19MIN7924 ss Ethics 04.12 PM Study pool dge Crossing activity for Chapter 6 signment 1: Not All Companies are Viewed as Equal (175 pts) ors and Business Regulation sumer Ice You 336) rkplace (pp.332-333) nature (p.334) CHAPTER NINE THE WORKPLACE (2): TODAY'S CHALLENGES 343 1.99 100 ate employees' parental factors affecting job 0.339) those parties at a private residence. Amid a welter of sexual activity, he observed Mrs. Pettit perform fellatio on three different men in a one-hour period. Pettit was arrested and charged with oral copulation, which at the time contravened the California Penal Code (although now it does only if one of the parties is under eight- een). After a plea bargain was arranged, she pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor of outraging public decency and paid a fine. academic year, but two years later, disciplinary proceedings quality of work life on The school district renewed her teaching contract the next consider her record; they couldn't point to any past miscon- duct with students, nor did they suggest any reason to antick- pate future problems. They simply assumed that the fact of her sexual acts at the "swingers" party itself demonstrated that she would be unable to set a proper example or to teach her pupils moral principles Such an attitude is unrealistic, Tobringer argued, when studies show that 75 to 80 percent of the women of Pettit's educational level and age range engage in oral copulation. The majority opinion "is blind to the reality of sexual behavior" and unrealistically assumes that teachers in their private lives should exemplify Victorian principles of sexual morality." Pettit's actions were private and could not have affected her teaching ability. Had there not been clandestine surveillance of the party, the whole issue would never have arisen. elt your privacy subjected to job mmodate their DISCUSSION QUESTIONS were initiated against her. The State Board of Education found no reason to complain about her services as a teacher, and it conceded that she was unlikely to repeat her sexual miscon- duct. But the Board revoked her elementary school life diploma—that is, her license to teach—on the ground that by engaging in immoral and unprofessional conduct at the party , she had demonstrated that she was unfit to teach. Pettit fought the loss of her license all the way to the California Supreme Court, which upheld the decision of the Board of Education. 116 In an earlier case, the court had reversed the firing of a public school teacher for unspecified homosexual conduct, concluding that a teacher's actions could not consti- tute "immoral or unprofessional conduct" or "moral turpitude" unless there was clear evidence of unfitness to teach. But Pettit's case was different, the court hastened to explain. The conduct in the earlier case had not been criminal, oral copulation had not been involved, and the conduct had been private. Further, in that case the Board had acted with insuffi- cient evidence of unfitness to teach; by contrast, three school administrators had testified that in their opinion, Pettit's con- duct proved her unfit to teach. These experts worried that she would inject her views of sexual morality into the classroom, and they doubted that she could act as a moral example to the children she taught. Yet teachers, the court reaffirmed, are supposed to serve as exemplars, and the Education Code makes it a statutory duty of teachers to "endeavor to impress upon the minds of the pupils the principles of morality...and to instruct them in manners and morals." In a vigorous dissent, Justice Tobringer rejected the opin- ion of the majority, arguing that no evidence had established that Pettit was not fit to teach. The three experts didn't 1. In concerning itself with Pettit's off-the-job conduct, did the Board of Education violate her right to privacy? Or ment related? was its concern with her lifestyle legitimate and employ- 2. Was Pettit's behavior "unprofessional"? Was it immoral"? Did it show a "lack of fitness" to teach? Explain how you understand the terms in quotation marks. 3. Was the Board of Education justified in firing Pettit? Explain. 4. Was the court's verdict consistent with its earlier handling of the case of the homosexual teacher? 5. If teachers perform competently in the classroom, should they also be required to be moral exemplars in their pri- vate lives? Are employees in other occupations expected to provide a moral example-either on or off the job? 6. Which of the following in your view, would show unprofessional conduct, immorality, or lack of fitness to teach: drunken driving, smoking marijuana, advocating the use of marijuana, forging a check, resisting arrest for disorderly conduct and assaulting a police officer, being discovered in a compromising position with a student, propositioning a student, cheating on income tax, calling attention to one's openly homosexual lifestyle? 7. Under what conditions do employers have a legitimate interest in their employees' off-the-job conduct? She and her al sexual life- alled sexual e invited to hough they them and ater Pettit, med "The d parties S mem- Jone of econ men assumption of risk and 330 . what causes accidents (p. 331) the key to workplace safety (p. 331) • OSHA's spotty record (p. 332) productivity (pp. 340-341) • health effects of job dissatisfaction (p.339) • effect of participation and improved quality of work Pettit w which at the time (although now it een). After a plea the misdemeand The school dis academic yea were initiated no reason to conceded th duct. But FOR FURTHER REFLECTION was threatened monitoring that seemed too intrusive? 