6-21-2

Ethical Decision-Making: Employer Responsibilities and

Employee Rights

McGraw-Hill/IrwinBusiness Ethics: Decision-Making for Personal Integrity & Social Responsibility, Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

Chapter6

6-31-3

"We can invest all the money on Wall Street in new technologies, but we can't realize the benefits of

improved productivity until companies

rediscover the value of human loyalty."

- Frederick Reichheld, Director, Bain & Co.

Ethics is tougher than you think . . .

6-41-4

Chapter Objectives

After exploring this chapter, you will be able to:1. Discuss the two distinct perspectives on the ethics of workplace

relationships.

2. Explain the concept of due process in the workplace.

3. Define “employment at will” and its ethical rationale.

4. Describe the costs of an EAW environment.

5. Explain how due process relates to performance appraisals.

6. Discuss whether it is possible to downsize in an ethical manner

7. Explain the difference between intrinsic and instrumental value in terms of health and safety

8. Describe the “acceptable risk” approach to health and safety in the workplace

6-51-5

Chapter Objectives After exploring this chapter, you will be able to:

9. Describe the nature of an employer’s responsibility with regard to employee health and safety and why the market is not the most effective arbiter of this responsibility

10. Explain the basic arguments for and against regulation of the global labor environment

11. Describe the argument for a market-based resolution to workplace discrimination.

12. Define diversity as it applies to the workplace.13. Explain the benefits and challenges of diversity for the

workplace.14. Define affirmative action and explain the three ways in which

affirmative action may be legally permissible.15. Articulate the basic guidelines for affirmative actions programs

6-61-6

Opening Decision Point: Abercrombie & Fitch

Do you see a connection between the subject of the lawsuit discussed above and the choices made surrounding the t-shirt line?

Do you that Abercrombie & Fitch did anything wrong in its choice to sell these t-shirts that would justify the protests and negative attention? What are the key facts relevant to your determination?

What are the ethical issues involved in your decision? Who are the stakeholders involved this scenario? Are the stakeholders rights abridged? In what way?

6-71-7

Opening Decision Point: Abercrombie & Fitch

Even if you answer no to the first question, above, evidently certain stakeholders believed that Abercrombie & Fitch acted inappropriately. Other than not selling the shirts at all, is there any other way to have prevented this from happening in the first place? What alternatives were available to it originally? How would each of these new alternatives have affected each of the stakeholders you have identified?

Moving forward from this point, what alternatives now exist for Abercrombie & Fitch to heal relationships with its stakeholders? What recommendations would you offer to Abercrombie & Fitch?

6-81-8

Decision-Making @ Work

We all have decisions to make about how we will treat others in the workplace and how we will ask to be treated.

Ethics at work and in human resource management is about our relationships with others and with our organizations.

6-91-9

Decision-Making @ Work (insert obj. 1)

There are two very distinct, and sometimes competing, perspectives on the ethics of workplace relationships.

On one hand, employers might decide to treat employees well as a means to produce greater workplace harmony and productivity. When employees see that a firm values their emotions, as well as

exhibits values such as honesty, respect and trust, they feel less pressure, more valued as employees and are also more satisfied with their organizations.

6-101-10

Decision-Making @ Work

On the other hand, of course, employers might treat employees well out of a Kantian sense of duty and rights, regardless of the either utilitarian or self-interested productivity consequences. This deontological approach emphasizes the rights and duties of all

employees, and the interest in treating employees well simply because “it is the right thing to do.”

This sense of duty might stem from the law, professional codes of conduct, corporate codes of conduct, or such moral principles as fairness, justice, or human rights on the part of the organization’s leadership.

6-111-11

Defining the Parameters of the Employment Relationship:

Due Process (insert obj. 2)

In legal contexts, due process refers to the procedures that police and courts must follow in exercising their authority over citizens.

Few dispute that the state, through its police and courts, has the authority to punish citizens.

This authority creates a safe and orderly society in which we all can live, work and do business.

But that authority is not unlimited; it can be exercised only in certain ways and under certain conditions.

Due process rights specify these conditions.

Philosophically, the right of due process is the right to be protected against the arbitrary use of authority.

6-121-12

Due Process . . . at Work

Similarly, due process in the workplace acknowledges an employer’s authority over employees.

Employers can tell employees what to do and when and how to do it.

They can exercise such control because they retain the ability to discipline or fire an employee who does not comply with their authority. Because of the immense value that work holds for most people, the threat of losing one’s job is a powerful motivation to comply.

