Question One: Insider Trading
For the longest time possible, the concept of insider trading in business has been considered unfair, inequitable and against the spirit of fair competition in business. Insider trading is opposed for the simple reason that it does not afford all players in the market all the requisite information used in arriving at decisions as to whether to invest or not. Two critical arguments are availed against insider trading. These are the property rights and the fairness principle. This paper shall discuss the two arguments in much detail.
It is argued that insider trading dispenses with the principle of fairness in the market. This is because the market information asymmetry is lost as others have more information concerning particular stocks while others lack the same and rely merely on market speculation. On that context, it has been argued convincingly that insider trading be eliminated. In addition, it is critical to note the fact that the employees and the organizational management would tend to take care of their individual interests against the interests of the public. In that vein, the former would take advantage of avenues availed in the market to defraud an unsuspecting public.
The other argument advanced against insider trading relates to property rights. It is deemed fair in the eyes of the law that owners of property have all information concerning their property. An illustration of the unfairness is best seen in the case of Enron where property owners (read stock owners) were left in oblivion concerning the real value of their stocks. The insider dealers offloaded all their stocks in the market leaving an uninformed public with the possession of valueless stocks. This perhaps gives a strong argument against insider dealing.
Question two: Employee privacy
Striking the right balance between employee privacy and the employer’s right to assess the work progress and monitor the employees is becoming difficult given the intricacies involved. In fact, as employees get more aggressive and conscious of their rights to privacy, the employees in reaction are discovering methods of hiding their methods of surveillance on their employees. The balance between the two depends on the philosophical conception one ascribes to. From a utilitarian point of view, it is imperative to note that the drive would be towards addressing the interests of the majority. In that context, the privacy rights would be supported in favor of the employees who are a majority against the minority employers. In addition, it is critical to appreciate that some of the privacy rights violations remain unjustified and the onus is on the employer to prove that the privacy violation is in the interest of the organization. The employer should additionally be able to justify that the privacy violation is the only avenue at their disposal and that other solutions would inconvenience the organization and or occasion irreparable damages.
On the other hand, from a Kantian point of view, it is imperative to appreciate the fact that privacy rights need to be aligned in accordance with the duties the persons owe to each other. In that context, privacy rights may be violated if the violation thereof enables the employers monitor the discharge of the duties the employees owe them. It is imperative on that context, to appreciate the overall interest at hand when considering the level of privacy afforded to employees as against the employers.
In conclusion, the paper postulates that the employer and the employee should be able to reach an agreement prior on the level of privacy afforded to the employees without necessarily dispossessing the employer from monitoring the former.
Question three: Whistle Blowing
The Enron case offers lessons on the essence of corporate governance. More importantly, the case avails justification for the need of whistle blowers in the modern organization. With the complexity of transactions and the need to remain competitive, organizations have to confront the temptation to cheat the market and its consumers. Perhaps the only protection as against such trickery and deceit lies in the employees. It is necessary for employees to remember their agency role to the public. Employees indeed have the unique role of protecting the public interest against the organizational self-interest. In that vein, this paper rightly considers, Sherron Watkins, a whistle blower who dared protect the public interest against the organizational self-interest. This paper equally appreciates the reluctance by Watkins to go public. Ideally, whistleblowing does not necessarily start and end with throwing public tantrums. Rather, it envisages a situation where an employee in a position of knowledge but who has no power to change the state of affairs pursues measures intended to address the issue. These measures, it is expected, should begin internally.
The paper thus postulates that ideally Sherron Watkins had the spirit of preventing the illegalities ongoing at Enron. The fact that she did not come out whistle blowing in the typical fashion that involves the public does not rid her off the whistle blower tag. Ultimately, the objective should be preventing the illegality ongoing rather than merely seeking the public attention. This should not be read to mean the whistle blowers who come open to the public are often wrong. The position is that it depends on the motive and the circumstances prevailing.
Works Cited
Ackman, Dan. "Sherron Watkins Had Whistle, But Blew It." Forbes 14 February 2001. <http://www.forbes.com/2002/02/14/0214watkins.html>.
Miller, Roger LeRoy, Gaylord A Jentz and Frank B Cross. Business Law: Text and Cases. New York: Cengage Learning, 2008.
Shaw, William H. Business Ethics. New York: Cengage Learning, 2007.
—. Business Ethics: A Textbook With Cases. New York: Cengage Learning, 2010.