1. How important is privacy to you personally? Describe a situation, work-related or otherwise, in which you felt your privacy 2 Describe your experiences with drug testing or personality testing. Have you or has anyone you know been subjected to po 3. Does business have a responsibility to provide employees with more satisfying work lives? Or to better accommodate their family needs? diploma by engagi party, she Pettit Californi Board the firi condu tute" unle Pet CASE 9.1 Unprofessional Conduct? СС P TEACHING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CHILDREN with intellectual disabilities requires skill, patience, and devo- tion, and those who undertake this task are among the unsung heroes of our society. Their difficult and challeng- ing work rarely brings the prestige or financial rewards it deserves. Mrs. Pettit was one of those dedicated teachers. Licensed to teach in California, she had been working with mentally challenged children for over thirteen years when her career came to an abrupt end. Throughout that career, her competence was never questioned, and the evaluations of her school principal were always positive. Teaching was not Pettit's only interest, however. She and her husband viewed with favor various "nonconventional sexual life- styles," including "wife swapping." Because so-called sexual liberation was a hot topic at the time, the Pettits were invited to discuss their ideas on two local television shows. Although they wore disguises, at least one fellow teacher recognized them and discussed Mrs. Pettit's views with colleagues. A year later Pettit, then forty-eight years old, and her husband joined "The Swingers," a private club in Los Angeles that sponsored parties intended to promote diverse sexual activities among its mem- bers. An undercover police officer, Sergeant Berk, visited one of gulation ige Crossing . Study pool ompanies are Viewed as Equal (175 pts) activity for Chapter 6 mers 100 Your Total 99 $799.99 $0.0 00 99 (5799 CHAPTER EIGHT THE WORKPLACE (1): BASIC ISSUES 313 99 99 a by whether you ry Davis expresude loyee's freedom of der what circum- ricting an employees company, fired several employees at an Oklahoma plant who were discovered to have violated company policy by keeping guns in their vehicles. Their dismissal provoked a response from the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other gun-rights advo- cates, which since then have been lobbying for legislation that Ids? whether the s as an employees oes it matter what do? What moral she have conflict What Mary Davis exaggerating the sing these issues? imately worried atements about the situation? ed for? Should in 2002 Weyerhaeuser, the Seattle-based timber-products weapons onto somebody else's private property against the wishes of the owner." I said to somebody. You can't bring your gun into my house, that person's rights would not be violated," explains Mark Tushnet, a Harvard law professor For this reason, the American Bar Association sides with would make it illegal for companies to bar employees from leav- business owners and endorses "the traditional property ing guns in their cars in company parking lots. Although no state rights of private employers and other private property own requires companies to allow workers to carry weapons into the ers to exclude" people with firearms. Steve Halverson, pres- workplace, four states have passed laws guaranteeing them the ident of a Jacksonville, Florida, construction company agrees that business owners should be allowed to decide right to keep guns in their cars, and several other states are whether to allow weapons in their parking lots. The larger weighing whether to follow suit. Gun advocates argue that issue is property rights," he says, "and whether you as a licensed gun owners should have access to their weapons in homeowner and I as a business owner ought to have the case they need them on the trek to and from work. If an employer right to say what comes onto our property." However, can ban guns from workers' cars, "it would be a wrecking ball to Tennessee state senator Paul Stanley, a Republican sponsor the Second Amendment" of the U.S. Constitution, says Wayne of legislation requiring that guns be allowed in company LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA. parking lots, begs to differ. "I respect property and business Brian Siebel, a senior attorney at the Brady Center to rights," he says. "But I also think that some issues need to Prevent Gun Violence, thinks otherwise. He sees these laws overshadow this. We have a right to keep and bear as "a systematic attempt to force guns into every nook and arms." Other gun advocates think that the property-rights cranny in society and prohibit anyone, whether it's private argument is a red herring. Corporations are not individuals, employers or college campuses ... from barring guns from they argue, but artificial legal entities, whose "rights“ are their premises." But that's not how UCLA law professor entirely at the discretion of the state. What's really going on, Eugene Volokh looks at it. "It's part of the general movement," they think, is that some companies have an anti-gun politi- he says, "to allow people to have guns for self-defense not cal agenda. only at home, but in public places where they're most likely needed." For his part, LaPierre of the NRA contends that the legal right of people to have guns for personal protection is largely nullified if employers can ban guns from the parking lot. "Saying you can protect yourself with a firearm when you get off work late at night," he argues, "is meaningless if you ing employee mmend? 11 can't keep it in the trunk of your car when you're at work." Interpreting the somewhat ambiguous language of the Second Amendment is not easy. It only says, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." All jurists agree, however, that the Second Amendment does not make all forms of gun control unconstitutional and that, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, it places restrictions only on what government, not private parties, may do. In particular, the Second Amendment does not give gun owners a constitutionally protected right to carry their Property rights, however, aren't the only thing that compa- nies are concerned about. Business and other organizations have a widely acknowledged duty to keep their workplaces- and their employees—as safe as possible, and that means, many of them believe, keeping their campuses free of weap- ons. There are more than five hundred workplace homicides per year; in addition, 1.5 million employees are assaulted at work, many of them by coworkers or former employees. Having guns anywhere in the vicinity, many employers worry, can only make volatile situations more deadly. "There's no need to allow guns [into) parking lots," says the Brady Center's Siebel. "The increased risks are obvious." Steve Halveson drives that point home, too. "I object to anyone telling me that take steps necessary to protect our