1. In various occupations, workers may be prohibited from
exercising certain rights that, outside the workplace, cannot (or,
perhaps, should not) be restricted. At the same time, it has been
argued that some behaviors may be restricted by some
employers, even when the worker is not at work, or their off-
duty activity or conduct. This can lead to difficult conflicts
between employer and employee, as well as among employees.
Here we will look at some restrictions that may be imposed to
investigate to which rights restrictions employees can and
cannot object. We will begin this discussion by looking at a
real-life incident involving employee activity outside of the
workplace.
In September 2012, a number of paramedics were placed on
administrative leave by their employer for working for another
company. The company, American Medical Response
Incorporated (AMR) of Connecticut, provides emergency
medical care (ambulances, paramedic services, etc.). The
suspended paramedics were working for another company,
Valley Emergency Medical Service (VEMS).
AMR argued that suspension was appropriate because the other
company was a competitor, both companies having bid on a
service contract. The paramedics, in response, argued that being
suspended was a violation of their rights, and began preliminary
work toward a lawsuit under Connecticut's Unfair Trade
Practices Act.
What can and cannot any company control about what their
employees do when they are not actually at work? AMR argued

2. that the paramedics were aware that they could not work for a
competitor; the paramedics claimed that AMR could not legally
prevent them from doing so outside of the work they did for
AMR.
4.1 The Issue: Restricting Employees' Rights as a Condition of
Employment
The case involving the AMR employees is one example of the
kind of conflict that arises in the workplace. Those who are in
positions of management and those who work for management
often have very different views of what is justified, in terms of
what one can do with one's time off the job. As is so often the
case in ethical disputes, few if any would accept the extremes
here. For instance, probably no one would argue that salaried
employees must do everything their bosses tell them; that would
amount to something along the lines of one's boss dictating that
worker's life. At the same time, just as few would argue that
salaried employees can do whatever they wish, regardless of the
effect on the company for which they work. It is in between
these extremes that tensions arise, and where the rights of the
employers must be weighed against the rights of the employees.
At-Will Employment
Workers are said to be at-will employees, meaning an employer
does not need to show cause for terminating the worker in
question, when they are not protected by union contracts, civil
service law, or other such provisions. They can be fired for any
reason that does not conflict with the law, and the employer is
not obligated to show why the employee was fired.
There are some restrictions on at-will employment: employees
cannot be fired for their race, religion, or sex/gender. They
cannot be fired for informing on a company's illegal activity

3. ("whistleblowing"), or for exercising certain rights such as
taking maternity leave, voting, jury duty, or serving in the
military.
In general, the burden is on the employee to show that the
termination was unjustified, given the standard assumption that,
unless made explicit at the time of hire, the worker is an at-will
employee.
Conflicts of Commitment and Interest
The story about the paramedics raises a specific question of
whether an employer can prevent employees from working other
jobs (sometimes called moonlighting.) Often, companies
develop policies that restrict outside employment, and these
policies commonly focus on whether or not the outside
employment generates a conflict of commitment, or a conflict of
interest. Outside work that generates either type of conflict (or,
obviously, both) would be prevented. While this language is
often seen in university policies for faculty, the basic idea is
applicable to many other contexts.
Conflict of commitment refers to outside work that, for one
reason or another, prevents an employee from doing his or her
job as it should be done. For instance, if a full-time teacher has
another part-time job that prevents him from getting work
returned to students on time, creates an increase in absences
from the full-time job, or harms other aspects of the job, a
conflict of commitment is present. The presumption here is that
the employee's main job takes priority and should not suffer due
to other work. If it does, that generates a conflict of
commitment. Many universities impose strict policies regarding
how many hours one can commit to outside work.
Conflict of interest refers to outside work that is for a company
in competition with a person's employer. Imagine someone

4. doing research for drug company A who is doing similar
research for drug company B. Any discoveries or advances that
the researcher makes for company A might be given to company
B. This clearly indicates the researcher potentially has a
significant conflict of interest; again, many universities and
other research organizations, for this very reason, have strict
policies against work that may even possibly lead to a conflict
of interest.
The fundamental question to consider here is what rights an
employer has to restrict what employees do in their free time, or
when "off-duty." Consider the following examples; which do
you think are legitimate policies for an employer to impose on
an employee?
•No employee can contribute to Facebook pages that criticize
the company.
•Any employee who is determined to have a drinking problem
will be terminated.
•No employee can publish material without the company's
approval.
•Any employee determined to be committing adultery will be
terminated.
•No employee can run for political office.
•Any employee who uses a product sold by a competitor will be
terminated.
•No employee is allowed to purchase or view pornography.
As we saw, many employees fall under the category of "at-will
employees," employees who may be terminated without cause.
The details of this vary by state; in general, employees are "at-
will" if they are not working under a written contract; this
excludes union members, federal government employees, and
any other situation in which an explicit contract is in force.
Clearly, it is in the employer's interest to have the company's
workers happy, satisfied, and productive; a situation that
employees perceive as unfair can interfere with that job

5. satisfaction. At the same time, employees cannot insist on
things that either violate the conditions of employment or
prevent the company from operating smoothly and profitably.
Consider, for example, an employee named Jim who published
several articles in the local newspaper that were sharply critical
of the things done by the company for which he worked; he then
reproduced these articles on his website. There may have been
some merit to Jim's complaints, but airing those complaints in
the way Jim did not only damaged the company's reputation and
its standing in the community but also provided a weapon for its
competitors to use against it. For both reasons, the company's
profits fell, and Jim was fired. Were his rights violated?
On the one hand, Jim was an at-will employee, so the company
wasn't obligated to justify his termination. But even if it were
so obligated, it is clear that Jim did not have the right to do the
damage to the company he did, nor to do it in the way he did.
Preventing him from further harming the company clearly
outweighed whatever rights he might claim to free speech: His
rights do not allow him to infringe upon the right of the
company to be profitable, and thus harm not just the company as
a whole, but also those who continue to work there. Here is a
situation where one's right to free speech clearly can be
restricted, and in the workplace, many such restrictions are
legitimate and justified in order to protect the company's
reputation, its profitability, and its responsibility to its
stockholders.
States have worked hard to carefully describe what employees
may legitimately do when not at work and what kinds of things
may be prevented. Some states have extensive statements that
indicate precisely what can and cannot be stipulated by an
employer as permissible off-duty conduct; other states have
considerably less detailed policies and legislation. Because the
kinds of conflicts involved are relatively common, state

6. legislatures continue to develop these policies, and what is and
is not permitted has continued to change. Some states that did
not have explicit policies now have them, while other states
have made significant additions to the policies they already
have. Some states do not have such policies.
Conduct Codes
Employers often provide employees with conduct codes—codes
that stipulate clear guidelines and expectations of employees
regarding how the employer expects employees to conduct
themselves and do business. One notable and widespread
example concerns drug testing.
Increasingly, companies have required employees to be tested
for drug use. Many companies argue that this is a requirement
for having responsible, productive employees; other companies
insist that because of the nature of the job, safety requirements
demand a clean and sober workforce. Furthermore, companies
that provide services to the public that potentially carry some
degree of risk have demanded drug-free employees to minimize
that risk.
Some employees, however, have argued that this is a violation
of their rights. If a person does his or her job well, is there any
reason to impose drug tests on this employee? Is this an
invasion of privacy? Indeed, some have suggested that
company-wide drug testing may be a violation of the Fourth
Amendment. That amendment states
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons
or things to be seized. (U.S. Const. amend. IV)

