Managing a Business/BUSINESS ETHICS

Advertisement


Question
Sir,

Kindly provide the answers for the following,

A.   What are the legal issues involved in this case, and what are the moral issues?
B.   What is required by the correct moral Rules?

A.   What kinds of qualifications do you believe should be taken into account?
B.   How far should we go in limiting property rights for the sake of the Environment?

Thanks and regards,

Answer
1. What are the legal issues involved in this case, and what are the moral issues?
LEGAL  ISSUE
-recruitment   was  based  on  RACE,
-recruitment   was  based  on  discrimination
BOTH  AGAINST  THE  LAWS  OF  THE  LAND.

=======================
MORAL   ISSUE
-selection  of   candidates  for  skilled position  were
immoral   .
-selection  of   candidates  for  skilled position  were
Biased.   .

==============================

        (B) What is required by the correct moral rules?
-selection  of   candidates  for  skilled position  should    
Be  on  merit.
-selection  of   candidates  for  skilled position  were
unbiased.   
###########################################

What kinds of qualifications do you believe should be taken into account?

For  the position  of  skilled  craftsman,
the qualifications  could  include
-basic  high school  education.
-some  years  of   required  working  experience
-assessment  of  the  potential of the  candidate for  growth.
-aptitude  of  the  candidate.
-attitude  towards the  job.
etc
•   ####################################################
3 Who are determined to keep the status quo in place?
•   There  are   two  groups, who  are determined
to maintain the  status  quo.
1.the  vocal  white  minority.
2.the  white  dominated  trade  union.
########################################

What does an affirmative action program involve?

An affirmative action program
A central premise underlying affirmative action is that, absent discrimination, over time an employer’s workforce, generally, will reflect the gender, racial, and ethnic profile of the labor pools from which the employer recruits and selects. An affirmative action program is a management tool designed to ensure equal employment opportunity, and includes those policies, practices, and procedures that the organization  implements to ensure that all qualified applicants and employees are receiving an equal opportunity for recruitment, selection, advancement, training, development, and every other term, condition, and privilege of employment.

Staff employees and applicants for employment are covered by the organization’s affirmative action program.

All  the  organization  employment practices are covered, including selection, promotion, compensation, transfer, training and development, and other terms and conditions of employment.

An affirmative action program contains quantitative analyses designed to evaluate the composition of the  organization workforce and compare it to the composition of the relevant external labor pools; action-oriented programs with specific practical steps to address underutilization of minorities and women (if women and minorities are not being employed at a rate to be expected given their availability in the relevant external labor pools); internal auditing and reporting systems to measure the organization’s progress in hiring minorities and women; and mechanisms to monitor the organization’s employment decisions in order to evaluate the impact of those decisions on minorities and women.

Yes. Under the Federal regulations, the organization  is required to collect and analyze data on the race and sex of employees and applicants for employment, in order to identify areas where the percentage of minorities and women employed is less than would be reasonably expected given their availability. The organization  is required to establish placement goals for hiring women and minorities in those areas.


The organization  to make good faith efforts to remove identified barriers, expand employment opportunities, and produce measurable results.
Good faith efforts include broad advertising of job openings; supplemental inclusive outreach efforts to ensure that all qualified candidates, including minorities and women, are represented in applicant pools; and careful monitoring of outreach, recruitment, search and selection practices to ensure that equal opportunity is provided at every stage of these processes.

“Affirmative Action ”refers to a variety of actions specifically required by Federal affirmative action regulations designed to ensure equal employment opportunity. Affirmative action is undertaken for minorities, women, individuals with disabilities, and covered veterans (special disabled veterans, recently separated veterans, Vietnam era veterans, and any other veterans who served on active duty during a war or in a campaign or expedition for which a campaign badge has been authorized), although setting placement goals applies to minorities and women only. “Diversity ”refers to the broader Laboratory community value of appreciating the contributions of all employees. A diverse workforce is one which includes the demographic groups reflected in the general population, encompassing differences in race, ethnicity, sex, religion, national origin, age, physical/mental abilities, marital status, parental status, veteran status, sexual orientation, socioeconomic level, educational background, lifestyle, and the myriad of all other demographic characteristics. Valuing diversity in the workplace leads to an environment, which maximizes the potential of all employees.

##############################################

How far should we go in limiting property rights for the sake of the
Environment?

The notion that property rights should have more emphasis in government  environmental policy is
frequently invoked in contemporary environmental discussions. Progress has already been made in
applying concepts of property rights to environmental issues, especially irrigation, where  the country  is
an innovator in water trading. Indeed, the logic of ending the past rigid attachment of rights to use
irrigation water to particular parcels of land is now scarcely questioned. Nevertheless, while thinking
about property rights is an essential first step in clarifying responsibilities for environmental
management and evaluating any claims for compensation, changes to property rights should not be
oversold as a solution to environmental problems. Property rights might assist rationing of resources
between different individuals and uses, but will not remove disputes over the outcome of the rationing
process.
Understanding property rights involves economics, politics, philosophy, law and sociology. Subtle
distinctions need to be drawn. Conclusions are often ambiguous. Reasonable people can disagree.
Engineering, agronomic and biological aspects have to be considered in determining the boundaries of
resource ownership, effects on third parties and the division of responsibilities for the environment.
Custom, history and the facts and circumstances of particular cases are important in the debate over
property rights and the environment.
Property is not a relationship between people and things but a relationship between people with regard
to things. The legal and social significance of property is not property the tangible thing; rather the
rights that attach to it. An important distinction has to be drawn between property ownership and
property rights. Thus, tenants have rights to use property owned by others in return for payment of
rent. A pertinent example is the difference between trade in irrigation entitlements (permanent trade)
and trade in annual allocations (temporary trade), where ownership of the long¬term right to use water
is unaltered.

