In this instance study, Stanwick & Stanwick (2009) give the reader a synopsis in to the allegations and ethical issues which the large retailer Wal-Mart has been facing since the end of the 20th century. Wal-Mart is being accused of asking their employees to operate off-the-clock and not paying all of them for this job, for not paying out its staff overtime when it was the case, for dainty against ladies, for not supplying affordable medical insurance to its employees, for being anti-union, intended for using illegitimate immigrants, and violating kid labor regulations or partnering with international companies which in turn did not adhere to fair labor practices.
A number of these issues have got resulted in extreme criticism, class-action lawsuits, and millions of dollars in settlements that Wal-Mart were required to pay to current or former workers. I would like to start by addressing the Inquiries for Thought posed by the authors: 1 . Are the honest issues Wal-Mart faces genuinely any not the same as other large retailers? The difficulties described by Stanwick & Stanwick (2009) are not one of a kind to Wal-Mart. Many other suppliers and business organizations have been alleged and sometimes verified guilty of the same unethical or perhaps illegal techniques. For example , in January 06\, MSNBC, posted an Linked Press article about a court action filled against IBM for not paying overtime, however, to their personnel (nbcnews. com, 2006).
In the same content, it is revealed that previously, Pc Sciences Corp. and Electric Art Incorporation. agreed to negotiate lawsuits who brought the same overtime accusations against all of them, and that this practice is usual in the technology industry. In-may 2012, Huffington Post found that a former Taco Bells manager was alleging the fast food cycle was making employees to work overtime without pay (huffingtonpost. com, 2012). Wal-Mart is also certainly not the only organization who has recently been accused of discrimination against women. According to The Wall Street Journal, in February 2011, the U. S. trademark Toshiba was sued intended for discrimination against women over pay and promotion (wsj. com, 2012).
General Electrics, Abercrombie & Fitch, Denny’s restaurants, and Wal-Mart also have had legal cases filled against them to get racial discrimination (about. com, n. g. ). This year, the Office of Labor filled a lawsuit, and won, against an Kansas Subway restaurant owner pertaining to violating labor laws: paying out less than the minimal salary, failing to pay overtime to employees, and having minors work in hazardous conditions (tribtoday. com, 2012). Many other companies have been charged of using child labor or contracting with companies who work with child labor and violate labor laws and regulations: Samsung, Dell, HP, IKEA (chinalaborwatch. org, n. g. ). installment payments on your Wal-Mart officials have mentioned that they don’t feel ladies are interested in administration positions at the company.
Do you really agree or perhaps disagree? I have a hard time thinking that the leadership of Wal-Mart, who was competent of turning this selling business with the largest non-public employers on the globe, would really believe that in the twenty-first hundred years women aren’t interested in management positions with all the company which is the reason at the rear of Wal-Mart’s low number of girls in managerial positions. In addition , the facts shown by Stanwick & Stanwick demonstrate that Wal-Mart did not have a policy about making management positions available to everybody in the business, and that woman were certainly being paid less than guys for doing the same task.
The description of how Wal-Mart’s male personnel looked and thought about their particular female equivalent are undoubtedly a reflection on the company’s idea, because regardless if it is anticipated that many people would have this type of discriminatory suggestions, it is not appropriate for the business who employs them to not really address this matter. 3. Wal-Mart is regularly criticized because of its healthcare plan. Is this seriously an honest issue? For what reason or why not? Along with the a number of other ethical accusations against Wal-Mart, I can observe how some might add the company’s health-related policy to the long list of practices that produces Wal-Mart a controversial company who does not at all times promote fairness and responsiveness to it is employees.
Yet , I do not believe weather conditions a company offers or certainly not healthcare benefits is an ethical issue. According to the article placed by the Yale Journal of Medicine and Rules, the health-related benefits started out being offered simply by employers after World War II in an effort to draw staff to their businesses and make up for the limit that Leader Roosevelt put on wages (yalemedlaw. com, 206). I consider that even today, health benefits are just this: a benefit which will come in the same bundle with twelve-monthly leave, sick leave, retirement living benefits, choice to telecommute, etc . It is the case that as a developed land, U. S. should have a healthcare plan that gives People in america access to not only quality healthcare but as well makes it inexpensive.
And yet, I actually consider this nationwide problem must not be imposed on companies. This is not to say that Wal-Mart and also other multibillion dollars companies perhaps have been hit by the recent economic climate and are unable to offer less expensive health insurance or pay all their employees’ overtime, however, but this is simply not an debatable reason to help make the option of offering health benefits an ethical concern, or even generate legislation that will make private corporations offer medical benefits. 5. Should Wal-Mart be concerned about unionization of shops since enabling unionization of workers in China? I consider Wal-Mart’s agreement allowing Chinese personnel to unionize was a political and tactical decision; one which Wal-Mart was forced to agree to.