7. Man lighting his pipe during a marijuana users rally in Denver,
Colorado.
Ed Andrieski/Associated Press
The legalization of marijuana in certain states has complicated
the issue of workplace drug testing.
It is not entirely clear that a mandatory drug-testing policy
involves such "searches," or if they do, whether they are
reasonable in the context of this amendment, particularly
without a warrant.
The questions become still more complex when one considers
whether the drugs used are legal or not. For instance, in
Colorado, it is legal, for those 21 and older, to possess one
ounce or less of marijuana. If an employee smokes marijuana at
home over the weekend, can that employee be fired for using a
substance that is legal? If so, would that justify firing an
employee who smoked cigarettes, clearly a hazardous substance,
yet legal for adults to purchase and consume? Another issue
may arise when considering who offers services to the public
that potentially poses risks to that public: It may be clear in the
case of airplane pilots or cabdrivers, but should heart surgeons
and firefighters be drug tested? Should elementary school
teachers or parking lot attendants be drug tested? Is there a
"slippery slope" here, indicating that if some part of society
should be tested, then perhaps everyone should be? One might
then ask if a society in which all its members are subject to
drug testing would be a society that is consistent with the
Fourth Amendment or, more generally, with American values.
The Argument for Drug Testing
The standard argument for drug testing relies on several
premises, mentioned above:

8. Employers have a right to get fair value from their workers.
Drug usage leads to higher workplace absenteeism, increased
medicalcosts, higher turnover, and less productive workers.
Drug users have a higher accident rate and thus pose a risk to
the public.
THEREFORE
Drug use drives up costs for the employee, in addition to the
increased risk to the public.
Employers are obligated to minimize costs and risks to the
public whenever possible.
To minimize these costs and risks, employers must be able to
identifydrug users.
THEREFORE
Employers must have the ability to test employees for drug
usage.
Of course, we might point out, in response to this argument,
that many—if not all—of these things are also the result of
alcohol abuse. We might take this to justify testing for alcohol
use (and abuse), or we might see this as allowing employers too
much leeway into investigating the habits of their employees.
We might ask whether most people would be happy with
employers (or politicians) setting standards for reasonable
consumption of alcohol and determining when that standard has
been exceeded through random, mandatory alcohol testing.
The Argument Against Drug Testing

9. The standard argument against drug testing relies on several
premises, also mentioned above:
Employees have a basic right to privacy.
Mandatory drug tests do not indicate reasonable suspicion or
cause.
Random, mandatory drug tests are not "reasonable searches" in
the sense of that term in the Fourth Amendment.
Drug tests indicate presence of a drug, not impairment.
Drug tests have a history of unreliability.
Drug tests are humiliating and invasive.
Tests that invade a person's privacy without probable cause are
not sufficiently reliable, are ineffective, and are humiliating,
and should not be permitted.
Mandatory drug tests do all of these things.
THEREFORE
Employers should not have the right to perform mandatory
random drug tests.
Naturally, proponents of drug testing do not accept this
argument, responding that the potential risk to the public far
outweighs any small inconvenience to an individual employee.
Furthermore, one indication of current drug use is past use, and
it is clear that drug use can generate substantial costs to a
business. Of course, one who objects to such drug testing might
argue that an employee's rights are not really subject to a cost–

10. benefit analysis; if there is a presumed right to privacy, then
that right cannot be abridged even if it leads to higher costs.
Case Study
Drug Testing Welfare Recipients
The state of Florida proposed a law that would require those
who received funds from Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF, also known as "welfare") be tested for drugs; a
person who failed such a test would be ineligible to receive
such payments.
The law was appealed, and Eleventh Circuit Appeals Court
rendered its verdict. Consider the following:
1.If you were a judge, how would you rule on this case? Should
recipients of these funds be subject to drug testing? What are
your reasons for deciding as you did?
2.If these recipients should be drug tested, does it follow that
anyone who receives such state funds (paid for by taxpayers)
should be subject to mandatory drug testing? Why or why not?
3.What differences do you see between requiring drug tests for
welfare recipients and for employees in companies?
After answering these questions, you may find the Appeals
Court ruling of interest:
The only known and shared characteristic of the individuals
who would be subjected to Florida's mandatory drug testing
program is that they are financially needy families with
children. Yet, there is nothing inherent to the condition of being
impoverished that supports the conclusion that there is a
"concrete danger" that impoverished individuals are prone to
drug use or that should drug use occur, that the lives of TANF
recipients are "fraught with such risks of injury to others that

11. even a momentary lapse of attention can have disastrous
consequences." Thus, the State's argument that it has a special
need to ensure that the goals of the TANF program are not
jeopardized by the effects of drug use seems to rest on the
presumption of unlawful drug use. (Lebron v. Secretary, Florida
Department of Children and Families, 2013)
The court's entire ruling can be read at:
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201115258.pdf
(http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201115258.pdf) .
Ethical Questions
As we might expect, employers and employees have sought to
resolve disputes over workforce drug testing by seeking a
compromise on the basic question. For instance, a company
might propose to decrease the penalty for failing a drug test; a
first-time violation might lead to a warning, or mandatory drug
counseling, a second-time violation might lead to a suspension
from work. Only for a third violation would the employee be
terminated. Similarly, employees, whether through a union or
some other mechanism, might accept drug testing but require
some degree of cause, fewer tests, or more rigorous testing
procedures to avoid false positives.
We might think there is a fairly sharp contrast between a
utilitarian and a deontologist on this issue, particularly if we
focus on the conflict between the right to privacy and the
obligation to minimize the risk to the public. Thus, a utilitarian
could argue that we may wish to respect the individual's right to
privacy, but that right is outweighed by the much greater benefit
provided by decreasing the risk to which the public is subject.
Thus, an air traffic controller's right to privacy is outweighed,
for the utilitarian, by the much greater need to make sure the
flying public—and anyone else put at risk by an unstable
controller—is as safe as possible. The deontologist might

12. respond that such rights—again, assuming there is some
inviolable sense of privacy—cannot be abridged due to some
general, potential threat to the public, and certainly not without
due cause for abridging that person's rights.
But this dispute may seem more clear-cut than it really is. After
all, could a utilitarian argue that all of us have a right to
privacy, and thus that violating that right for one group of
people could potentially violate the rights of all? If so, then we
must determine where the greatest benefit lies: in protecting the
public's safety, or the rights of the individuals who make up that
public? We might ask, finally: What could a deontologist argue
in order to defend mandatory, random drug testing?
Morality Clauses
All of us have moral principles and our standards of ethics;
some of these may be informed by our religious values, our
cultural and ethnic traditions, our political views, and our
exposure to moral philosophy, among many other influences.
Employees have, and try to live by, these moral principles, as
do employers. As may be obvious, the values involved may
come into conflict. If an employer has a strong set of moral
principles, by which he or she lives, can that employer ask
employees to conform to those principles, or at least not do
things that would violate them?
Consider Susan, who lives in a relatively small town, where
jobs are hard to come by. She is interviewed for a job by a local
nonprofit agency that lobbies government officials to impose
very strict controls on the possession of weapons. Susan enjoys
hunting with her husband and children and owns several
shotguns. The agency offers her a job on the condition that she
not own any guns, and that she get rid of any that she already
owns. The agency insists that it would violate the image it seeks
to project were its employees to own and use the same weapons