employees." For him it's no different from banning guns from his construc- tion sites or requiring workers to wear hard hats. "The conte is worker safety, and that's why it's important." we can't tional lives it seems eir moral stitution is Ons of the WO guns in veh be The next day that she felt Whitewater was in as a time in fact, she had been invited to speak and beer marketing at a bal high school as part of its antidrug campaign. She intended to keep her speaking engagement and would not subject her remarks to company censorship Jenkins listened but didn't say much, simply repeating what he had already written in his memo. But two days later Mary received what was, in effect, an ultimatum. She must either conform with his original order or submit her resignation. the National Rifle Associati med Mary Davis as cates, which since then Whitewater is that a relevant issue? Does would make it illegal for position in the company Mary Davis holds? 5. What do you think Mary Davis ought to do? ing obligations? If so, what are they? considerations should she weigh? Does she 8. Is the company night to be worried about what writes or says, or is the board of directors examen potential harm to Whitewater of her discussing 7. Assume a CEO like Ralph Jenkins is legitimately wanted the company. How should the CEO handle the su that an employee is making damaging statements Is discharge or some sort of discipline called on Sho speech? If so, what policy would you recommend? the company adopt a formal policy regarding employees ing guns in their cars in requires companies to workplace, four states right to keep guns weighing whether licensed gun own case they need to can ban guns fre the Second AB LaPierre, exec . Brian SK Prevent Gu as "a syst: cranny in employe DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1. Do you thirik Mary Davis acted irresponsibly or disloyally? Does Whitewater have a legitimate concern about her speaking out on this issue? Does the company have a right to abridge her freedom of expression? their Eugen he sa only nee les la CASE 8.4 Have Gun, Will Travel .. to Work Paul Price/Getty Images ORGANIZATIONAL THEORISTS AND EMPLOYEE advocates frequently emphasize the importance, from both a moral and a practical point of view, of companies' respecting the rights of their employees. Many employees spend long hours at work and remain tethered to the job by phone or computer even when they are off-site; not just their careers but also their friendships, social identity, and emotional lives are tied up with their work. All the more reason, it seems that companies should recognize and respect their moral, political, and legal rights. But enshrined in our Constitution is one right that frequently gets overlooked in discussions of the workplace: the right to bear arms. 30 88 illic lich nara ICS in seasoning a Savon Study F gnment 1: Not All Companies are Viewed as ers and Business Regulation end PRETEST Complete the practice activity for Chapter 6 LEAP Business Ethin mers PART POUR THE ORGANIZATION AND THE PEOPLE IN IT 314 Paul Robert minority. Bu tion all the union. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 4. Because the workplace is the company's private property, the company could choose, if it wished, to allow employ- ees to bring guns not only into the parking lot but also into the workplace itself. Are there ever circumstances in which doing so might be reasonable? Or would the presence of guns automatically violate the rights of other Paul Robe electriciar He found big unior Paul was 1. Do you have a moral, not only a legal, right to own a gun? Assume that either the Second Amendment or state law gives you a legal night to keep a gun in your car when you drive. Do you also have a moral right to do this? Do you have either a moral or a legal right to park a car with a loaded gun in a privately owned public parking lot regard- less of what the lot's owner wants? 2. In your view, do employees have either a moral or a legal right to park cars with guns in them in the company parking lot? If so, what about the property rights and safety concerns of employers? If employees don't have this right, would it be good policy for companies to allow them to stow guns in their cars anyway? Do companies have good grounds for being concerned about weapons in their parking lots? on their Springs fired, employees to be guaranteed a safe working environment? 5. What would a libertarian say about this issue? What con- siderations would a utilitarian have to take into account? What conclusion might he or she draw? 6. If you were on a company's board of directors, what policy would you recommend regarding handguns, rifles, or other weapons in employees' cars? In making your recommenda- tion, what factors would you take into account? Would it make a difference how large the company was, the nature of its workforce, or where it was located? If you support banning firearms from the parking lot, what steps, if any, do you think the company should take to enforce that policy? 7. Explain whether (and why) you agree or disagree with the following argument: "If employees have a right to keep guns in the parking lot, then they also have a right to bring them into workplace. After all, we're only talking about licensed, responsible owners, and the same rationale applies: An employee might need a weapon for self-protection. What if a lunatic starts shooting up the company?" But de hired the cens Ad tice 3. Do you agree with the NRA that if companies ban guns from their parking lots, this restriction would take "a wrecking ball to the Second Amendment" or nullify the right of people to have weapons for self-defense? Explain why or why not. In your view, have gun advocates been guilty of politicizing this issue? Do you think state legisla- tures are right to get involved, or should the matter be left to companies and employees to settle? Ar th u CASE 8.5 Union Discrimination unions agre NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL DEFENSE dation is one of several anti-union organizations that have active in recent years. The "right to work," in this context, the alleged right of an individual to work without being I to join a union or nayuninn around, it means that companies e only work union or at What í the equiva due
Purchase answer to see full attachment