Ethical delimms Essay Example

Ethical delimms Essay Example Ethical delimms Essay Ethical delimms Essay What is Ethical Dilemmas in the workplace? A dilemma usually arises when there is conflict between staff, and their Individual opinion. An Ethical dilemma may occur within two or more people, almost all workplace has ethical dilemmas reason Is staff may all come from different socio-economic backgrounds, cultures, and beliefs. Ethical Dilemmas in the work place are common issues, and can be a daunting issue. It can cause an employee not to like their Job, or cause a bad impression on others. Many of the different dilemmas that can be faced are favoritism, sexual harassment, termination of an employee without notice, unnecessary delay in pay, working for more than one organization, not doing your Job, and taking excessive leave, the list can go on and on. It can also cause a person to have unwanted stress. As a counselor ones job title is working as a trainer on the floor assisting developmental adults with piece work, counseling individuals when needed, and complying with state guidelines, ensuring that all yearly documents are received, and filed, Individualized service plans are done twice a year, and ensuring the health and fatty of all Individuals. Each case load consist of 10-20 individuals. This work usually comes with a dead line, sometimes It also comes with all staff assisting with the fashion. Employee X was hired as a counselor on his first day on the Job his Job duties was again told, along with his training. However he refused to work as everyone else. Many of times he has been caught locked away in the office refusing to help or assist with the other individuals. Counselor Z has spoken to counselor X, however nothing has changed. Eventually counselor Z went to her director, and informed them of the situation. Upon speaking to the director, counselor Z was informed that they would have a staff meeting with the department during the meeting counselor X stated that hes always on the floor. Once again the Job description was given to all employees. The director even established a rotating schedule in case the need arise that additional staff was needed on the floor. This plan indicated office duties, each counselor will have one day where you were allotted to complete all office work and the other office work days was split. Where one counselor was on the floor at all times while the other counselor had office duties. This seemed to work for a while. This seemed to Correcting the Ethical Dilemma of the work place. Counselor X started hiding away in the office, once again refusing to help on the floor. One day we were so short staff and needed as much help as possible, the director pulled staff from other departments to assist us as we had reached the companies dead line, and the order was going to be picked up for shipment by the close of business. Counselor X stated that it was his office day, and he was not leaving his office. Counselor Z went to the director once again, and tresses her concerns, at the end of the day the director called a staff meeting, for an in service on what Job titles were. When asked what was the issues or conflicts that the department had, or if there was any concerns that needed to be rectified no one said anything, not to mention that many of the other employees had the same concerns. I finally said I had something to say I stated exactly what the issue was. The director gave counselor X a chance to defend himself, and of course he never admitted to doing anything wrong. The director stated that a counselors Job is Just as important, as any other position in the facility. The director also stated effective immediately no counselor will be in the office any one day in any given week. All counselors will be allowed one day of choice to do paper work, if for any reason staff is needed on the floor another day will be assigned either that week or the following week to ensure that all work is completed in a timely fashion. It seemed as if this problem was not going to get rectified. I was not sure if the director has ever spoke to counselor X, it was unclear if he even understood his Job. After weeks, of the same behavior going on. I started to think there is some type of favoritism. I could not put my hands on the situation. I finally went to the union. I was not sure if this was the right thing to do, however the company felt strong about stealing company money, which this was because he did no work. As an outsider do you feel that this situation was handled in the correct way? If you were the director can you think of a better way of dealing with this situation? If I was the director 1 verbal, 1 written, and a final would have been all that it should have taken. Eventually the director transferred to a different facility, and counselor X was fired. This situation went on for more than 8 months. This ethical Dilemma not only affected staff but it also affected the individuals that we serviced. Even though a person track. Now that the union was involved the company has implemented the 3 strike rule. In conclusion to the Ethical Dilemmas that are found in many areas of the work place. As all employees come from different walks of life, have different beliefs, and believe what there cultures believe in. Many people will experience Ethical Dilemmas in the work place, however can it be avoided, can companies have enough in place to avoid situations like this or many others from happen again. No one ever wants to deal with certain dilemmas especially where one has to work.

Craig v. Boren - Intermediate Scrutiny Case

Craig v. Boren - Intermediate Scrutiny Case In Craig v. Boren, the U.S. Supreme Court established a new standard of judicial review, intermediate scrutiny, for laws with gender-based classifications. The 1976 decision involved an Oklahoma law that prohibited the sale of beer with 3.2% (non-intoxicating) alcohol content to males under age 21 while permitting the sale of such low-alcohol beer to females over the age of 18. Craig v. Boren ruled that the gender classification violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Curtis Craig was the plaintiff, a resident of Oklahoma who was over the age of 18 but under 21 at the time the suit was filed. David Boren was the defendant, who was governor of Oklahoma at the time the case was filed. Craig sued Boren in a federal district court, alleging that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause. The district court had upheld the state statute, finding evidence that such gender-based discrimination was justified because of gender-based differences in arrests and traffic injuries caused by males and females ages 18 to 20. Thus, the court held that there was justification on the basis of safety for discrimination. Fast Facts: Craig v. Boren Case Argued: Oct. 5, 1976Decision Issued: Dec. 20, 1976Petitioner: Curtis Craig, a male who was over 18 but under 21, and Carolyn Whitener, an Oklahoma alcohol vendorRespondent: David Boren, Governor of OklahomaKey Questions: Did an Oklahoma statute violate the 14th Amendments Equal Protection Clause by establishing different drinking ages for men and women?Majority Decision: Brennan, Stewart, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, StevensDissenting: Burger, RehnquistRuling: The Supreme Court ruled that the statute violated the 14th Amendment by making unconstitutional gender classifications. Intermediate Scrutiny: a  New Standard The case is significant to feminism because of the intermediate scrutiny standard. Prior to Craig v. Boren, there had been much debate about whether sex-based classifications or gender classifications, were subject to strict scrutiny or mere rational basis review. If gender became subject to strict scrutinies, like race-based classifications, then laws with gender classifications would have to be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. But the Supreme Court was reluctant to add gender as another suspect class, along with race and national origin. Laws that did not involve a suspect classification were subject only to rational basis review, which asks whether the law is rationally related to a legitimate government interest.​ Three Tiers Are a Crowd? After several cases in which the Court seemed to apply a higher scrutiny than rational basis without really calling it heightened scrutiny, Craig v. Boren finally made clear that there was a third tier. Intermediate scrutiny falls between strict scrutiny and rational basis. Intermediate scrutiny is used for sex discrimination or gender classifications. Intermediate scrutiny asks whether the laws gender classification is substantially related to an important governmental objective.Justice William Brennan authored the opinion in Craig v. Boren, with Justices White, Marshall, Powell and Stevens concurring, and Blackmun joining in most of the opinion.  They found that the state had not shown a substantial connection between the statute and the benefits alleged and that statistics were insufficient to establish that connection.  Thus, the state had not shown that gender discrimination substantially served a government purpose (in this case, safety).  Blackmuns concurring opinion arg ued that the higher, strict scrutiny, a standard was met. Chief Justice Warren Burger and Justice William Rehnquist wrote dissenting opinions, criticizing the Courts creation of an acknowledgment of a third tier, and arguing that the law could stand on the rational basis argument. They remained opposed to establishing the new standard of intermediate scrutiny.  Rehnquists dissent argued that a liquor vendor who had joined the suit (and the majority opinion accepted such standing) had no constitutional standing as his own constitutional rights were not threatened.Edited and with additions by   Jone Johnson Lewis