13. it wishes to restrict. Can it demand that Susan agree to this
condition? She was faced with either not taking the job and thus
being put in considerable economic insecurity, or taking the job
and seeing what she regards as her constitutional rights
violated. The agency realizes that the community has a high
unemployment rate, and thus there is considerable pressure on
Susan to accept this condition. Susan could, of course, take the
position and then, if fired, sue the agency. But that strategy
would require hiring a lawyer and dealing with a lawsuit, which
is both time consuming and expensive. Susan, of course, doesn't
have to take the job; that decision would preserve her rights—at
the cost of being unemployed or making a great deal less
money.
Here we see what might be a plausible reason for an employer
to want to restrict the rights of its employees, and to extend
those restrictions outside of the workplace. It might be argued
that without these restrictions, employees may act in ways that
are detrimental to the employer and the company. But there also
seems to be a considerable worry here that such conditions of
employment go beyond what the company can legitimately
demand and cannot be shown to lead, necessarily, to putting the
company at a disadvantage in seeking to do what it wishes and
needs to do. In short, these restrictions are unfair and cannot be
appropriately required as a condition of employment.
Further concerns are raised here in the context of a tight job
market, where economic insecurity and financial need may lead
employees, and job candidates, to accept conditions for work
that would otherwise be unfair. This may lead to a situation in
which employers have the potential to restrict rights even
further, with the knowledge that it is difficult to leave a job
and/or find another equivalent-paying job. This may lead not
only to the potential abuse of employees' legitimate rights but
also to a situation in which workers are unhappy due to that
abuse but are unable to leave because of significant restraints

14. on employment opportunities. Employees should not be put in a
position where they are faced with trading their legitimate
rights for financial security, and thus any restrictions so
imposed must meet a very high standard, showing that they are
absolutely necessary for the company to function effectively.
Be the Ethicist
Should Off-Duty Activities Cost You Your Job?
In McLennan County, Texas, six deputies were fired by the
sheriff. The deputies have sued, arguing that they were fired
because they campaigned for the sheriff's political opponent in
a recent campaign; the sheriff has stated that they were let go
due to reorganization of the sheriff's office.
The deputies are what are saw earlier described as "at-will"
employees: They are not members of a union, have no civil
service protection, and serve at the sheriff's will. As one of the
local papers noted, "Courts have ruled that sheriffs in Texas
have broad discretion in choosing employees and can fire them
with or without cause, absent contractual limitations, as long as
the decisions aren't politically motivated." The same article
notes that the deputies' lawsuit states that they "have a
combined 114 years of experience and ‘outstanding'
performance and service records as sheriff's deputies" (Brown,
2013, para. 10, 12).
The difficulty here, of course, is determining the real reason the
deputies were fired. It is clear that the sheriff was aware of
their political activity, but many find plausible the sheriff's
claim that there was no political basis for the firing, and that,
rather, it was simply the result of reorganizing his office.
For more details on this case, visit

15. http://www.wacotrib.com/news/mclennan_county/six-ex-
deputies-suing-sheriff-county-over-firing-attorney-
says/article_90ac4c09-2bb1-5e00-a35e-ce17f0a49782.html
(http://www.wacotrib.com/news/mclennan_county/six-ex-
deputies-suing-sheriff-county-over-firing-attorney-
says/article_90ac4c09-2bb1-5e00-a35e-ce17f0a49782.html) .
Exercise
•Determine the differences between the legal questions and the
ethical questions involved here.
•How do you think the legal questions should be resolved?
•How do you think the ethical questions should be resolved?
•Do you think an employer can restrict the political activities of
employees away from the workplace?
•What are the implications for employees if an employer can
restrict their off-duty political activities?
Similar issues have arisen in cases where employees' religious
views conflict with those of their employees. Such cases raise,
again, important ethical questions about whether an employer
has the right to insist that a worker act in certain ways away
from the job site. Can a manager who objects to homosexuality
fire an employee he or she finds out is gay or lesbian? Can an
employer who objects to interracial marriage terminate someone
he or she discovers is married to someone from another race? At
what point do constitutional rights override the rights of
employers to make free choices about who works for, and
represents, their companies? The courts have ruled that in some
cases, a person cannot be fired for such characteristics as race,
religion, or gender, but even in these cases, suits have been
brought to challenge these limitations. Some of these suits have
been successful, when, for instance, a religious institution is
seen as fulfilling its appropriate mission by maintaining
prohibitions on hiring certain workers.

16. Case Study
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School
In a 2012 case, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church
and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the
Supreme Court decided on the question of whether a minister
could sue a church. In this particular case, an employee—Cheryl
Perich—took a leave of absence due to health reasons. When
she returned, she and her employees had a dispute, and the
church threatened to fire her. Perich told them if they did fire
her, she would sue. The church fired her, and Perich sued,
asserting that her rights under the Americans With Disability
Act had been violated.
The church cited its Commission on Theology and Church
Relations, referring to First Corinthians 6: 1–11, stating that
"Christians should seek an amicable settlement of differences
by means of a decision by fellow Christians." Perich was fired,
then, for having sued in violation of official church doctrine.
Perich claimed the church was using this as a pretext for firing
her.
The church also noted that Ms. Perich was a commissioned
Lutheran minister; to deny its right to fire her was tantamount
to allowing an outside authority, such as the government, to fire
and hire its ministers, which would be a clear violation of the
First Amendment's Establishment Clause.
Among the many interesting issues here:
•Can any organization fire a worker for threatening a lawsuit?
•If some companies cannot do this, but a church can, what is the
fundamental difference between the two as employers?
•Can a church fire someone even if it may violate that person's
constitutional rights?

17. Exercise
How would you have decided this case? What do you think is
the crucial issue between the church and Ms. Perich that needs
to be determined?
A good story about this case, summarizing its details, can be
found here:
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/school_law/2012/01/supreme_c
ourt_backs_church_in.html
(http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/school_law/2012/01/supreme_
court_backs_church_in.html) .
The Supreme Court ruling itself is available as a PDF at:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-553.pdf
(http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-553.pdf) .
Can Employee Behavior Be Dictated by a Company Mission?
Imagine you have been unemployed for several months and are
desperate to find a job. You've been offered the job of being the
representative of a local animal rights group. This group works
to prohibit the wearing of fur; advocates vegetarianism; and
seeks to ban the use of animals for the testing of perfumes,
pharmaceuticals, and other products. The job is a very good
one, but as a condition of employment the group requires that
you not eat meat. After all, if you are seen shopping for steaks
and pork chops, it would indicate the animal rights group is a
bit hypocritical, in that you are paying for those steaks and
chops with money the group provides. Yet you really like your
occasional cheeseburger and barbecue.
Consider:
•Do you take the job?
•Is this a fair condition of employment to impose upon you?
•Are there limits to what an employer can require of employees,