However, basic fairness—implemented through due process—demands that this power be used justly.

6-131-13

Employment at Will (insert obj. 3)

Ironically, the law has not always clearly supported this mandate of justice.

Much employment law within the United States instead evolved in a context of a legal doctrine known as “Employment at Will.”

Employment at Will (EAW) holds that, absent a particular contractual or other legal obligation that specifies the length or conditions of employment, all employees are employed “at will.”

6-141-14

Employment at Will

This means that, unless an agreement specifies otherwise, employers are free to fire an employee at any time and for any reason.

In the words of an early court decision, “all may dismiss their employee at will, be they many or few, for good cause, for no cause, or even for cause morally wrong.”

In the same manner, an EAW worker may opt to leave a job at any time for any reason, without offering any notice at all; so the freedom is theoretically mutual.

6-151-15

Reasons to Limit EAW (insert obj. 4)

Justice Argument: Even if EAW proved to be an effective management tool, justice demands that such tools not be used to harm other people.

Property Argument: Even if private property rights grant managers authority over employees, the right of private property itself is limited by other rights and duties. Also

Lack of Mutuality: Though the freedom to terminate the relationship is theoretically mutual, the employer is often responsible for the employee’s livelihood, while the opposite is unlikely to be true; so the differential creates an unbalanced power relationship between the two parties.

6-161-16

Due Process: Other Employment Contexts

Employees are under constant supervision and evaluation in the workplace, and such benefits as salary, work conditions, and promotions can also be used to motivate or sanction employees.

Thus, being treated fairly in the workplace also involves fairness in such things as promotions, salary, benefits, and so forth.

Because such decisions are typically made on the basis of performance appraisals, due process rights should also extend to this aspect of the workplace.

6-171-17

Downsizing (insert obj. 6)

Terminating workers – whether one or one hundred – is not necessarily an unethical decision.

However, the decision itself raises ethical quandaries since there may be alternatives available to an organization in financial difficulty.

Once the decision has been made, are there ways in which an organization can act more ethically in the process of downsizing?

How might our earlier discussion on due process and fairness offer some guidance and/or define limitations in a downsizing environment?

6-181-18

Downsizing: The Legal Perspective

The decision about whom to include in a downsizing effort must be carefully planned.

If the firm’s decision is based on some criterion that seems to be neutral on its face, such as seniority, but the plan results in a different impact on one group than another, the decision may be suspect.

To avoid this result, firms should review both the fairness of their decision-making process as well as the consequence of that process on those terminated and the resulting composition of the workforce.

6-191-19

Downsizing: The Legal Perspective

One of the most effective philosophical theories to employ with regard to downsizing decisions would be John Rawls’ theory of justice.

Under his formulation, you would consider what decision you would make – whether to downsize or how to downsize – if you did not know what role you would be playing in the decision.

6-201-20

Health & Safety (insert obj. 7)

Within the United States and throughout many other countries with developed economies, there is a wide consensus that employees have a fundamental right to a safe and healthy workplace.

In some other regions, employees lack even the most basic health and safety protections, such as in working environments that are often termed “sweatshops.”

Even within the United States, this issue becomes quite complicated upon closer examination.

Not only is the very extent of an employer’s responsibility for workplace health and safety in dispute; there is also significant disagreement concerning the best policies to protect worker health and safety.

6-211-21

Health & Safety as “Acceptable Risk” (insert obj. 8)

Employers cannot be responsible for providing an ideally safe and healthy workplace.

Instead, discussions in ethics about employee health and safety will tend to focus on the relative risks faced by workers and the level of acceptable workplace risk.

In this discussion, “risks” can be defined as the probability of harm, and we determine “relative risks” by comparing the probabilities of harm involved in various activities.

Therefore, both risks and relative risks are things that can be determined by scientists who compile and measure data.

6-221-22

Health & Safety as “Acceptable Risk”

It is an easy step from these calculations to certain conclusions about acceptable risks.

If it can be determined that the probability of harm involved in a specific work activity is equal to or less than the probability of harm of some more common activity, then we can conclude that this activity faces an “acceptable level of risk.”

From this perspective, a workplace is “safe” if the risks are “acceptable.”

6-231-23

Challenges with “Acceptable Risk” Approach

This approach treats employees disrespectfully by ignoring their input as stakeholders. Such paternalistic decision-making effectively treats employees like children and makes crucial decisions for them, ignoring their role in the decision-making process.

