Brittany Diederich
Group assignment
Philosophy 216
October 12, 2012
A RESOLVEDD Analysis of the Case of “The Price of Honesty”
Review
Dennis Meany is an employee who, if not covered by the union, would have been dismissed long
ago. He comes in late, refuses to do certain tasks, and lowers worker morale and work-ethic. He has
applied for a higher paid position at a different company, which would be an opportunity to improve the
morale and work-ethic of the company, but the prospective employer, Mr. Singh, wants a glowing
review or else he will choose one of two other worthy candidates over Dennis.
While the only reason that he has been allowed to stay with my company so long is because of his
union contract, it is wrong to lie about Dennis’s work ethic just to get rid of him. There is no specific
person at fault for this moral dilemma, however, if I follow through and give Mr. Singh a positive review,
I would be providing him a sub-par employee and hurting his business.
Regardless of my decision, there would be disagreement. Most people, particularly my plant
manager, are eager to get rid of Dennis, but morally, the honesty principle would be violated. Additional
information I need to make an effective decision would be if Mr. Singh’s company was also under a
union contract.
Ethical Problem
My options are to lie about Dennis being a good employee and encourage Mr. Singh to employ him,
or tell the truth and have him remain at my company. It is difficult to decide what to do because while
Dennis violates the do no harm principle by harming the company’s productivity and the work ethic and
morale of other employees, I would violate the honesty principle by telling the innocent third party that
he is a good employee.
I think the gravest ethical issue is the potential violation of the honesty principle and violation of Mr.
Singh’s autonomy. I will need to consider what the other company will think of us if we give Dennis a
positive review when he is a headache to management and other workers and I need to think about
what the morale of the company will be if he continues to stay at our company. As far as I can see, there
are three possible solutions.
Solution One
Lie to the manager and say that Dennis is a great employee.
Outcomes of Solution One
Dennis would probably get the job at Mr. Singh’s factory, but it is unlikely he would be a model
employee at his new place of employment. Dennis would be getting a raise and apparently good
benefits from the new company, but if they are also union based, his new manager will resent the
company that I work for because I mislead them about the quality of an employee when they had two
strong candidates competing for the same position. On the other side of the situation, my plant
manager would commend me for finding a way to rid the company of Dennis.
Likely Impact of Solution One
Dennis’s new place of employment would probably suffer the same worker morale drop that I
have, Mr. Singh would have a new frustration, and my review would be criticized as being deceitful. The
company that I work for may have a negative effect on its reputation because of my dishonest review.
Dennis, however, would have a positive outcome by getting a pay raise, more benefits, and a change of
scenery.
Values concerned with Solution One
The values upheld by my decision are the do-no-harm principle and the right to workplace
safety. My company is upholding its right to keep the financials of the company unharmed, keep the
quality of our products high since Dennis produced many defective items, and keep the work-ethic of
the other employees unharmed. The right to workplace safety is also upheld because Dennis’s
negligence could compromise safety for other employees.
There are a large number of violated values to this decision as well. I violate many of Mr. Singh’s
rights; I violate his right to know, his right to honesty, and his right to autonomy all by lying to him and
misleading him about the quality of an employee. I also harm their company’s productivity and work
ethic by giving them an employee that I know has been detrimental to my own work environment. I also
violate the do-no-harm principle for the other two qualified candidates who were applying for the same
position as Dennis.
Solution Two
Tell the truth to Mr. Singh and have him choose one of two other qualified candidates over Dennis.
Outcomes of Solution Two
I would be stuck with Dennis, but my relationship with the other company would probably stay
intact and our reputation as an honest company would be preserved. I would have to witness Dennis
continue to defy authority and recite his union contract as an excuse, and my other employees would
continue to see and take note of the way that he treats me. Worker morale may change for the worse
and my plant manager may be upset with me.
Likely Impact of Solution Two
My workers would continue to decline in their productivity, and others may defy authority also
based on what Dennis has gotten away with, since they are also under union contract. Dennis would
probably continue to act unproductively, perhaps even more so since I prevented him from getting a job
that he obviously wanted if he went through the application process. I may have also impacted Dennis’s
life by making it so that he did not receive more money and a better position than the one he has with
my company.
Values Concerned with Solution Two
My decision to tell the truth to the potential employer upheld many ethical values. Mr. Singh’s
right to know is upheld because as a potential employer, he has the right to know that Dennis is a poor
employee. My right to free expression is upheld because I can say express my real opinion of Dennis’s
work. Mr. Singh’s principle of autonomy for prospective employer is upheld, because he has been given
the information to really make an informed decision.