18. other than those that would require you to do something illegal?
Here the question arises as to whether an employer can impose
certain restrictions on the behavior and lifestyle of employees
because of a corporation's mission. Most corporations have
mission statements: If an employee's private behavior conflicts
with his or her employer's mission statement, does the company
have the right to fire that employee, or at least demand he or
she change the behavior in question? If so, are there limits to
what the company can demand?
As in many of the cases we have seen, the tension between what
an employer can demand and what rights the employee retains
can generate a difficult balancing act. Again, few if any are
suggesting that employers have the right—even if they wanted
it—to dictate to their employees what they do at all times
outside the workplace, no more than anyone seems to be arguing
that employees can do anything at all outside the workplace,
regardless of effects on the company. But determining where
one draws the line is not particularly easy.
As we saw earlier, ethical theories may help us clarify and make
more rigorous the arguments involved, but they don't offer some
kind of recipe to follow that will result in the appropriate
ethical choice in every situation. There are advantages to having
the issues made clearer, and advantages to drawing on the
arguments that have been developed over centuries to deal with
moral conflicts. But to expect theory to resolve these conflicts
is probably being a bit naïve.
As we mentioned earlier, most corporations have mission
statements. Walmart's, for instance, is succinct: "We save
people money so they can live better"
(http://stock.walmart.com/investor-faqs
(http://stock.walmart.com/investor-faqs) ). Exxon-Mobil's is a
bit more expansive: "Exxon Mobil Corporation is committed to

19. being the world's premier petroleum and petrochemical
company. To that end, we must continuously achieve superior
financial and operating results while simultaneously adhering to
high ethical standards" (ExxonMobil, n.d., para. 1). These may
seem fairly obvious, but corporations frequently revert to the
mission statement to make sure new company policies are in
compliance with it. At the same time, the statements leave a
great deal of room for interpretation: For instance, what does
Walmart mean by "living better"? What are the "high ethical
standards" to which Exxon-Mobil aspires? Would most of us
agree on how to characterize either of these important parts of
these corporate mission statements?
The conflicts that arise tend to do so out of actual
implementation of policies that some may regard as wholly
consistent with a mission statement, while others regard the
same acts as in fundamental conflict with it. For instance,
imagine a clothing company—Just Clothes—that uses labor in
impoverished countries where unemployment is extremely high
and wages are quite low. One could well argue that Just Clothes
is doing exactly what it should be doing: keeping production
costs low, passing on those lower costs by offering lower-priced
products, and providing a good return to its investors. Just
Clothes could also argue that if it did not employ as many
people as it did in low-income countries, unemployment would
be even higher. Thus, their workers may not make a lot of
money, but they are better off than they would be otherwise.
Now imagine Samantha, whose church has been very active in
the area of workers' rights in Third World countries. Samantha
has written letters to the newspaper, organized demonstrations
and panels criticizing the practice of employing low-cost
workers, and attended several conferences on behalf of her
church. She is, in short, very critical of what she calls
"sweatshops," objecting not just to low wages, but to
substandard housing, dangerous and unhealthful work

20. conditions, and mistreatment of workers, particularly women
and children.
Samantha, however, works for Just Clothes. The management of
Just Clothes is not, understandably, very happy with Samantha's
activities. They regard her criticism of sweatshops as a pointed
criticism of Just Clothes, which damages the company's
reputation and, potentially, could lead to lower sales and lower
returns to its investors. Samantha is called into her boss's office
for a discussion of this, and she points to Just Clothes's mission
statement, which states, "Our goal is to sell a quality product
while having a positive impact on the lives of all those we
touch." Samantha points out that the workers that produce their
clothes might well disagree that their lives have been positively
affected by Just Clothes, and that actual corporate policy
contradicts its own mission statement.
The company is tempted to fire Samantha. She is an at-will
employee, but she could well argue in a court that she has been
terminated for participating in constitutionally protected
activity (both in terms of her right to free speech and her right
to practice her religion). At the same time, the company may
regard that risk as one worth taking; after all, they have
considerably more resources than Samantha, and may simply be
able to fight in court longer than Samantha can afford to.
Applying the Theories
Here we see how ethical theory can help clarify some of these
issues by focusing on the specific aspects involved in this
dispute. For instance, a utilitarian might attempt to determine
the benefits for the company, its domestic workers (including
Samantha), and its low-income employees. Trying to see how
one could establish these benefits may well help establish the
difficulties in balancing the utilities involved, which include
not just the bottom line of Just Clothes and the return to

21. investors, but the well-being of all if its employees. One could,
of course, simply determine that what should be done is to
follow a rule, such as "implement those policies that return the
greatest short-term profit without harming long-term
expectations." But that rule itself may be criticized by
Samantha, her church, and many others who might see
determining one's behavior solely on the basis of profit as
obviously unethical.
Case Study
Gay rights groups protesting outside a Chick-fil-A restaurant.
David Tulis/Associated Press
Chick-fil-A
Chick-fil-A dealt with a great deal of controversy after one of
their executives voiced an opinion about same-sex marriage.
A significant controversy broke out in 2012 when Dan T. Cathy,
Chief Operating Officer of the Chick-fil-A chain of restaurants,
criticized same-sex marriage. Many in favor of same-sex
marriage harshly criticized Cathy, while others defended both
his right to free speech and his right to run his business on the
principles he holds to.
Some proposed boycotts of Chick-fil-A restaurants, and even
staged "Same-Sex Kiss Days" in front of selected restaurants, to
demonstrate their disapproval of Cathy's views. At the same
time, some of those supportive of Cathy—either his view or his
right to express it—organized "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Days,"
which drew large crowds to many of the company's franchises.
Finally, in July 2012, Chick-fil-A released the following
statement: "We are a restaurant company focused on food,

22. service and hospitality; our intent is to leave the policy debate
over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena."
Exercise
Chick-fil-A's mission statement is simply this: "Be America's
best quick-service restaurant." It amplifies this a bit by adding
its Corporate Purpose: "To glorify God by being a faithful
steward of all that is entrusted to us. To have a positive
influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A" (Farfan,
2013, para. 5–6).
If you owned a Chick-fil-A franchise, which do you think would
be justifiable reasons for firing an employee? Briefly state why
you think this would be justified or unjustified.
•You discover an employee is Muslim.
•You discover an employee is bisexual.
•You discover an employee attends a Christian church that
supports gay rights.
•You discover an employee has been stealing from the company.
•You discover an employee's sister is a lesbian.
•You discover an employee does not like chicken.
•You discover an employee has been picketing other Chick-fil-A
franchises.
Technology in the Workplace
We are surrounded by social media; for many, checking their
Facebook page, tweeting, and looking at the Instagram pages of
their friends are a frequent occurrence. Indeed, some may feel
left out at a party if they do not use Facebook; often the
assumption is made that virtually everyone participates in this
particular form of social media. (For good reason: As of January
2013, Facebook reported that over one billion people qualified
as "active users." [Tam, 2013]).

23. Social Networking
The phenomenon of social media has raised difficult questions
for the workplace, and for potential job candidates. Perhaps you
have complained at a social media site about a boss, a co-
worker, or your company: Is that a sufficient reason for you to
be fired? Do you have the right, in other words, to say what you
wish online without risking losing your job? Should a job
candidate expect a potential employer to look at his or her
Facebook page? Is it justified for a hiring decision to be made
on the basis of something embarrassing (or worse) that has been
posted on a social media site?
In the movie The Social Network, a dramatic portrayal of the
founding of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook's CEO) is
shown having a bit too much to drink, and posting unpleasant
and vulgar remarks about his former girlfriend. When she
confronts him about it, she points out that things written on the
Internet are "written in ink, not in pencil"; in other words, once
something is circulated online, it may be there forever. A
picture or a comment could resurface many years later to
damage to a person's reputation, and there is not a lot that
person can do about once it has been posted.
We often hear that the easiest way to avoid this is simply not to
post anything that could ever, conceivably, raise such a
problem. This might lead to less interesting comments and
photographs being posted, but it is also difficult to always know
what could or could not, potentially, do damage. (Some cases,
admittedly, are clear.) But the ethical and legal questions that
arise focus more on whether someone's privacy is violated by
potential employers looking at Facebook pages or other social
media sites, and whether it is fair to base hiring, promotion, and
termination decisions on what might well seem to be a simple
exercise of our right to free speech.

