decided to notwithstanding her education and is attending a course at an go forthside school, with her married man who was pursuing his MBA. My intention is to try to jibe whether or not bloody shame or Whitewater were interest both(prenominal) ethical practices, determine why they do the choices they did, and to attempt to determine if on that point is any validity to their reasoning. bloody shame begins on the job(p) on a term project studying the making of vino and beer.Research shows bloody shame that several companies market products that are high alcohol based and sold at a really low defame point, and not considered a premium product, strictly to satisfy a specific market niche. As bloody shames investigations continue she begins to insert her give feelings and viewpoints into her findings and her paper cash in whizzs chips a reflection of her own(prenominal) viewpoints, and not takefully those of her employer. For the opposite side of the case Whitewater Brewing is basically craping handle it should trying to maximize profits for its shareholders merchandise products to satisfy consumer take.In this case, that need is a malted milk liquor sold in 40 ounce containers and targeted to specific customers. This is nothing new, as other businesses are already in this market. The one caveat here is that none of the companies markets their malt liquors chthonian their name almost to distance themselves from the negative social implications resulting from the sales of malt liquors, specifically to this target audience. Separately and apart neither bloody shame Davis or Whitewater marketing products would produce been a Case 6. 3 were it not for the fact bloody shame Davis IS an employee of Whitewater.More so it never would give birth bubbled to the surface had bloody shame Davis through what she did which was to ultimately write an article for a paper discussing her personal views on malt liquors wherein she dry lands, again her views, as to the social responsibilities of businesses that produce malt liquors. In stating her personal popular opinions bloody shame now has pitted herself again the views of the business. Because Marys article is viewed negatively by Whitewater, the chief operating officer of Whitewater fears the article set aside nominate a negative impact to profits and to the product(s) they sell.They also feel this could conk out to legislation that would ultimately result is direct product spill and loss of revenue. These would be fairly legitimate concerns for any business, in my opinion. So if a socially trusty beau monde produces bad products are they bad? i spate argue especially in the case of liq uor manufacturers that there is heavy investment to provide a product that is intended for good use and that they aggressively help to pass legislation helping to turn to those who use their products in a negative manner.So clean-livingly and ethically Whitewater, in my opinion, is doing what they are intended to do. Specifically they are trying to build up money, and to do so in an ethical manner. No play along corporation be wholly responsible, in e rattling circumstance (but in a specific few), for the immoral or unethical behavior of others utilizing their products. Ralph Jenkins, chief executive officer of Whitewater, writes to Mary Davis to express the companys views on her behavior and to ask her to commencement ceremony dupe all further comments (regarding her personal views on liquor production) with the business. Mary feels this to be an invasion of her well(p) to free patois.Additionally Mary informs Ralph Jenkins that she seeks to attend her article further an d even speak at an engagement about her views (personal ones). Mr. Jenkins remains adamant that Mary adhere to his requests further escalating things to state she nooky either comply or resign. So does Davis waste a moral right to free speech in the workplace, or can Whitewater determine the extent to her free speech? Also what would Daviss best caterpillar track ethical path be? The second is the easiest to dissolving agent so I will do that now. Davis could simply put resign, enabling her to champion her beliefs and become a martyr for her cause, as it were.As for the first question the answer is not a simple clear cut one, and ultimately will be an individual one. Currently there is already jural causality that allows companies to require employees not to act or speak disloyally. spend a penny the following case In Korb v. Raytheon, 574 N. E. 2d 370, 410 Mass. 581 (1991), Raytheon terminated Lawrence Korb after receiving complaints of his informal involvement in an anti -nuclear proliferation nonprofit copen as the Committee for guinea pig Security (CNS) and his advocacy of reduced defense spending.On February 26, 1986 The Washington take ran an article describing Korbs speech at a press conference held the twenty-four hour period prior as critical of increased defense spending. Following the military issue of the article, several military officials expressed their disapproval of Korbs comments. 77 Despite writing a letter of retraction which ran in The Washington Post, Raytheon terminated Korbs localize after it continued to receive Navy, Air Force, and Armed Services Committee objections. 78 In adjudicating Korbs claim of wrongful discharge, the dictatorial Judicial Court of Massachusetts fix no public policy prohibiting an employer from discharging an ineffective at-will employee. His claim under the verbalise Civil Rights Act was dismissed as well. In affirming the lower court of justices decision to dismiss, Justice Abrams wrote Al though Korb has a secured right to speak out on matters of public concern, and he has a right to express views with which Raytheon disagrees, he has no right to do so at Raytheons expense. 