Scenario Discussion
I chose Scenario 2 for this assignment. One the one hand, I would have an ethical duty to the owners of the firm (shareholders) to do anything possible to increase the value and profitability of the company. Accordingly, that would suggest that I agree to shift production to Mexico. This is especially true is production in Mexico has, as mentioned, satisfactory working conditions and produces a quality product. This view would most like conform to that of a naïve immoralist. To be sure, the move to Mexico is “just business” and it is an act that most businesses in the same circumstances would make. Sure it might be painful for the workers laid-off but they may find even better jobs eventually. Nevertheless, the move is necessary and needed for the viability of the firm.
On the other hand, as a company and manager in that company, we also have a responsibility to our workers, especially with the knowledge that shifting production to Mexico would put 1,000 people pout of work and most likely “kill” the town in the sense that moving production would also most likely adversely affect any and all work that is connected to the factory such as uniform cleaning, nearby restaurants, and the tax base. This view would most likely conform with righteous moralist. To be sure, kicking people that helped build the company to where it is today without any recourse or remedy is ethically questionable and morally unacceptable.
My approach personal approach would be to first talk to the workers, explain the situation and try to develop a reasonable means to continue manufacturing in the USA. Perhaps that would include a combination of voluntary retirements, temporary wage freezes, employee funding (through stock sales), retraining, and shifting certain aspects of manufacture to Mexico. The bottom line, is that I would first and foremost work with the workers to try to achieve a solution. If that does not work, and the only way to keep the firm afloat is to shift manufacturing to Mexico, then I would to that. In other, words I would try to achieve the most suitable consequences from a business and ethical perspective. This view most likely conforms with moral universalist in that it has determined that is morally unacceptable to lay off the workers and also to drive the company bankrupt. It then works to find a balance between the two.
I agree with working with the company, such as a charity programme, to resolve the situation. I have heard that in some countries companies with over a certain amount of workers/employees must provide housing/dorms and food. If the company can do this than they can house and feed the children. The charity programmer can then supply educational, social, and medical services. As you said, it would be a positive sum outcome and demonstrably better situation than the current situation.