24. With the various issues that have arisen in the context of social
media, policies and legislative responses are also in the process
of being developed. However, an important decision was made
in early 2013 by the National Labor Relations Board; The New
York Times described it like this:
Employers often seek to discourage comments that paint them in
a negative light. Don't discuss company matters publicly, a
typical social media policy will say, and don't disparage
managers, co-workers or the company itself. Violations can be a
firing offense.
But in a series of recent rulings and advisories, labor regulators
have declared many such blanket restrictions illegal. The
National Labor Relations Board says workers have a right to
discuss work conditions freely and without fear of retribution,
whether the discussion takes place at the office or on Facebook.
(Greenhouse, 2013, para. 1–2)
Another issue concerning social media is the question of what a
potential employer can ask job candidates about, regarding their
various social media networks. Reports have surfaced of job
candidates being asked for their Facebook passwords, for
instance, thus giving the employer access to candidates' pages.
Obviously enough, a job candidate may refuse such a request,
but one seeking a job may not feel comfortable in doing so, and
may have good reason to think that such a refusal will harm his
or her chance at being hired. Some employers have defended the
practice, arguing that it is one way to make sure that a person
being considered for a job does not exhibit characteristics the
employer would not otherwise know about. In response, the
practice has been decried as an invasion of privacy, and may
also be a way of determining factors—age, race, religion,
among others—that are illegal to consider in many hiring
decisions. The question thus arises as to whether the risk a
company assumes in such a hiring decision makes this

25. information sufficiently valuable that it outweighs the right of
the job candidate to keep that information private.
Employee Privacy
Man in office looking at computer monitor and talking on the
phone.
Erik Snyder/Lifesize/Thinkstock
Do employees have any expectation of privacy in the
workplace? Do employers have the right to monitor telephone
calls or emails?
A final issue that should at least be mentioned is what, if any,
right to privacy employees retain while on the workplace. A
person who works for corporation A may, as part of his or her
job, use the phone, the computer, and the Internet; does the
employer have a right to look at any or all of these things, to
see if the worker is doing what is supposed to be done? Can an
employer, for instance, monitor telephone calls, or is that an
invasion of privacy? Does an employer have the right to access
the "clickstream" on a worker's computer, to be able to see what
sites that worker is looking at while at work? Should an
employer be able to read an employee's emails that are sent
from the workplace? For that matter, if an employee also works
from home—whether due to "flextime" or taking extra work
home—should the employer be able to see what sites that
worker is visiting? In short, if the employer is paying a worker's
salary, does that give the employer legitimate access to any and
all of the forms of communication engaged in by the employee
while being paid?
4.2 The Issue: Employers' Rights

26. The issue of workplace rights is typically associated with
employees—those individuals without whose participation a
company or organization could not operate. But there is another
side to the rights in the workplace debate: the rights of the
employer itself. The question of just what constitutes
employers' rights touches on many aspects of business, but we
will restrict our discussion to one example: whether employer-
provided health care should be mandatory.
Few issues have generated controversy as intense as the
Affordable Care Act (ACA), often called Obamacare. Many
employers have objected to it as increasing their cost of doing
business; they, and many politicians as well, have objected to
various mandates of the act that they regard as not falling
within the legitimate scope of government. Others have argued
that the ACA seeks to lower costs, or at least lower the rate at
which costs increase, and that it addresses a number of issues
that polling indicates are popular with the American public,
such as being able to purchase insurance with a preexisting
condition, children staying on their parents' insurance until age
26, and no lifetime caps on medical expenses. In general, its
supporters argue that the ACA will provide health insurance to
many who have been unable to get it.
Woman holding up a sign that reads "We [heart] Obamacare."
Reuters/Reuters/Corbis controversial
The Affordable Care Act, often referred to as Obamacare, is an
extremely controversial and divisive piece of legislation.
The situation is made more complex by the fact that
historically, many Americans' health insurance was tied to their
employer's health care plans. (For those who are retired,
unemployed, or in poverty, other plans are designed to offer
coverage, such as Medicare and Medicaid.) It is not clear that
this is an ideal, or even efficient way to offer health care.

27. Because it is illegal for a hospital to turn away someone in need
of health care, many who are not insured receive their health
care at emergency rooms, which is the most expensive form of
treatment. In short, the American health care system is one of
the most expensive in the world, yet it achieves outcomes that
are regarded by many as substandard. (Thus, according to the
National Center for Health Statistics, the United States spends
twice as much on health care per capita [$7,129] as any other
country, yet ranks 30th in infant mortality and 50th in life
expectancy [ http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/
(http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/) ]).
The details of the ACA are complex and fluid. Only last year
did the Supreme Court rule the ACA as passing constitutional
muster, and implementation of its various provisions is still
taking place. Hence, it is difficult to determine what the results
of this law will be for several more years. However, the ACA
and other attempts to provide health care raise a simple question
that itself is important, but controversial: Is health care a right?
In other words, is having access to decent, affordable health
care a right, similar to other rights enumerated in the
Constitution and Bill of Rights? Or is health care not a right,
but a product like any other that must be purchased by the
consumer?
The Argument That Health Care Is Not a Right
There are various ways of arguing that health care is not a right,
but we can focus on one of the more popular versions here.
Simply put, on this view, health care is not a right: While there
are certain, "inalienable" rights—life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness—that the Constitution does protect, health care is not
one of them. The right not to be harmed or killed, or not to have
our property seized, is what philosophers call a negative right.
Negative rights are justified and legitimate, and only require us
not to interfere with the rights similarly possessed by others.

28. But we do not have such a negative right to health care, beyond
the right to pursue our own health care and not be prevented
from doing so. Rather, the claim that health care is a right
introduces a different notion—a positive right. I do not have a
right to health care anymore than I have a "right" to food,
clothing, and shelter. If taxpayers are forced to pay for my
alleged right to health care, then they are being forced to spend
money, presumably against their will, which is, in fact, a
violation of their rights. Thus, forcing me to accept that others
have a right to health care, which I must pay for, assumes a
positive right—the right to health care—and violates my
negative right—the right not to be forced to pay for something
that I have no say in. The Constitution protects negative rights,
and thus it is a violation of my constitutional rights to force me
to pay for anyone's health care (including my own). Since it
assumes a fictional positive right and violates my genuine
negative right, health care is not a right any more than it is a
right to own a car, a home, or a pair of cowboy boots.
The Argument That Health Care Is a Right
Elderly woman shaking hands with her doctor.
iStockphoto/Thinkstock
Supporters of the Affordable Care Act argue that access to
health care is a constitutionally protected right.
The argument that health care is a right also takes different
forms; some have been offered on the basis of obligatory
Christian charity, others in the name of economic efficiency,
and still others that appeal to the United Nations Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (for which the United States
voted). In simple terms, the argument is: Theoretical access to
health care is insufficient if fundamental obstacles prevent one
from actually obtaining that care. If life, liberty and the pursuit