79 The above article shows one perspective of the courts on this matter. Furthermore Mary Davis needed to be sure her personal opinions could withstand the scrutiny of being challenged for slander, unless there was very strong specific data supporting her views. Despite Marys strong personal views, even if validated, she is in conflict by the very nature of working for Whitewater and having such strong personal views. She may clear chastely sound arguments about liquor products but she is ethically wrong then for working in the liquor industry.My view is that Marys intent, though ethically sound, is still less ethical than that of Whitewater. Mary attempts to unimportant butter spread the first amendment right to free speech across the board, when in fact Whitewater too has rights and expect ations within the first amendment. While Mary is entitled to do as she chooses outside of work there are limitations when her choices can have specific negative impacts to her employer. And for these impacts she can be held accountable legally, despite her moral righteousness.In conclusion there is no clear path to moral righteousness and ethical behavior. What I feel is important is that in the end we can do either in a manner that withstands legal implication (much of it already established) and exercise our own personal moral conviction in a manner that does not leave us conflicted. QUESTIONS FROM THE BOOK. 1. Do you say Mary Davis acted irresponsibly or disloyally? I dont believe at the time Mary Davis intended to act irresponsibly or disloyally however Mary should have thought more about the big picture and talked with her counsel first about her intentions.This is a oddly tough issue as this does touch upon the right to free speech. Depending upon what sort of agreement the company has with Mary would speak volumes as to her rights outside of work and expectations as to how she is anticipate face her company. Mary also should have known that media sensationalism is what they are in business for. Her views were liable for their interpretation and hence liable to be miscons rightful(a)d or mis-utilized as they were. Does Whitewater have a legitimate concern about her public speaking out on this issue?Marys concern is legitimate of that there is no doubt. However as an emissary of her company she is responsible both inside work and outside work to present an image of her company that is positive. Or she could choose to work elsewhere. If Mary were to choose her moral high ground and leave the company she would be commended for her actions that follow her beliefs. Does the company have a right to abridge her emancipation of expression? The company does have some right to abridge her freedom particularly if they have a company handbook which specifies their expectations (within reason).Marys views and activities outside of work have no real concern to her company but ethically Mary is working in an industry where serving liquor is the nature of business. These companies often display and rely on laws and policies to inflict rules regarding consumption and shout. That individuals abuse their products is really not completely their fault. Ethically they are trying to be responsible and they are after all in the business to sell and make a profit. 2. Is your answer to question 1 affected by whether you agree or disagree with the views Mary Davis expressed?I think for the zealots on either side of the spectrum individual views would impact whether they agreed or disagreed with Mary Davis. However, it is my belief that you need not side nor disagree with Mary to realize that her behavior and that of Whitewater brewing are dealing with ethical grey-haired matter. The company has rights as much as Mary does and each can make choices that would resolve this conflict. Mary can leave Whitewater and then no longer be under their scrutiny or Whitewater can have specific policies on expected behavior that reflects the company position.Communication is at the core of the problem. If either side had communicated among themselves could have avoided this situation and who knows perhaps Whitewater being community responsible may have given Mary a different tact to utilize that would have made her and Whitewater happy. 3. Should there be any limits on an employees freedom of expression? If not, why? If so, under what circumstances is a company justified in restricting an employees right to speak out? This is a tenuous issue as there are already some amendments to current laws of free speech.I understand that businesses have a right to understand viability and employee comments can adversely affect them. I think so long as there is clear communication up front about business policies regarding this and that they are commu nicated regularly and clearly then it becomes a buyer/employee beware situation. once more within reason individuals should still be able to express themselves particularly when there is no direct verbiage that is specific about a business. I am an opponent to a business screening by Facebook etc as what a person does on their time does not needs prove they would be bad at work.Statistics aside we all know you can make data to support whatever view you regard today. The bigger question is the legal one and companies basically in my opinion wield a heavy sword (meaning they have deep pockets