For Wal-Mart, China symbolizes a large and growing marketplace, with significant increase in home income, along with a low cost distributor of products which Wal-Mart offers to its outlets from around the world. From this situation, Wal-Mart had not any other choice but to give in to the pressure the Oriental government, which supports the All-China Federation of Transact Unions, placed on the world’s largest merchant. The possibility of personnel wanting or attempting to unionize to achieve higher gain will certainly continue to exist, in a similar manner as Wal-Mart’s position of being anti-unions is placed and company. The company will certainly continue to seek out ways to decrease employees by organizing or joining a labor union because it will come at an excellent price.
Wal-Mart’s success will be based in a significant part within the political and economical makes that will be played out out at a given period, and its motivation to endanger will come as long as it will not come with a loss of income. This case study makes me personally think about the idea Milton Friedman put out in 1970 that The social responsibility of organization is to boost its profits (as cited in Stanwick & Stanwick, 2009, g. 34). Wal-Mart’s practices, as described simply by Stanwick & Stanwick, expose the company’s philosophy of maximizing earnings while minimizing operational costs.
Friedman asserted that while managers have the responsibility of increasing earnings of the business, they are also responsible for helping personnel accomplish their particular personal desired goals within the legal rules and honest customs of society (as cited in Stanwick & Stanwick, 2009, p. 34). This previous part of Friedman’s argument is apparently a gray area’, one which Wal-Mart as well as managers apparently have interpreted in their favor. After all, the company offers nominal wage wages, health benefits, and an employee discount. And yet, Wal-Mart’s focus, as exemplified with this case study, seems to be on lowering operational costs.
More than this, the organization encourages its store managers to engage in these type of dishonest practices (such as one-minute clock-outs, lock-in procedures, off-the-clock work, and unpaid overtime) by paying them with total annual bonuses based upon the profitability from the stores, which can be directly linked to lowering detailed costs but not paying overtime to their employees. These practices are clear examples of Wal-Mart’s failure to act and promote justness and responsiveness to the employees, and fulfill their fiduciary obligation.
Wal-Mart’s recognized position to these allegations also reveals the company, and also its managers, acted within an immoral method: the employees looked just as ways to achieve excessive profitability intended for the stores and then for the managers to receive their particular monetary compensations even if this entailed breaking laws and leaving apart ethic and moral rules by securing employees right down to finish their work, however, not paying them for it. In other instances, Wal-Mart and its store managers seemed to follow statutory requirements at a minimum, because evidenced by their defensive affirmation which said the company broadcasted a video to inform managers that one-minute clock-out is up against the corporate plan.
A corporation is in charge of more than just building a policy. A company is responsible for ensuring policies and laws, honest principals and regulations are being comprehended and put in practice by every members. Wal-Mart’s official response about not promoting ladies in management positions is just a reason and a great encouragement for those male managers who reportedly believed that men have to support their families although women will work just to make some spending money. In my opinion, Wal-Mart is doing discriminating against women though its inability to align their corporate plans with social developments and address this problem in a strategic and constant manner.
So far as the argument against Wal-Mart that it will not offer inexpensive health benefits to its workers, I do not find it being an honest issue intended for the reasons mentioned above. More than this, it is not against the law for a little or large company not to offer medical health insurance. And the reality is that many companies do not provide it since it comes with a expensive for the organization, or over recent years, if they are doing offer this, it comes at a very high expense. For example my personal employer offers healthcare benefits but the month-to-month deductible for my family quantites 40% of my monthly gross income.
However , the measures advised in the memo sent to the Wal-Mart plank of company directors designed to spend less to cover intended for the less costly healthcare benefits announced in 2005, are indicative of illegal and unethical practices. And yet, I find this to be associated with the situation that companies country wide are facing and the unusual measures they are really deciding to take order to carry on and offer these benefits. I believe Wal-Mart’s location of being against its staff joining unions and the actions its administration has involved in to dissuade employees by exercising all their right to plan, is a breach of the National Labor Relations Act (Warner Act).
Unionization is a huge danger for Wal-Mart, which in 2010 had 2 . 1 , 000, 000 employees worldwide (cnnmoney. com, 2011). A union would translate intended for Wal-Mart within a huge raise in labor costs, that this corporation is already keeping within the industry normal (Stanwick & Stanwick, 2009). As confirmed by the decision to accept Chinese staff to join unions, Wal-Mart can compromise only when it will ultimately have economic gain. The allegations brought against Wal-Mart for violating child labor laws, reasonable labor laws, and employing undocumented staff as janitors in their stores are just solidifying the idea that general, Wal-Mart will not likely hesitate to interact in underhanded and against the law practices, regardless if this has a price.
My assumption is the fact due to its size and earnings, Wal-Mart detects acceptable to cut corners and continue its enlargement around the world, and can take simply absolute required and minimal action to address issues of corporate sociable responsibility. Yet again, this kind of Wal-Mart example is offering a glimpse a few corporate practices which are not necessarily promoting ethics, fairness, and ethical actions; which are not necessarily responsive to all of their stakeholders’ demands; which are breaking laws or simply doing the minimum essential by law; and which take advantage of others for personal or corporate gain and profitability.Get your custom Essay