In making this decision, we assume that health and safety are mere preferences that can be traded-off against competing values, ignoring the fundamental deontological right an employee might have to a safe and healthy working environment.

(continued)

6-241-24

Challenges with “Acceptable Risk” Approach

It assumes an equivalency between workplace risks and other types of risks when there are significant differences between them. Unlike many daily risks, the risks faced in the workplace may not be freely chosen, nor are the risks faced in the workplace within the control of workers.

It disregards the utilitarian concern for the consequences of an unsafe working environment on the social fabric, the resulting product or service created, the morale of the workforce, the community and other large-scale results of an unhealthy workplace.

Unlike some daily risks freely undertaken by each of us, the risks faced at work could be controlled by others and particularly by others who might stand to benefit by not reducing the risks.

6-251-25

Can we leave H&S standards to the market?

Individual bargaining between employers and employees would be the approach to workplace health and safety favored by defenders of the free market and the classical model of corporate social responsibility.

On this account, employees would be free to choose the risks that they are willing to face by bargaining with employers.

Employees would balance their preferences for risk against their demand for wages and decide how much risk they are willing to take for various wages.

Those who demand higher safety and healthier conditions presumably would have to settle for lower wages; those willing to take higher risks presumably would demand higher wages.

6-261-26

Health & Safety as Market-Controlled?

In a competitive and free labor market, such individual bargaining would result in the optimal distribution of safety and income.

The market approach can also support compensation to injured workers when it can be shown that employers were responsible for causing the harms.

The threat of compensation also acts as an incentive for employers to maintain a reasonably safe and healthy workplace.

6-271-27

Challenges to Market Control of H&S (insert obj. 9)

Labor markets are not perfectly competitive and free. Employees do not have the kinds of free choices that the free market theory would require in order to attain optimal satisfactions.

Second, employees seldom, if ever, possess the kind of complete information required by efficient markets. If employees do not know the risks involved in a job, they will not be in a position to freely bargain for appropriate wages and therefore are not in a position to effectively protect their rights or ensure the most ethical consequences.

6-281-28

The Dialogue about Those Challenges

Markets will, over time, compensate for such failures. Over time, employers will find it difficult to attract workers to

dangerous jobs and, over time, employees will learn about the risks of every workplace.

But this raises what we have previously described as the “first generation” problem. The means by which the market gathers information is by observing the harms done to the first generation exposed to imperfect market transactions.

In effect, markets “sacrifice” the first generation in order to gain information about safety and health risks.

These questions of public policy, questions that after all will affect human lives, would never even be asked by an individual facing the choice of working at a risky job or no job at all.

To the degree that these are important questions that ought to be asked, individual bargaining may fail as an ethical public policy approach to worker health and safety.

6-301-30

Is government regulation more appropriate from an ethical perspective?

Mandatory government standards address most of the problems raised against market strategies. Standards can be set according to the best available scientific

knowledge and thus overcome market failures that result from insufficient information.

Standards prevent employees from having to face the fundamentally coercive choice between job and safety.

Standards also address the first generation problem by focusing on prevention rather than compensation after the fact.

Finally, standards are fundamentally a social approach that can address public policy questions ignored by markets.

6-311-31

Government-Regulated Ethics

In 1970, the U.S. Congress established the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and charged it with establishing workplace health and safety standards.

Since that time, the dominant question has concerned the appropriateness of using cost-benefit analysis to set health and safety standards.

Regulations are aimed at achieving the safest feasible standards, allowing a balancing approach between health and economics – industries are required to meet the highest standards attainable within technological and economic reason.

6-321-32

Government-Regulated Ethics

Some critics charge that this approach does not go far enough and unjustly sacrifices employee health and safety. But the more influential business criticism has argued that these standards go too far.

Critics in both industry and government have argued that OSHA should be required to use cost-benefit analysis in establishing such standards.

From this perspective, even if a standard is technologically and economically feasible, it would still be unreasonable and unfair if the benefits did not outweigh the costs.

These critics argue that OSHA should aim to achieve the optimal, rather than highest feasible, level of safety.

6-331-33

Challenges in the Cost-Benefit Approach to Government-Regulated H&S

The use of cost-benefit analysis in setting workplace health and safety standards commits us to treating worker health and safety as just another commodity, another individual preference, to be traded-off against competing commodities.

It treats health and safety merely as an instrumental value and denies its intrinsic value.

Cost-benefit requires that an economic value be placed on one’s life and bodily integrity.

