OLS 30000: Safety and Health in Engineering Technologies Assignment 2 – Mil-Tech – Ethics in Safety

Taher Ali Alshawi

Safety and Health in Engineering Technologies

OLS30000

Online Section Summer, 2015

Assignment 2. Mill-Tech

Part 1.

Question 1.

The decisions that a company must take in order to earn profits should not go overboard to the point where it affects the welfare of the employees, its customers, and any other stakeholder/s. In fact, the company must prioritize the welfare of his employees, customers, and other people who may be involved in its decision and think of earning profit as the least priority. However, many businesses become so obsessed with earning profits that it sometimes makes decisions that violate what is right and proper to do. In the case given for instance, it bothers Camillo Garcia upon learning that his company intends to use the more toxic paint. He had contemplated upon three approaches and analyzes each approach and its consequences, which are discussed below:

(1) The first approach would be to confront his boss and express his views about three issues such as: (a) the potential impact of the toxic paints on employees who are exposed to it; (b) the potential liability beyond Worker’s Compensation and; (c) the fact that he was not included in the discussions about this material. He has to tell his boss that the toxic paint may make the employees very sick and because of this, hospital and health costs would be very high and worst, possibly employees may file cases against the employers and win. If Garcia is able to convince his manager of the possible litigations and costs associated with this decision, this would be the best for him because the chance that he will lose his job would be very little compared if the manager rejects it. The risk (around 60%) that he may lose his job would be very high because the fact that he was not included in the discussions made on this issue means that the company disregards his view of it. Another point is that, his reasoning about the costs and benefits of this approach should be very convincing and relevant so his manager would hear and consider aborting the plans.

(2) The second approach would be to bring the issue to the union if the management would not stop implementing their unethical decision. In this option, the union will represent the employees against the company and file the case on behalf. The risk that he will lose his job and be discriminated would be lower, perhaps around 30%. Since the union will be the one to do it, Garcia is no longer primarily responsible for whatever legal actions would be taken to resolve the issue (AFL, CIO, 2013). Also, if the union will be the one to appeal with the company, the blow would be much harder for the company and the chances to be heard is much stronger since the appeal is from majority group and not from a single person. On the other hand, since Garcia knows the issue, he still has to stand as witness against the company during the investigation proceedings.

(3) The third approach would be to blow the whistle by going directly to OSHA and/or other government agencies and tell them about the company’s plan of using more toxic paints without informing or training the employees. Whistle blowing is defined as the act of reporting to the authority, any illegal or unethical acts of the company so that the unethical decision would be stopped. The risk that Garcia would lose his job and be discriminated in the workplace is very low (around 5-10%) because OSHA Section 11 protects employees against unlawful suspension or job loss (Goetsch, 2011). Importantly, Garcia has to carefully plan his actions and learn about the proceedings impeccably to lessen the negative consequences of this approach. For instance, although Garcia is legally protected from losing his job, he is still not free from co-employees discrimination and blames. It is a common reaction from co-employees, especially those who do not know the complete facts of the issue, to react against the whistle-blowers and behave harshly towards them, showing their sympathy for the employers to protect their jobs (Goetsch, 2011). Also, this approach takes longer to resolved and more tedious because OSHA has to follow certain standard proceedings.

Ethical as it may seem, Garcia has to weigh all the approaches available to him on a critical and practical manner. Critical, since the approaches need vital and important information to be resolved. Practical because the financial issue is very sensitive as this involves a lot of money and various stakeholders, including his own family, who is dependent on his income from the company. Also, time is very important as decisions taken may take time to implement and takes effect and thus, Garcia has to choose his approach soon enough not to allow more problems to stem from it. Lastly, since the “end justifies the means”, Garcia has to evaluate what he really want to achieve and decide accordingly.

Question 2.

If I were Garcia, I think I have to take the first approach and take the principle of the Full Potential Approach, which means that the best approach brings the best results. It may be tempting to consider to do whistle blowing, which is the third approach but based on research, this action normally brings more problems to the whistle blower than it is to the company. Ibrahim, et al, 2007 states that although there are laws protecting whistle blowers, the actual statistics show that whistle blowers normally lose their jobs as a consequence of their actions. Employers do things that would make them legally fire or hurt whistle blowers, like giving poor evaluations, suspensions, and transferring to remote places. Since I am a family man, I would be more practical and use the first approach, which is to confront the management first and then if they reject my viewpoints, I would start looking for a new job, then tip them to the union and let the union handle the issue. I personally believe that if the management has crooked ethics, it will continuously look at unethical decisions as right and correcting it needs a “collateral damage (my career and family future)”, which I am not prepared to sacrifice just yet.

References

AFL-CIO (2013). How to file an OSHA complaint. Retrieved from: http://www.aflcio.org/Issues/Job-Safety/Safety-and-Health-Sites/How-to-File-an-OSHA-Complaint

Goetsch, D.L. (2011). Chapter 26. Occupational Safety and Health for Technologists, Engineers, and Managers (7th Edition). Pearson Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.

OSHA (2013). The whistle-blower protection program. Retrieved from: http://www.whistleblowers.gov/complaint_page.html

Ibrahim, M. S., Sadiq, N., Sajjid, A. (2007). Impact of Ethical practices on Quality of Services of bile Telecom Companies: Case Study of Pakistan. Retrieved from: http://www.ep.liu.se/ecp/033/078/ecp0803378.pdf

Part 2. One Page Report

Prepared by: Taher Al Shawi Prepared for: Camillo Garcia, Safety and health manager, Mill-Tech

Date: July 5, 2015 Date Received: July 5, 2015

I. BACKGROUND

The problem is to analyze and identify the best approach to resolve Garcia’s dilemma against his company who plans on using toxic paints without informing and training employees.

II. KEY POINTS

The keypoints for the problems identified are the following:

(1) First approach is to confront the boss and discuss:

· the potential impact of the toxic paints on employees who are exposed to it;

· the potential liability beyond Worker’s Compensation and;

· the fact that he was not included in the discussions about this material.

· 60% chance of losing his job due to management different view

(2) Second approach- tip the union

· 30% chance of losing job

(3) Third approach- report to OSHA

· 5-10% job lost and discrimination from co-workers, other indirect reasons.

III. TOTAL EFFECTS

IV. FUTURE STEPS

Unresolved problems	Actions
1. Use of toxic paints	· Talk to the manager · Report issue to the union to find solution to the problem
2. Company’s ethical standard	· Suggest ways to improve ethical standards and proceedings.

First Approach Risk of Losing job Change Time Required 60 50 25 Second Approach Risk of Losing job Change Time Required 30 75 50 Third Approach Risk of Losing job Change Time Required 10 100 100