Homework answers / question archive / 1) In applying for a job, my partner completed the first phase of phone interviews, and now the potential employer wants to fly her out for an inperson interview

1) In applying for a job, my partner completed the first phase of phone interviews, and now the potential employer wants to fly her out for an inperson interview

Business

Share With

1) In applying for a job, my partner completed the first phase of phone interviews, and now the potential employer wants to fly her out for an inperson interview. However, they say that if they offer the job and she declines, she must reimburse them for the cost of her airplane ticket and hotel. This seems coercive. Is it ethical No, this is not at all ethical from the individual's perspective because it may happen that the individual does not like the offer and does not feel that it is a fair offer for her so she should have the right to decline the offer without any liabilities. Although the organization wants her to reimburse the expense they are incurring on her and I believe that this coercive but organizations generally in order to cut down on their overhead costs may impose such conditions, therefore the applicant needs to decide on her actions in this context that whether she is ready to take the risk or no 2. I am a veterinary surgeon hired and paid by veterinarians, not animal owners themselves. The vet provides the surgery suite, anesthesia, lab work and other services and then bills the animal owner for all that and for my work. I learned that some vets mark up my fee, billing the animal owners significantly more than I bill those vets. This disparity is not evident from the animal owner’s bill. Is this ethical? I think it is totally ethical. This is because the government has set certain rules and regulations for that. It has set the maximum fee which the vet has to charge to the to the customers. If vets are charging maximum fee as per the government rules and regulations and including their profit in it then it is totally ethical. Veterinary surgeons are paid by vets, so they have to maintain their margin from their various services like anesthesia, medicines lab works etc. It would be unethical if they are charging more than the standard given by the government as per their own interest. 3. Our medical practice discovered that an office administrator who had recently been laid off had stolen several thousand dollars. The police were notified. This fellow then asked if we could ''work things out'' and avoid the legal system. Some of the physicians are willing to not press charges if he reimburses us. I feel we have an obligation to society and to potential future employers to continue with the criminal-justice system. Ethically, which position is right? Ethically the option of out of court settlement is the best option because of the following reasons: 1. Taking him to the court will set wrong precedent for the new employees. Instead of fearing of the legal system, the new employees may think that they too have an opportunity to steal from the office. Not exposing such an event publicly (in the court) may still keep the employees fearful of a possible legal action against them if caught performing any illegal activities. 2. Customers/ patients may have lack of trust on the system, because a company which cannot control its office, how can they ensure that patient's/ customer's data will be secure. 3. The employee may have a certain reason to steal the money. If the money can be recovered from the employee without dragging him into legal issues, he might spread good word about the company. 4. You manage a highly motivated salesperson that exceeds his quota each year. His only job-related problem is that he has a “short fuse”, and sometimes responds temperamentally to tense situations. Take yesterday, for example. You accompanied him on a sales visit to a long time customer. Toward the end of the visit, the customer launched into a tirade against the sales person for an order that had arrived late and had caused the customer considerable production problems in his plant. You were embarrassed when your sales person snapped back, practically yelling at the customer and angrily telling him that the late order was not the fault of your company. Once back at the office, you tell the salesperson to phone the customer and apologize for the outburst. The salesperson says, “I have nothing to apologize for,” and leaves Considering the above case, it is important that employees behave properly with the customers and maintain good relationships with them. Being highly motivated salesperson also requires to have strong relationships with prospective customers and clients. Therefore, the salesperson needs to be instructed and provided with guidelines to behave in a positive and good way with customers. This must be included in policy guidelines so that no employee would response in negative way. As a manager, I need to apologise the customer on behalf of the salesperson and try to sort out the things as soon as possible and make the salesperson understand that his behaviour and short tempered nature would lose prospective customers. It is important to make him apologise even if it's half hearted so that the customer will be retained. And after resolving the issue he must be provided with training and counseling so that he may overcome his anger and negative behaviour. 5. the office for a three- day business trip out of town. You wonder what to do. On one hand, you know that the apology should come from your salesperson. On the other hand, you know that he will delay giving the apology and perhaps phrase it in a half hearted way. What should you do? 6. Since my firm reopened in New Orleans, I have been parking illegally in a loading zone. Enforcement is sporadic, so I average only about one $20 ticket a week, which is cheaper than putting the car in a lot. Friends say it is unethical to exploit a broken municipal system. I say I harm nobody: there are no businesses open on this block, so there is nobody to use the loading zone. Is my behavior ethical or not? 7. Years ago in Seattle I worked for an insurance company with just one Jewish employee, who was a good friend of mine. He invented Jewish holidays, taking days off several times a year. As the only other employee at all familiar with Judaism, I could have tattled on him or kept silent and been disloyal to my employer. I kept silent. Was that the ethically correct choice? 8. One of my co-workers recently was laid off, and then re-hired on a contract basis, and now she earns a lot less money doing the same job. I noticed that sometimes she takes home pads of paper and pencils, pens and other office supplies occasionally. She told me it was because she has so much less money that she cannot afford to buy school supplies for her kids. Would it be ethically correct for me to tell on her?