29. of happiness are protected rights, and the right to life requires
some minimal access to health care, then it follows that that
access is, itself, a right (and is, in that sense, a negative,
constitutionally protected right).
One of the effects of recognizing health care as a right is that it
means everyone will have access to health care (universal health
care); this is turn will lead to more effective health care
delivery through regular checkups and preventative care, rather
than very expensive emergency room treatment. Furthermore,
this will lead to better health care results and a more productive
economy, due to lower worker absentee rates and a better
general quality of life. Universal health care will also mean that
no one will have to choose between health care and some other
expenditure, or face bankruptcy due to exorbitant health care
costs.
Do Employers Have an Obligation to Pay for Employees' Health
Care?
The purpose of the ACA was to guarantee access to health care
for as many Americans as possible. The goal was to provide this
greater access and, at the same time, continue to develop ways
of making health care cheaper in the United States. Health
coverage has traditionally been associated with a worker's place
of employment, and the ACA continues to follow this tradition
by requiring employers to offer health care for their full-time
employees. There are certain technical distinctions made on the
basis of the company in question; businesses employing fewer
than 25 employees have different options than those employing,
for instance, more than 100. Those companies not providing
health care coverage directly have the option of participating in
"Affordable Insurance Exchanges," which allows larger groups
to pool their numbers in order to lower insurance rates.
One can certainly see how a utilitarian might argue in defense

30. of the ACA; health care is presumably a benefit, or good;
having access to reasonably good, reasonably affordable health
care would seem to lead to the greatest good for the greatest
number relative to the other options that have been suggested.
Depending on how one sees health care—as a commodity or as a
right—this would strongly affect how one might regard the
ideas behind the ACA. If a commodity, it is not clear that a
deontologist would support one person being required to pay
for, or at least subsidize, another person's commodity, good, or
service. After all, most of us would object to being taxed to
help pay for another person's car. But if health care is a right,
then it seems more likely that the deontologist would conclude
that human dignity is not adequately respected without
guaranteeing people the minimum health care that would satisfy
the genuine exercise of that right.
4.3 Applying the Theories
Earlier we saw the conflict between American Medical
Response Incorporated and the paramedics that were suspended
for working for another company. This is one example of the
kind of ethical issues that can arise in the workplace. Most such
disputes, as we have seen, require a delicate balancing act that
protects the interests and the rights of all parties involved, an
act that can often be very difficult to do. Rarely are all parties
satisfied, although the results that does leave all parties
partially satisfied may often be indicative of a successful
resolution.
We have also seen how ethical theories may not offer recipes,
or algorithms, to follow in order to "solve" these ethical
disputes. Rather, ethical theory helps make clear what is stake
in these disputes, helps us focus on what is relevant (and
eliminate that which is irrelevant), and offers us the reflections

31. of many philosophers who have looked at these kinds of issues
and offered sophisticated and rigorous arguments to help
resolve them.
Finally, we have also seen that there is no guarantee that two
people who adopt a similar ethical theory will necessarily agree
on how that theory should be applied, and what the theory will
say is the moral thing to do. As we might see with the ACA, one
deontologist might argue that health care is a right that cannot
be abridged or violated, while another might not recognize it as
a right and may provide a much different analysis. Indeed, it
may turn out that their disagreement is not so much about
universal health care than its status as a right or a commodity.
Consequently, each specific issue must be looked at carefully,
and its details examined, before constructing the strongest
argument we can in support of our position. But it should come
as no surprise that two deontologists, or two utilitarians, may
disagree; after all, people may share a common viewpoint but
not agree on many things relative to that viewpoint. But to see
this, it might help to look a bit more at some of these theories
and how they can be applied.
Virtue Ethics
As a legal entity, the corporation is recognized as a "person"—
technically an "artificial person"—that possesses many of the
rights people possess under the law. Using this idea, we can
look at the corporation from the perspective of virtue ethics:
What does it mean for a corporation, in this context, to be
virtuous? Presumably, we want corporations to act morally and
as good, if artificial, "citizens"; virtue ethics seems to provide a
way of characterizing what is then required of such corporate
behavior.
The corporate "person" is under a number of constraints;
however, it must, above all, maintain profitability. But

32. recognizing that goal, it must also meet the legitimate needs of
its employees, stockholders, and others who provide various
kinds of support (financial and otherwise) to the company. This
includes the needs of the community in which it is found, not
just by providing employment, but also by playing the role of
good corporate citizen by supporting charities and perhaps other
philanthropic work. It can be a difficult job to balance all of
these obligations, while maintaining focus on the bottom line,
but virtue ethics emphasizes precisely that kind of balance that
may offer valuable guidance to the corporation.
For example, the company must seek a balance—a Golden
Mean—between maintaining employee satisfaction and not
distorting its fundamental mission. Thus, it must offer salaries
and benefits that are competitive. If the wage–benefit package
is too small, employees may desire to leave the corporation, and
it may be difficult to hire new workers. If the wage–benefit
package is too generous, it may take too much away from the
quarterly or annual profits. Just as this balance must be struck,
a balance relative to employee rights must be considered in the
larger corporate context. These rights cannot be restricted in a
way that is unfair to those workers, but legitimate restrictions
must be maintained for the corporation to meets its fundamental
goal: to be successful (specifically, in a for-profit company,
profitable). Situations can arise where an employee may insist
on a right that may well hinder the company in meeting its
goals. In that case, those rights must be balanced against the
needs of the corporation, and an appropriate balance must be
identified and maintained.
To examine a specific virtue, corporations should be honest, in
dealing with both their employees and the community in which
they are located. Obviously enough, there can be too little
honesty—whether defrauding customers, skimming profits,
lying on tax forms, or any number of the familiar examples of
corporate behavior that are immoral, illegal, or both. Yet there

33. can also be too much honesty, such as failing to protect
proprietary information essential to a company's profits, or
revealing marketing strategies to employees and, potentially,
competitors—the distribution of which would put the company
at a disadvantage. Neither too little honesty nor too much
honesty is in the best interest of the company or, importantly, in
the best interest of its employees. Virtue ethics, then, provides a
way of seeing how to strike the balance here, whereby an
appropriate amount of corporate honesty leads to the best
results for the company, its employees, and its community.
Be the Ethicist
President Barack Obama signing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay
Act.
Charles Dharapak/Associated Press
President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in
2009.
The Lilly Ledbetter Act
In 2009, President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay
Act, which promoted equal pay for equal work, and allowed
lawsuits to be filed by someone who claimed not to have been
paid the same amount for the same work.
Read the representative arguments on both sides of the issue.
•Against the legislation:
Victoria Toensing: Obama Overloads a Tale of Equal Pay
(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203406404578
070970214587846.html)
Mona Charen: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act Isn’t Really for
Women At All
(http://www.noozhawk.com/article/041712_mona_charen_lilly_l

34. edbetter_fair_pay_act/)
•For the legislation:
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
(http://www.nwlc.org/resource/lilly-ledbetter-fair-pay-act-0)
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009
(http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20090213.html)
Exercise
Adopt one of the ethical theories we have looked at, and decide
whether you support this legislation or not. Explain how the
theory you adopted helped you defend your decision. Then
answer the following:
•Which theory did you choose?
•Why did you choose that theory?
•Did you support or reject the legislation?
•How did the theory you chose help in making that decision?
•Would a different theory have led to a different result?
Deontology
The deontologist recognizes that companies, whether for-profit
or not-for-profit, have a fundamental requirement: namely to
carry out their mission. Specifically in the case of for-profit
corporations, that mission is to make sufficient profit to stay in
business and, preferably, continue to grow. Yet the corporation,
even as an (artificial) person, must not violate certain rules: It
must treat its employees, its community, and even its
competitors with respect. It must not follow or develop
company policies that it would regard as fundamentally unfair
were another company to have those same policies. The
deontologist might explain this in terms of Kant's
universalization test: If, for instance, company policy imposes
certain restrictions on speech or behavior for its employees,
could this policy be fairly imposed on all companies in the same