6-341-34

The Global Workforce (insert obj. 10)

The laws were have discussed so far apply to workers who are employed in the United States.

Workers outside of the United States may be subject to some US laws if they work for an American-based organization, though enforcement is scattered.

In some cases, workers in other countries are often protected by even more stringent laws than those in the US.

But in many other cases, especially in certain developing countries, workers find themselves subject to conditions that US-based workers would find appalling.

6-351-35

What to do?? The answer is not a simple one.

Though few people, if any, would argue for the continuation of the circumstances described above, economists and others do not agree about a solution.

Some contend that the exploitation of cheap labor supplies allows developing countries to expand export activities and to improve their economies. This economic growth brings more jobs, which will cause the labor market to tighten, which in turn will force companies to improve conditions in order to attract workers (see next slide).

In fact, several commentators argue that encouraging greater global production will create additional opportunities for expansion domestically, providing a positive impact on more stakeholders.

6-361-36

6-371-37

Though an unpopular sentiment with the general consuming

public, many economists argue that the maintenance of sweatshops is therefore

supported by economic theory.

6-381-38

“But,” says the other side . . .

Opponents to this perspective argue that allowing this process to take its course will not necessarily lead to the articulated result, just as voluntarily improving legal compliance, wages, and working conditions will not inevitably lead to the negative consequences the free market advocates threaten.

Certainly it is arguable that some minimum standards might apply and multinationals may have some core ethical obligations to employees.

But how do we decide what those should be?

6-391-39

The Case of Child Labor

As we begin to understand the circumstances facing children worldwide, we can see that a simple prohibition might not offer us the best possible solution. (For stats, see notes.)

But what options exist?

6-401-40

The Case of Child Labor

Of course, many economically developed countries currently employ child and juvenile labor, albeit with restrictions, and so one should carefully review the social and economic structure within which the labor exists.

While the easy answer may be to rid all factories of all workers under 18 years of age, that is often not the best answer for the children or the families involved.

In developing countries, children begin work at ages as young as three years. Though children may work in unhealthy conditions, , they also live in unhealthy conditions.

The labor opportunities that exist almost always preclude children from obtaining an education as children often work on a full time basis.

6-411-41

The Case of Child Labor

However, if children are not working, their options are not as optimistic as those for children in developed economies. There are not always sophisticated education systems or public schools.

Often children who do not work in the manufacturing industry are forced to work in less hospitable “underground” professions such as drug dealing or prostitution simply in order to provide for their own food each day.

6-421-42

The Case of Child Labor

Moreover, notwithstanding the possible educational alternatives in some environments, recommending removal of the child from the workplace completely ignores the financial impacts of terminating the employment of a youth worker.

The income generated by the youth worker may, at the very least, assist in supporting that particular youth’s fundamental needs (food, clothing and shelter); and, at the very most, it may be critical in supporting the entire family.

6-431-43

Rights and Responsibilities in Conflict: Discrimination, Diversity and Affirmative Action

With regard to the above issues, we are discussing several matters that remain open to debate by scholars, jurists and corporate leaders.

The focus is on those subtle areas where perhaps the law has not yet become so settled, where it remains open to diverse cultural interpretations, strong minority opinions, and value judgments.

Though the courts are often forced to render judgment, their decisions might result from a non-unanimous vote or through the reversal of a strong lower court opinion representing a contrary perspective.

6-441-44

Philosophical Application

From a Kantian, deontological perspective, there is not yet universal agreement on the fundamental rights that are implicated by these issues, nor on their appropriate prioritization.

From a utilitarian viewpoint, neither do these reasonable minds always agree on which resolution might lead toward the greatest common good, or even what that good should be ultimately.

Distributive justice does not provide a clear cut solution as there is often an argument for fairness from each camp and other theories provide similar quandaries.

6-451-45

Discrimination

The courts have carefully construed legal precedent in the decades since Title VII of the United States Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964 and created the prohibited classes of discrimination.

Though several specific areas of delicate and subtle quandaries remain, many of the original legal and ethical debates have been fought, offering business decision-makers arguably clear guidance on appropriate behavior in the workplace (i.e. sexual harassment).

6-461-46

“Black Letter Law” in the U.S.

Employers are permitted to make decisions on any basis other than those prohibited by the Constitution, precedent and several statutes (such as age, religion, race, disability, gender, national origin, color).

Some commentators would contend that this broad mandate allows employers enormous autonomy in their employment decisions while many employers still bemoan any regulation of their workplaces.

