Speaking Out about Malt Case 8.3 Page 404-405, Moral Issues in Business The case of Whitewater Brewing and Mary Davis touches upon several views and moral issues that are not specifically black or white. Case 8.3 specifically deals with a business called Whitewater Brewing Co. Whitewater Brewing, as its name sounds, is a manufacturer of alcoholic refreshments, selling its brands to various consumers. The article in particular focuses upon a specific Whitewater product, Rafter. Rafter is being targeted to match other similar products that are bottled in a 40 ounce size. The unfortunate part is that these 40 ounce size refreshments are not only popular with inner-city teenagers but in the area where Whitewater sells these 40 ounce …show more content…
Ralph Jenkins, CEO of Whitewater, writes to Mary Davis to express the company’s views on her behavior and to ask her to first clear all further comments (regarding her personal views on liquor production) with the business. Mary feels this to be an invasion of her right to free speech. Additionally Mary informs Ralph Jenkins that she seeks to pursue her article further and even speak at an engagement about her views (personal ones). Mr. Jenkins remains adamant that Mary adhere to his requests further escalating things to state she can either comply or resign. So does Davis have a moral right to free speech in the workplace, or can Whitewater determine the extent to her ‘free’ speech? Also what would Davis’s best path ethical path be? The second is the easiest to answer so I will do that now. Davis could simply put resign, enabling her to champion her beliefs and become a martyr for her cause, as it were. As for the first question the answer is not a simple clear cut one, and ultimately will be an individual one. Currently there is already legal precedent that allows companies to require employees not to “act or speak disloyally”. Take the following case: In Korb v. Raytheon, 574 N.E.2d 370, 410 Mass. 581 (1991), Raytheon terminated Lawrence Korb after receiving complaints of his public involvement in an anti-nuclear proliferation nonprofit known as the
Two issues are present in the case. The first is a decision on what research should be conducted by Manson and Associates to allow Larry Brownlow to estimate the feasibility of a Coors beer distributorship for a two-county area in Delaware. This issue is evident, even stressed, throughout the case. The second issue is a decision on whether or not the distributorship is feasible or, in other words, a go/no-go decision by Brownlow regarding his application. This issue is largely implicit in the case.
For a more than half of clan, the fine they free their eyes, they are already rational about grabbing a cup of java. More than 83 percent of Americans drink coffee quotidian, with most consuming at least 2 to 3 topping-bouts a day. Whether you prepare by fermentation it at domicile or clutch some at a topical eatery, coffee seems to have become a mainstay in most people's quotidian life. So what is the foot streak when it comes to whether coffee is deemed of good health or not? With more than 1.5 billion topping-bout being served up quotidian, one can only trust it is a of good health choice.
In this case, Tiger Fly Fishing’s non-compete agreement does not extend beyond their reasonable competitive business interests. Unlike Whirlpool Corp v Burns, There is evidence that Max Verlander has disclosed or is likely to disclose any information subject to the agreement because Montana Fly Company is reasonably competitive with Tiger. Verlander sells “all kinds of” fly
Korb argued that his comments at the CNS were of no interest to Raytheon because his comments were related to national security. The court cited that Raytheon Corporation, as a defense contractor, had interests in Defense Department funding since most of their revenue are related to Defense Department funding. Mr. Korb also felt that his speech during his free time (lunch hour), he had the right to speak his mind because he was not being paid by Raytheon when his comments were made. The court found that because he made those comments, and he was a Raytheon employee that the public would attribute his comments to
The ethical issues and dilemma described in this chapter is a conflict of interest where there is a romantic interest between Jackie and her future manager. Next is sexual harassment and verbally abused by the manager. And discrimination where she is asking help from the legal department but because she doesn't have enough evidence to prove that the manager abused her.
This case involves five employees from a nonprofit organization. One of the employees named Lydia Cruz-Moore complicated to another coworker named Marianna Cole-Rivera via text message about contacting an agency executive director about the fact that she is doing more than anyone else at the organization. After Cole-Rivera replied to Cruz-Moore text message she then went onto her Facebook and asked other coworkers to comment their thoughts about Cole-Rivera’s criticism about their work and added that she “about had it” (O'Brien, C. N. 2013).
Two issues are present in the case. The first is a decision on what research should be conducted by Manson and Associates to allow Larry Brownlow to estimate the feasibility of a Coors beer distributorship for a two-county area in Delaware. This issue is evident, even stressed, throughout the case. The second issue is a decision on whether or not the distributorship is feasible or, in other words, a go/no-go decision by Brownlow regarding his application. This issue is largely implicit in the case.
Think about this. Early man survived by eating one hundred percent of his calories and drinking plain water. No liquid calories! Today, the average American receives more than one fifth of their calories from soft drinks, fruit juices, milk, alcohol, and recently sports drinks, coffee and tea.
Another key law that an employer must follow is The Civil Rights Act of 1964. This act protects the right of the employees, and under this act the employers cannot discriminate against any individual on the basis of religion, sex, color, race and national origin. If a company does not follow the law then a fine of $1,000 or more is charged or the imprisonment of no less than one year can be imposed (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, n.d).
“It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer . . . by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization.” National Labor Relations Act § 160.
She should consider that the comment she is making will hurt the company not necessarily herself. Businesses are looking for honest individuals that will help the company grow not bring them down. If they fell that constant harm is being done then in turn they can let that person go.
A.1 sought to introduce and launch a new poultry marinade item, and was planning to continue an aggressive marketing campaign against its competitors. However, marketing the new poultry product was a failure and A.1 had to reassess its strategies regarding the launching of new trial marinade brands. The major challenge that A.1 based however was protecting its market share, and brand integrity by counteracting though bold launch of a new steak sauce product by Lawry which was cheaper, and very similar to the A.1 product. Lawry Steak Sauce was one dollar less than A.1. Steak Sauce ($3.99 vs. $4.99), and the Lawry product were 11 ounces whereas A.1 was 10 ounces. Lawry’s product was also similar in taste, texture and packaging as the A.1 product which also presented a serious problem for A.1. Added to this was the fact that Lawry introduced its new product live on an interactive cooking show which gave the product an extra media boost. (Kerin & Peterson, 2011, 634)
That business decision was not an interference with any secured rights under the first amendment of the constitution. Although Korb is free to express whatever opinions he wishes, his employer, Raytheon does not have to pay him to do so.
While McDonald’s and Burger King have fought over a percentage of the same market share, each company has a unique strategy with which they’ve approached the market. McDonald’s aims to deliver an inexpensive, standard, quality meal with high level of uniformity both in burger structure and in delivery times. Burger King also strives for an inexpensive, quality meal, but focuses on allowing the customer a degree of flexibility in the menu – a goal reflected in their long-time slogan, “Have it your way.” This difference results in distinct objectives for each restaurant that resonate
Three friends from the Cambridge University, Richard Reed, Jon Wright and Adam Balon founded the innocent drinks in 1998. All the three were in their respective fields of work and working for different companies after they graduated in 1994. Reed worked for an advertising agency, while Balon and Wright worked for different management consultants. The three friends always had an idea about starting a company of their own and in 1998 they founded the innocent drinks after an intense market research and testing their product.