35. context? The deontologist might also appeal to the Golden Rule
here: If an employer were to impose a given set of restrictions
on employees, would he or she be willing to work under the
same set of restrictions?
We can look at how deontology can be applied here by looking
at drug testing—in this case, for airline pilots. The deontologist
might well conclude that instituting such drug tests is precisely
the kind of policy that could—even should—be put in place
universally and in all similar contexts. Certainly, someone who
imposes such drug tests may be quite confident that he or she
would be willing to work under such a condition as well; hence,
it seems to conform to the Golden Rule.
But there may be other situations where a company desires to
restrict an employee's rights in ways that do not meet the
universalization test or don't seem to satisfy the Golden Rule.
Perhaps as a condition of employment, employees are told that
they cannot join a union (or, in contrast, are told they must join
the union). Although legal issues complicate the story, when
observed from a moral standpoint, it is not clear that this
restriction could be universalized: that no one could ever join a
union (or that everyone must join a union) would seem to lead
to the result that the very notion of a union becomes
meaningless. And it seems quite possible that an employer who
tells employees that they cannot join a union—or must join a
union—might well be unwilling to work under those same
conditions, indicating a conflict with the Golden Rule.
Consequently, the corporate (artificial) citizen must, on the
deontological view, treat rules in precisely the same way as real
citizens must. Any restriction on employee rights that fails to
satisfy the universalization test, or conflicts with applying the
Golden Rule, thus risks the genuine possibility of being an
unfair, unjust, and immoral restriction.
Some Conclusions

36. In considering the fundamental goal of a for-profit company or
corporation, the virtue ethicist and the deontologist do not
really disagree. Both recognize that such a company must make
a profit to remain in business and must impose certain
conditions on its employees and potential employees to do so.
The tension comes not so much in applying the specific theories
as in determining where an employer's rights to impose such
conditions are legitimate, and where they infringe on the rights
of employees. It may seem easier to strike an appropriate
balance between these two sets of rights in theory than it is in
practice.
Consider a company that receives much of its business from
contracts with the federal government. This company has spent
years developing a close relationship with Senator Smith, who
represents the state where the corporate headquarters are
located. The members of the company's board of directors are
particularly close with Senator Smith, and he has made it one of
his highest priorities to see that the company receives favorable
attention in the awarding of federal contracts. The company
benefited by supporting Smith, and Smith benefited in turn.
Currently, Senator Smith is now running for reelection, and the
CEO of the company is the director of his campaign.
Ann is an employee of the company and a staunch opponent of
Senator Smith. She has worked long hours outside of work for
Senator Smith's opponent, and has contributed both time and
money to Smith's opponent.
The issue here is one of the limits to what the CEO of Ann's
company can do, relative to Ann's political views. Can he ask
her to remove a political sign from her office cubicle? Can he
ask her to remove a bumper sticker from her car, because she
parks in the company parking lot?

37. A fundraising picnic has been scheduled, organized by the CEO,
for Senator Smith. Admission is $25, and it has been made
abundantly clear to all employees that their attendance is
expected. Clearly enough, the company cannot require this
attendance, but Ann is convinced that her chances for promotion
and salary increases will be harmed if she does not attend.
Here we have what seem to be competing rights: the right of the
CEO to do what he thinks is in the best interest of the company
(and, he might argue, therefore in the best interest of Ann
herself), and Ann's right to participate in politics in the way she
sees fit. Virtue ethics, deontology, or any of the other ethical
theories we have at our disposal may offer some insight into
how this conflict might be resolved, but none of the theories can
likely provide a solution that is satisfactory to all involved. As
we have seen before, ethics can offer a good bit of insight into
the problem, by identifying what is at stake, and how the
conflict itself might be most accurately characterized. Yet, as
we have also seen, we may be expecting too much from any
ethical theory if we think there is an easy procedure to follow
that will result in the one correct answer.
Where Do We Go From Here?
It is, generally, to the advantage of both the employer and the
employee that their company thrives: All are then better off. In
addition to maintaining its own economic well-being, a
successful corporation can offer the community a number of
things that will make it better off, such as support for the arts,
schools, and general culture of the community. Not to be
overlooked is what is also known as the "ripple" effect: A
successful company will pay its workers the kind of wages that
filter through the rest of the community. A well-paid worker
who takes her family out to dinner thus helps those who work in
the restaurant, and those workers in turn may have sufficient
disposable income to buy things that support still others.

38. But conflicts do arise, between what an employer thinks is the
right thing to do for the company, and what an employer thinks
is right for the employer. We've seen a number of examples of
this kind of conflict, and most of us are familiar with being
asked to do things at work that can, at least potentially,
generate these kinds of problems. The situation, of course, is
made worse when unemployment is high and jobs are difficult
to find. That situation makes most employees more reluctant to
register objections, even if legitimate; many will prefer being
employed to having their rights maintained while being
unemployed. As a result, the employer has just a bit more
leverage to impose conditions on employees, and on job
candidates, that can become increasingly unfair to those
employees.
Here we see the not-infrequent situation where real life
confronts what ethics may tell us is the correct, moral, or just
thing to do. At what point does one refuse to violate one's moral
code? If we are being harmed, or being treated unfairly, do we
stand up for our moral principles, or do we simply take it,
realizing the importance of remaining employed? Does it
depend on how extreme the case is? Would we be willing to lie
to keep our job? Would we be willing to ignore certain legal
requirements to keep our job? Would we be willing to harm
others, or at least risk harming others, to keep our job? Again,
we find ourselves between two extremes: We may be willing to
overlook a relatively insignificant moral infraction to keep our
job, but we may be absolutely unwilling to commit a crime in
order to keep our job. Many issues in business ethics, as we
have already seen, arise from trying to find the appropriate
balance between these two extremes. Ethics may help up us find
it; however, it doesn't guarantee that we will find it, or that
everyone will agree with our conception of the balance we do
strike.

39. Be the Ethicist
Unionization
A manufacturing company—call it United Manufacturers, or
UM for short—has had a long history of running a good,
profitable company. However, due to some changes in
management and policy changes, including some cost-cutting
measures, some of UM workers have started discussing among
themselves the possibility of joining a union, in order to have it
represent their grievances against the recent changes made at
UM. A few particular employees have been identified as
"ringleaders" in attempting to organize a vote among workers in
order to gain union representation.
You are in upper management, and you do not want your
workforce to be unionized. Which of the following might be
good strategies to adopt to avoid a vote being held by your
employees to determine whether they will or will not be
represented by union?
1.Threaten the ringleaders with being fired, if they do not drop
their union activities.
2.Have the workers designate some spokespersons, and meet
with them to discuss their grievances.
3.Read the emails of the suspected ringleaders.
4.See if you can get any of the ringleaders' relatives deported.
5.Address the grievances you think are legitimate complaints.
6.Impose mandatory drug testing for your entire workforce.
7.Hire extra security to prevent outside union members from
gaining access to your work site.
8.Show employees videos that are designed to show the bad
aspects of unions.
9.Fire the ringleaders.
10.Require job candidates to sign a pledge never to join a union.
11.Raise wages in order to compete with competitors whose