6-471-47

Lack of Global Agreement

There remains widespread disagreement on a global basis as to the rights of employees with regard to discrimination, the extent of protected classes and the more specific sub-topics such as diversity and affirmative action.

Even in the United States, the concept of discrimination is one that remains one of the most intensely debated issues today.

Employers continue to advocate for their rights to manage the workplaces and to be permitted to hire, retain and terminate without external influence or control.

Employees fear unfair treatment and a loss of power based on reasons completely outside their control.

** See notes for Objective 11.

6-481-48

Discrimination Persists . . .

Discrimination persists in the United States with regard to race (see notes), as well as gender.

Women often face challenges that are distinct from those faced by men.

For instance, women and men are both subject to gender stereotyping, but suffer from different expectations in that regard. A woman who is aggressive in the workplace is often considered

to be a bully, while a man is deemed to be doing what he needs to do to get ahead.

Diversity (insert obj. 12)

Diversity refers to the presence of differing cultures, languages, ethnicities, races, affinity orientations, genders, religious sects, abilities, social classes, ages and national origins of the individuals in a firm.

6-501-50

Statistics

Ninety percent of employees in U.S. businesses believe they have a diverse workforce where they work.

It is estimated that, by 2010, only 20% of the workforce will be white, non-disabled men under 45.

As one might expect, the management composition at firms with diversity programs is significantly more diverse than those at firms that do not have such programs and 79% of senior managers at those firms say that cultivating a more diverse workforce is part of the organization’s overall business strategy.

6-511-51

Diversity = $$? (Reality Check)

The positive impact on the overall strategy is not insignificant A study by Catalyst (2004) evidenced a strong link between gender

diversity in top management teams and corporate financial performance.

The study’s authors contend that the link is based on the fact that employers who pay attention to diversity have a larger and more capable applicant pool from whom to choose the best workers.

These organizations are also better positioned to respond more effectively to a diverse consumer population. In addition, these firms evidence better decision-making, production and other critical success factors.

6-521-52

Benefits and Challenges of Diversity for the Workplace (insert obj. 13)

When a firm brings together individuals with these (or other) differences – often exposing these individuals to these differences for the first time – there are likely to be areas of tension and anxiety.

In addition, the organization is likely to ask that they work together toward common goals, on teams, in supervisory or subordinate roles, in power relationships, all requests that might lead to conflicts or tension even without additional stressors such as cultural challenges.

There are several areas of potentially increased values tension with regard to diversity. Where differences are new or strong, and where negative stereotypes previously ruled interactions between particular groups, sensitivity to the potential for conflict is necessary.

6-531-53

Benefits and Challenges, continued

Another concern involves integrating diverse viewpoints with a pre-existing corporate culture.

There seems nothing inappropriate about seeking to ensure that workers will support the particular values of a firm, but it might be difficult to do this while also encouraging diversity.

The diversity that might be the source of positive gains for the organization might also be the source of challenging fundamental differences and these differences must be balanced.

Some scholars suggest that job applicants be screened with regard to their values – but how does one do this?

6-541-54

Affirmative Action (insert obj. 14)

Does one person deserve a position more than another person?

For instance, efforts to encourage greater diversity may also be seen as a form of “reverse discrimination” - in other words, discrimination against those individuals who are traditionally considered to be in power or the majority, such as white men.

A business that intentionally seeks to hire a candidate from an underrepresented group might be seen as discriminating against white males, for example.

Affirmative ActionA policy or a program that tries to respond to instances where there has been some past discrimination by implementing proactive measures in order to ensure equal opportunity today.

It may take the form of intentional inclusion of previously excluded groups in employment, education or other environments.

6-561-56

Affirmative Action

The use of Affirmative Action policies in both business and universities has been controversial for decades.

In its first discussion of affirmative action in employment, the U.S. Supreme Court found that employers could intentionally include minorities (and thereby exclude others) in order to redress past wrongs.

However, the holding was not without great restrictions, of course, thereby leaving most employers with a great deal of confusion.

Even today, the law does not provide extraordinary clarity and we are thus left with values systems to instead provide direction, which we will discuss shortly.

6-571-57

How Affirmative Action Arises in the Workplace.

1. Much of the law relating to affirmative action applies only to about 20% of the workforce – those employees of federal contractors with 50 or more employees who are subject to Executive Order 11246, which requires affirmative action efforts to ensure equal opportunity.

2. Where Executive Order 11246 does not apply, courts may also impose require efforts through what is termed “judicial affirmative action” in order to remedy a finding of past discrimination.