for legal issues) to drive their views and challenge you to dispute them. So one question we should be asking is once hired by a business ar you now their property which can be used in any way, and discarded when no longer needed? After all, today one can be dismissed without cause, employee at will. Take for instance the following articlehttp//www. bs2. com/freespch. htm The First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution establishes freedom of speech in the USA. there are several major limitations on this freedom Only the governing is prohibited from restricting speech. Private corporations are free to censor speech of their employees. idledom of speech is not absolute, even when organization regulation or law is concerned. Forexample, freedom of speech does not give one the right to commit perjury. See the beginning of my essay on infotorts for more examples. Since 1977, the U. S.Supreme Court has retreated from hold dearing freedom of speech even for government employees, as explained in my separate essay. Fundamentally, an at-will employee in the USA can be terminated at any time, and for any reason ornoreasonatall and the courts will not intervene to protect the ex-employee from allegedly unfair treatment by the employer. Courts have repeatedly recognized that anyreason includes a morallywrong or morallyreprehensible reason. Ihave briefly discussed the history o f at-will employment in the USA and criticism of this doctrine in a separate essay. The cabal of o legal protection for freedom of speech of employees of for-profit and non-profit corporations and other non-governmental employers, and the freedom of employers to terminate employment at any time, for any reason bureau that employees in private industry have no legal rights to freedom of speech. (end of article) The case presentation doesnt specify whether the newspaper article determine Mary Davis as an employee of Whitewater. Is that a relevant issue? Whether Mary Davis was determine or not is not necessarily relevant. Once stated, today there should be an assumption that someone, anyone, can ultimately determine ownership.This is especially true if the information is anything but verbal and has been recorded in any way, manner, or form. Does it matter what position in the company Mary Davis holds? To a point the fact that Mary Davis is high up in the corporate concatenation b ears a more significant impact. In a higher position Mary is more an emissary of the business and as such expected more to promote the business image. However despite her position as an employee of a business she is bound to the requirements of that business, especially once specified to her. Or she can choose to follow her sense of right and wrong and resign. . What do you think Mary Davis ought to do? Clearly Mary Davis should resign or fold to the demands of her thickening and refrain while employed by Whitewater from expressing her personal views on any liquor related issues. What moral considerations should she weigh? Mary simply needs to weigh what is important to her her work, money, job and family stability or her moral considerations and the hazard that she would need to shift employment in order to not have direct involvement in an industry she believes to be practicing unethical behavior. Does she have conflicting obligations?Mary does have conflicting obligations. If so what are they? They are her obligations to survival, money, job stability, employment, etc. On the other side is her obligation to her conscience and her moral beliefs, particularly the one that is contrary to the production and sale of malt liquor to individuals (specific individuals). 5. Is the company right to be worried about what Mary Davis writes or says, or is the board of directors exaggerating the potential harm to Whitewater of her discussing these issues? The company is completely right to be worried about Mary Davis.There is many a story about David and Goliath where a single individual toppled a business based upon their personal beliefs. 6. Assume a CEO like Ralph Jenkins is legitimately worried that an employee is making damaging statements about the company. How should the CEO handle the situation? My opinion is that the CEO would need to sit with the employee and state the business doctrine as it were. Next would be to ask open ended questions to see if there wa s an option where both needs could be met satisfactorily without any negative repercussions to either party involved. Is discharge or some sort of discipline called for?Initially, discharge or discipline may not be called for unless policies had been clearly stated beforehand. Should the company adopt a formal policy regarding employee speech? All companies should have formal policies regarding employee speech. further these should be communicated in plain simple language and reiterated yearly to ensure everyone remains cognizant of the policies. If so, what policy would you recommend? I recommend a policy that is developed with the individuals at all levels of the business to ensure varied concerns are addressed and the needs of the business (their viewpoint) is clearly understood.Works Cited Customer, A. Amazon. com Moral Issues in Business (9780495007173) William H. Shaw, Vincent Barry Books. Amazon. com Online Shopping for Electronics, Apparel, Computers, Books, DVDs & More. Web. 16 Jan. 2012. . First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 16 Jan. 2012. . Freedom of Speech. Dr. R. Standlers Professional Homepage. Web. 16 Jan. 2012. http//www. rbs2. com/freespch. htm.