There are a few values that were violated by this decision, as well. As much as I feel that Dennis
is undeserving of a promotion at an innocent company, I violated the do-no-harm principle by making it
so he did not receive a promotion or raise. My company was also harmed because it continues to
employ someone who produces more defective products and who shirks off on his duties. I also violated
the principle of fidelity to my boss because he asked me to try and get rid of Dennis and I did not.
Solution Three
Negotiate with the union and see if they will consider removing Dennis’s contract, or talk to him
directly. I would not imagine that they would want to risk positive relations with a large company over
one employee who is not a positive representation of their labor force. If they do not consider my
request, I could hire legal counsel to locate a clause in Dennis’s contract that would allow me to fire him
without repercussions.
Outcomes of Solution Three
If the union will negotiate with me, I may have the ability to fire Dennis without passing him
along to another company. Either the union could remove his contract or perhaps they would talk
directly to Dennis and tell him that he is not being a good representative of an employee and he would
respond modify his behavior.
Likely Impact of Solution Three
The union could either comply with my requests to talk to Dennis or remove his contract or they
could ignore me altogether. This would require Dennis to change his attitude, which would be positive.
If they ignored me, I could hire legal counsel.
Values Concerned with Solution Three
There are several values that I preserve with this decision. I am upholding my right to due
process; I should be allowed to speak to the union about one case. I am also keeping my company safe
from harm by keeping a positive relationship with the union and possibly getting rid of Dennis. This
solution also allows me not to lie to Mr. Singh, which preserves his moral rights to honesty, right to
know, and autonomy.
There is only one value violated by this decision and that is Dennis’s right to be free from harm. I
am possibly terminating either his union contract or his employment with me, which would harm him
financially. It also could be argued though that his actions merited this fate.
Evaluation
The consequences of solution one are very grave in terms of the moral fiber of the company I work
for. I am lying to Mr. Singh and giving him an employee who is less qualified than the other candidates
and I should be honest with him. Solution one violates many of Mr. Singh’s rights gravely by harming
their company, their right to know and make a decision off of what they know and by violating their
right to honesty. While getting rid of Dennis is a benefit of lying to Mr. Singh, the principle of honesty is
too important to me to violate.
In solution two, it is almost certain if I gave him an honest review of Dennis that Mr. Singh’s
company would not hire him , and it is almost one hundred percent likely that Dennis would continue
his negative behavior at my company and seek shelter behind his union contract. This decision violates
both my company’s and Dennis’s do-no-harm principle; Dennis remaining at my company is bad for my
company and Dennis is hurt because apparently he does not want to be employed for our company
anymore.
Solution three is probably the best because it does not require me to lie to the other employer and
talking to the union may adjust Dennis’s behavior.
The other solutions are rejected because solution one violates many important principles gravely,
and solution two does not lead to the change in Dennis’s behavior which is just going to continue to go
downward and harm my company more badly. Solution three may lead to a change in Dennis’s behavior
which is an improvement.
Decision
I will carry out the decision by giving an honest review of Dennis, which will most likely result in Mr.
Singh hiring one of the other candidates. After that, I will try to schedule a meeting with a union
representative and explain how Dennis is not representing their union well; if they do not respond, I will
get legal advice on how to either adjust Dennis’s behavior or fire him.
This decision allows me to uphold the most values for my company and does not harm the other
company. It upholds my reputation and it may improve worker morale if Dennis is actually talked to by
the union, or if other employees see that his behavior is not tolerated. My plant manager will be happy
if I get Dennis to be a better employee or if I can simply terminate him. If Dennis loses his job because of
his behavior, it may even benefit him in the end by forcing him to reevaluate his decisions.
Defense
The clearest weaknesses of my decision are that the union could just ignore me, but if that happens,
I will turn to legal counsel for whatever I could do next. It also leads to Dennis staying here, but that is
defensible because keeping him here is better than being known as a lying company.
If the union ignores me, the situation will stay exactly as it is now. Then, with legal counsel, we will
try to protect the company and find fire able grounds to get rid of Dennis.
Legal counsel is the best defense to anyone who points out that the union could ignore me. I will
stand by a decision that does not hurt an outside company. By potentially correcting Dennis’s behavior
or just terminating him, the company will be better off and I will be able to please my supervisor.