chapter EIGHT
The Workplace (1): Basic Issues
CA SE 8.3
Speaking Out about Malt
WHEN MARY DAVIS, ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT
for plant management at Whitewater Brewing Company,
wrote an article for a large metropolitan newspaper in her
state, she hadn’t realized where it would lead. At first she
was thrilled to see her words published. Then she was just
worried about keeping her job.
It all started when her husband, Bob, who was working on
his MBA, talked her into taking an evening class with him. She
did and, to her surprise, really got into the course, spending
most of her weekends that semester working on her term
project—a study of wine and beer marketing. Among other
things her essay discussed those respectable wine companies
like E. & J. Gallo (the nation’s largest) that market cheap, fortified wines such as Thunderbird and Night Train Express. With
an alcohol content 50 percent greater and a price far less than
regular wine, these screw-top wines are seldom advertised
and rarely seen outside poor neighborhoods, but they represent a multimillion dollar industry. Skid-row winos are their
major consumers, a fact that evidently embarrasses Gallo,
because it doesn’t even put its company name on the label.86
Mary’s essay went on to raise some moral questions
about the marketing of malt liquor, a beer brewed with sugar
for an extra punch of alcohol. It has been around for about
forty years; what is relatively new is the larger size of the
container. A few years ago, the industry introduced malt liquor
in 40-ounce bottles that sell for about three dollars. Packing
an alcohol content roughly equivalent to six 12-ounce beers
or five cocktails, 40s quickly became the favorite high of
many inner-city teenagers. Ads for competing brands stress
potency—“It’s got more” or “The Real Power”—and often
use gang slang. Get “your girl in the mood quicker and get
your jimmy thicker,” raps Ice Cube in a commercial for St. Ides
malt liquor. Like baggy pants and baseball caps turned backward, 40s soon moved from the inner city to the suburbs.
Teenage drinkers like the quick drunk, and this worries drug
counselors. They call 40s “liquid crack” and “date rape
brew.”87
Mary’s instructor liked her article and encouraged her to
rewrite it for the newspaper. The problem was that Whitewater
also brews a malt liquor, called Rafter, which it had recently
started offering in a 40-ounce bottle. True, Mary’s article
mentioned Whitewater’s brand only in passing, but top management was distressed by her criticisms of the whole industry, which, they thought, damaged its image and increased
the likelihood of further state and federal regulation. The
board of directors thought Mary had acted irresponsibly, and
Ralph Jenkins, the CEO, had written her a memo on the
board’s behalf instructing her not to comment publicly about
malt liquor without first clearing her remarks with him. Mary
was hurt and angry.
“I admit that the way the newspaper edited my essay and
played up the malt liquor aspect made it more sensationalistic,” Mary explained to her colleague Susan Watts, “but everything I said was true.”
“I’m sure it was factual,” replied Susan, “but the company
thought the slant was negative. I mean, lots of ordinary people drink Rafter.”
“I know that. Bob even drinks it sometimes. I don’t know
why they are so upset about my article. I barely mentioned
Rafter. Anyway, it’s not like Rafter is a big moneymaker. Most
of our other beers outsell it.”
“Well,” continued Susan, “the company is really touchy
about the whole issue. They think the product is under political attack these days and that you were disloyal.”
311
312 PART FOUR THE ORG ANIZ ATION AND THE PEOPLE IN IT
“That’s not true,” Mary replied. “I’m no troublemaker, and
I have always worked hard for Whitewater. But I do think they
and the other companies are wrong to market malt liquor the
way they do. It only makes a bad situation worse.”
The next day Mary met with Ralph Jenkins and told him
that she felt Whitewater was “invading,” as she put it, her rights
as a citizen. In fact, she had been invited to speak about wine
and beer marketing at a local 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.
2. Is your answer to question 1 affected by whether you
agree or disagree with the views Mary Davis expressed?
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
7. 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?
Is discharge or some sort of discipline called for? Should
the company adopt a formal policy regarding employee
speech? If so, what policy would you recommend?
1. Do you think 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?
3. Should there be any limits on an employee’s freedom of
expression? If not, why not? If so, under what circumstances is a company justified in restricting an employee’s
right to speak out?
4. The case presentation doesn’t specify whether the
newspaper article identified Mary Davis as an employee of
Whitewater. Is that a relevant issue? Does it matter what
position in the company Mary Davis holds?
5. What do you think Mary Davis ought to do? What moral
considerations should she weigh? Does she have conflicting obligations? If so, what are they?
6. 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?
CA SE 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.88
Purchase answer to see full
attachment