Posted on 05/27/2009 11:05:43 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Caterpillar, the heavy equipment manufacturer, is moving to lay off more than 20,000 workers. These days such mass layoffs are sadly unsurprising, but are they ethical?
If Caterpillar is to relegate legions of employees to the care of the public, it may not simply echo Ebenezer Scrooge: “Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses? Is there no COBRA?” Instead, it must use its considerable political clout to ensure that those programs are robustly funded, hardly a priority either for Caterpillar or its confreres among the Fortune 500. That is, if Caterpillar is to deprive thousands of people of a livelihood, it must either provide for their basic needs or see that the public can do so. To do neither is to dodge a moral obligation.
(Excerpt) Read more at ethicist.blogs.nytimes.com ...
This is really rich coming from the NYT, which is about to shut down the Boston Globe and lay off hundreds.
What’s wrong with you? Supermarkets are rich and can absorb the loss the person stealing might be poor.
Just kidding. But that was his rationale. As I pointed out in my letter to AmSpec super market managers are responsible for inventory losses. Also the cashier might be suspected of aiding and abetting. If I see someone trying to sneak product out of a store I would inform the store management being that I’m more ethical than the jerk.
“I categorically reject that particular definition.”
See Max Weber.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.