Ultimately, rights to use land and water are granted and controlled by the
governments. Property rights in land and water are not absolute with limits placed on the exercise of
property rights by other laws and regulations. Planning legislation is an example, whereby
governments limit the use of land for particular purposes, reflecting an overall community interests
determined by the political process. In earlier times, government used powers over land to resume
leasehold and freehold land for closer settlement, in pursuit of regional development and egalitarian
objectives.
Arguments over property rights are at the forefront of controversies over irrigation and the
environment. Conflicting interpretations of the current legal and political situation highlight the need
for pragmatism if good results are to be obtained in environmental management. The argument over
property rights in water hinges on the precise legal nature of rights held by irrigators. Are those rights
like permanent leases from the State, or are they more like licences granted by state and territory
governments to use water that could be readily altered in changing circumstances?
This is a subtle legal distinction affecting the prospects for compensation. A lease is a form of real
property that can usually be transferred; a licence may or may not be transferable, according to the
conditions of the licence.
Irrigators naturally favour more secure property rights. In doing so, they draw support from ideas
that security of tenure  and the unfettered right to use personal property (including labour) is
the key to economic prosperity,  subject to the proviso that actions by owners do not harm others.
This qualification assumes greater significance with increasing technical evidence that actions by landholders affect others, including other landholders.
Modern variants of the arguments  assert the primacy of economic signals in determining
economic behaviour and recognise links between the security attached to property rights, investment
and productivity. Without property rights, effective markets would be difficult to establish and
maintain.
On this reasoning, a strictly legalistic approach to irrigators’ property rights would have negative
economic consequences, let alone an adverse political reaction. Current attitudes of irrigators are
coloured by decades of support for irrigation by governments, including implicit acceptance of
associated environmental damage. More recently, government commitments to water trading imply
support for the status quo in property rights for water.
This is not to say that the distribution of rights between irrigators and other groups should be
immutable, as often appears to be the official stance of the irrigation community Once property rights
are established and water is tradeable, it is unreasonable to prescribe to whom water is sold and for
what purpose water is used, including no use if water were purchased by environmental agencies. Buy
back of licences is a long¬established policy mechanism for overstressed fisheries. It was only a
matter of time before buy back was proposed for irrigated agriculture to ameliorate flow¬related
environmental damage.

To understand why, it is helpful to look at the reasons why private property rights protect the
environment. There are several:

1. Owners have incentives to use resources productively and to conserve where possible. Owners can obtain financial rewards from using resources productively and they have a strong incentive to reduce costs by conserving on their use of each resource. In the pursuit of profits, business firms have a strongincentive to implement new resource-saving technologies.


2. Private ownership of property provides an incentive for good care that is lacking under government control. If a resource is well cared for, it will be more valuable and add more to the personal wealth of its owner. If the owner allows the resource to deteriorate or be harmed by pollution, he or she personally bears the cost of that negligence in the form of a decline in the value of the resource.


3. A resource owner has legal rights against anyone who would harm the resource. The private owner of a resource has more than just the incentive to preserve the value of that resource. Private property rights also provide the owner with legal rights against anyone (usually including a government agency) who invades—physically or by pollution—and harms the resource. The private owner of a forest or a farm will not sit idly by if someone is cutting down trees without permission or invading the property with hazardous pollutants, and lawsuits can be used to protect those rights. A private owner could probably have stopped the dumping of aviation fuel on the Estonian farmland mentioned above.


4. Property rights provide long-term incentives for maximizing the value of a resource, even for owners whose personal outlook is short-term. If using a tract of land for the construction of a toxic waste dump reduces its future productivity, its value falls today, reducing the owner’s wealth. That happens because land’s current worth reflects the net present value of its future services—the revenue from production or services received directly from the land, minus the costs required to generate the revenues (and both discounted to present value terms).

############################################

Managing a Business

All Answers


Answers by Expert:


Ask Experts

Volunteer


Leo Lingham

Expertise

In Managing a business, I can cover all aspects of running a business--business planning, business development, business auditing, business communication, operation management, human resources management , training, etc.

Experience

18 years of working management experience covering such areas
as business planning, business development, strategic planning,
marketing, management services, personnel administration.

PLUS

24 years of management consulting which includes business planning, strategic planning, marketing, product management, training, business coaching etc.

Organizations
BESTBUSICON   Pty Ltd--PRINCIPAL

Education/Credentials
MASTERS IN SCIENCE

MASTERS IN BUSINESS ADMINSTRATION

©2016 About.com. All rights reserved.