40. workers are unionized.
12.Begin monitoring and taping phone calls made by the
ringleaders.
13.Have the ringleaders killed.
Many courses, texts, seminars, and websites exist that are
devoted to helping companies avoid unions being organized in
the workplace. Here are some examples:
http://www.gaebler.com/How-to-Prevent-Unionization.htm
(http://www.gaebler.com/How-to-Prevent-Unionization.htm)
http://www.xperthr.com/topics/hr-management/union-
avoidance/ (http://www.xperthr.com/topics/hr-
management/union-avoidance/)
Exercise
Read the following description of the National Labor Relations
Act (often called the Wagner Act):
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Wagner+Act
(http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Wagner%2BAct)
Now review the things you saw as appropriate ways to prevent
unionization occurring at UM.
•Which of those would violate the Wagner Act?
•Which might violate the Wagner Act?
•Which would not violate the Wagner Act (or be legal)?
•Are all of the things you identified as legal also ethical?
•Are any of the things that you identified as ethical be seen as
ethical by all the ethical theories we have seen?
•If different theories conflict on what is ethical to do in this
situation, how do those conflicts arise?
•Which ethical theory do you think is the best to apply in trying
to achieve your goals while both following the law and
remaining consistent with your ethical values?

41. Chapter Summary
In this chapter, we have seen a number of conflicts that can
arise in the workplace. While most companies have as their goal
to make a profit and provide a return to their investors, some
practices developed to achieve those goals can seem to invade
employees' privacy. Other policies that corporations develop
may restrict what an employee can do, or even require
employees to act in ways that are in conflict with those
employees' own values. While we have looked at a few of these
conflicts, there are, of course, many more.
Some of the issues looked at in this chapter include the
following:
•How outside work can lead to a conflict of interest and/or
conflict of commitment;
•What rights are involved in mandatory drug testing;
•Whether an employer can ask an employee, or job candidate,
for a Facebook password;
•Whether a corporate mission statement can infringe on a
worker's right;
•What a worker's right to privacy includes, and does not
include;
•Whether a boss can monitor employees' Internet usage;
•If health care is a commodity or a right;
•If health care is a right, whether an employer obligated to
provide it; and
•Whether a company can impose specific moral values on an
employee by prohibiting certain activities.
Ethical theory offers extremely helpful tools to solve these

42. problems by clarifying the language involved, identifying what
is and isn't relevant to the problem at hand, providing rigorous
arguments for specific ethical principles, and offering valuable
critiques of the shortcomings of competing views. As one might
imagine, just as with our own individual conflicts, workplace
conflicts are bound to arise. If ethical theory, and common
sense, can give us the tools to have a better chance of resolving
these conflicts, then we should avail ourselves of these tools to
help us do so.
Critical Thinking Questions
1.Whistleblowing occurs when an employee informs legal
authorities of some unethical or immoral behavior in which his
or her company is involved. Should whistleblowers be protected
from being fired for such activity? How might a utilitarian
evaluate the value of whistleblowing?
2.Do mandatory drug tests assume that employees are using
illegal substances? What harm might such tests do to the
workplace environment and relations between workers and
management?
3.You are applying for a job you would really like and sorely
need. The person hiring you, at the end of the interview, seems
optimistic about your chances of being hired, and concludes by
asking you to fill out a few forms, including one that asks you
for your Facebook password. What do you do?
4.The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States
mentions that one of the things it seeks to protect is the general
welfare. Is the general welfare promoted by having universal
health care? Why or why not? How might a deontologist object
to a policy of universal health care?
5.If employees are being paid, what rights do they retain while
at work? Is the employer legally obligated to respect a worker's
right to privacy, morally obligated to respect a worker's right to
privacy, both, or neither? Might some argue that there is no
such general right to privacy?
6.Some ethicists worry about the "tyranny of the majority." If a

43. company is owned and managed by adherents of a specific
religion, is there a risk that they might violate the rights of their
workers who either follow a different religion, or no religion?
What kind of policy might the company adopt in order to avoid
such a violation, or even the appearance of such a violation?
Exercises
1.Describe a conflict of commitment and a conflict of interest
that could occur outside a university setting.
2.Consider this scenario: Ted's employer fires him because it
becomes known that he smokes tobacco products at home.
Visit http://www.ncsl.org (http://www.ncsl.org) . Type "off duty
conduct discrimination" in the search field at top right. From
the results list, click the first link (PDF). Find a state where
Ted's firing would be prohibited. Now find a state where it is
not clear whether this firing would be prohibited. Finally, see if
there is a state where this firing would not be prohibited.
3.Consider the following real-life incidents: •A Georgia teacher
claimed that she was fired for having pictures on her Facebook
page that showed her drinking alcohol.
•A Massachusetts teacher was forced to resign after posting that
she thought the town she taught in was "snobby," and that she
was not looking forward to the coming school year.
•A North Carolina waitress was fired for complaining about a
very small tip she received.
•An Albuquerque police officer was demoted to desk duty for
listing his job description as "human waste disposal."
•A Massachusetts firefighter was terminated for Facebook posts
that involved cursing and slurs against homosexuals.
See these links for more information:
http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/1329-facebook-horror-
stories-how-a-post-can-cost-you-your-job.html
(http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/1329-facebook-horror-
stories-how-a-post-can-cost-you-your-job.html)
http://www.sminorgs.net/2011/06/more-nominees-for-the-
digital-hall-of-shame-and-how-to-avoid-becoming-one-

44. yourself.html (http://www.sminorgs.net/2011/06/more-
nominees-for-the-digital-hall-of-shame-and-how-to-avoid-
becoming-one-yourself.html)
http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/capeandislands/1200
3630380176/words-on-facebook-cost-bourne-firefighter-his-job/
(http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/capeandislands/120
03630380176/words-on-facebook-cost-bourne-firefighter-his-
job/)
Now, write an example of a comment that one might see on
Facebook or Twitter that should get someone fired. Write a
comment that one might see on Facebook or Twitter that should
not get someone fired. Finally, write a comment that reasonable
people could disagree about, in terms of whether it would be a
justified cause for dismissal.
4.Some employers have considered cutting workers' hours in
order to avoid the requirement to cover their health care costs; a
couple of these cases are outlined here:
http://www.deadline.com/2013/04/cinemacon-theaters-cut-
employee-work-hours-obamacare-affordable-care-act/
(http://www.deadline.com/2013/04/cinemacon-theaters-cut-
employee-work-hours-obamacare-affordable-care-act/)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/09/papa-johns-
obamacare-john-schnatter_n_2104202.html
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/09/papa-johns-
obamacare-john-schnatter_n_2104202.html)
Others have objected to the ACA as inadequate, calling for a
"single-payer" plan to make sure all Americans have health
care. They point to other countries' health care plans—such as
Germany's and Taiwan's—as truly universal, more cost-
efficient, and generating better outcomes:
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what-is-single-payer
(http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what-is-single-payer)
http://www.healthcare-now.org/ (http://www.healthcare-
now.org/) •What are the advantages of not having health care

45. and employment tied together, as has been traditional in the
United States?
•What are the disadvantages of not having health care and
employment tied together, as has been traditional in the United
States?
•Imagine you are talking with someone who advocates a single-
payer or universal health care system, and you ask that person
why you should have to pay for another person's health care.
What is the best response the individual might offer?
•Imagine you are talking with a libertarian, who rejects all
health care plans that are not entered into voluntarily. You ask
if the law that requires hospitals to give medical care,
regardless of ability to pay, should be eliminated. What is the
best response the libertarian could offer?