3. (continued next slide)

6-581-58

How Affirmative Action Arises in the Workplace.

3. A third form of affirmative action involves voluntary affirmative action plans that are undertaken by employers in order to overcome barriers to equal opportunity.

In order to justify affirmative action efforts under either of these latter two options, there must be a demonstrated under-representation or finding of past discrimination.

6-591-59

Guidelines for Affirmative Action Programs (insert obj. 15)

Consider how the following legal constraints to an affirmative action program are in line with deontological and teleological frameworks that support ethical decision-making, as well: The affirmative action efforts or policy may not unnecessarily infringe

upon the majority employees’ rights or create an absolute bar to their advancement.

The affirmative action effort or policy may not set aside any positions for women or minorities and may not be construed as quotas to be met.

It should unsettle no legitimate, firmly rooted expectation of employees. It should be only temporary in that it is for the purpose of attaining, not

maintaining, a balanced workforce. It should represent a minimal intrusion into the legitimate, settled

expectations of other employees.

6-601-60

Opposition to Affirmative Action Programs

Opponents claim that the efforts do more harm than good, that they create ill will and poor morale among work forces.

They argue that they translate into current punishment of past wrongs and therefore are inappropriately placed since those who “pay” for the wrongs are unfairly burdened and should not bear the responsibility for the acts of others.

It is not merely the white males who articulate this claim. Ward Connerly, an African-American Regent of the University of California discussed affirmative action during a 60 Minutes interview and stated, “Black Americans are not hobbled by chains any longer. We’re free to compete. We’re capable of competing. It is an absolute insult to suggest that we can’t.”

6-611-61

Discussion of Opening Decision Point: Abercrombie & Fitch

With regard to the postscript for the 2003 class action lawsuit against A&F, a settlement agreement was reached between A&F and more than 10,000 claimants who were Latino, African American, Asian American and female applicants and employees of the company.

Under the settlement, A&F agreed to pay claims ranging from several hundred dollars to thousands of dollars, depending on the claimants particular damages and the extent to which they contributed to the prosecution of the case – totaling $50 million, including attorneys’ fees.

In addition, under the agreement, A&F also is required to institute policies and programs to promote diversity among its workforce and to prevent discrimination based on race or gender.

6-621-62

Discussion of Opening Decision Point: Abercrombie & Fitch

It is important to consider the additional elements included in of the settlement agreement because they were included in order to promote diversity in A&F’s workforce. (Included in the text and notes)

Consider whether any of these elements might have helped A&F to have avoided the challenging circumstances in which it found itself at the beginning of this chapter.

If it had instituted some of these prior to the t-shirt situation, maybe it would not have found itself in that hot water.

6-631-63

Discussion of Opening Decision Point: Abercrombie & Fitch

When one explores the impact of the t-shirt controversy, it is interesting to consider both sides of the stakeholder opinions.

Though emotional pain and the perpetuation of historic discrimination was expressed from one perspective, others felt that people had become too thin-skinned and that, as a society, we had moved beyond these issues to a point where poking fun at stereotypes was acceptable, hence A&F’s response.

One of the values, though, in a diverse workforce, is the ability to weigh the varying perspectives of myriad stakeholders.

While one group might consider a marketing campaign to be “poking fun,” another might be brutally pained by the mockery.

A greater diversity among decision-makers certainly does not guarantee that all perspectives are represented by does ensure more broad opinions might be considered.

6-641-64

Discussion of Opening Decision Point: Abercrombie & Fitch

A&F might benefit from a more broad opinion on a variety of matters. In recent years, it has drawn criticism from Mothers Against Drunk

Driving for its “Dinking 101” directions for “creative drinking” in its catalogs aimed at college students and from several family-oriented organizations for its children’s thong underwear with the words “eye candy” and “wink wink” printed on the front.

With headlines such as “Abercrombie Criticized for Sexy Undies,” perhaps A&F again misjudged its audience.

A&F responded, saying that “the underwear for young girls was created with the intent to be lighthearted and cute,” and placing any misunderstanding “purely in the eye of the beholder.”

6-651-65

Chapter Six Vocabulary Terms After examining this Chapter, you should have a clear understanding of the following

Key Terms and you will find them defined in the Glossary:

Affirmative Action Child Labor Discrimination Diversity Downsize Due Process Employment at Will (EAW) Just Cause Multiculturalism OSHA “Reverse” discrimination Sweatshops