We are our choices. This quote by Jean-Paul Sartre directly applies to the situation Jane finds herself in. Are following rules and ethics important if it comes to the detriment of others?
In the case study Phantom Expenses Jane is faced with this dilemma. Should she allow coworkers to continue their illegal practices or should Jane not cooperate and report actual expenses? Either choice seems like a lose-lose. In these types of situations it’s always easier to think about short term consequence as opposed to the long term. Jane should, however, focus on the degree of consequence that comes along with falsifying expenses within a major corporation and do her job in as honest a way as possible. Honesty is representative of structure within a …show more content…
The situation is similar to that of the Heinz Dilemma. The story focuses on a man named Heinz who’s wife is on her deathbed and the doctor who has the cure for his wife’s sickness overcharges, which eventually leads to Heinz stealing it. The theory leading up to an eventual actions is called the Kohlberg theory. When apply this theory to Janes dilemma it would be broken down into six different stages before she comes to her course of action. The first stage is obedience which is considering authority and the repercussion of action. Stage two is centered on Janes self interest. Stage three has to do with approval of Ann and her other peers. Stage four is the following of social rules and upholding the law. Stage five is a social contract Jane has with the company who gave her an opportunity. The final stage focuses on Janes self-chosen ethical principles. This theory is not only applicable to the case study, there are real life cases of malfeasance similar to the …show more content…
If reps are owed the money and the company doesn’t pay them according to expenses accumulated then they have the right to act in employee interest. Others may even oppose Jane taking the opposite approach from coworkers due to the effects it would have communally within the company. Those are both understandable points ,however, there are better ways for the reps to be compensated what is owed. With most job descriptions in modern America there are unions associated. The purpose of the union is to guarantee fair salaries and fix any unjust work conditions. If workers banned together to form a union then their issues could be settled in a more suitable manner. The worst case scenario would be the company firing all the reps which could lead to the filing of grievances and legal action on behalf of workers. By illegally taking funds from the company workers are not only risking getting fired, but also jail time. Ann approaching the newcomer with a Robin Hoodlike complex of taking from the rich and giving to the needy is a manipulative maneuver. Especially considering Jane is coming off training where she learned company protocol and vowed to abide by it. It is unfair for one of the highest reps to convince her to take illegal action within a company she’s never received any compensation from to begin
In the case study Phantom Expenses Jane is faced with this dilemma. Should she allow coworkers to continue their illegal practices or should Jane not cooperate and report actual expenses? Either choice seems like a lose-lose. In these types of situations it’s always easier to think about short term consequence as opposed to the long term. Jane should, however, focus on the degree of consequence that comes along with falsifying expenses within a major corporation and do her job in as honest a way as possible. Honesty is representative of structure within a …show more content…
The situation is similar to that of the Heinz Dilemma. The story focuses on a man named Heinz who’s wife is on her deathbed and the doctor who has the cure for his wife’s sickness overcharges, which eventually leads to Heinz stealing it. The theory leading up to an eventual actions is called the Kohlberg theory. When apply this theory to Janes dilemma it would be broken down into six different stages before she comes to her course of action. The first stage is obedience which is considering authority and the repercussion of action. Stage two is centered on Janes self interest. Stage three has to do with approval of Ann and her other peers. Stage four is the following of social rules and upholding the law. Stage five is a social contract Jane has with the company who gave her an opportunity. The final stage focuses on Janes self-chosen ethical principles. This theory is not only applicable to the case study, there are real life cases of malfeasance similar to the …show more content…
If reps are owed the money and the company doesn’t pay them according to expenses accumulated then they have the right to act in employee interest. Others may even oppose Jane taking the opposite approach from coworkers due to the effects it would have communally within the company. Those are both understandable points ,however, there are better ways for the reps to be compensated what is owed. With most job descriptions in modern America there are unions associated. The purpose of the union is to guarantee fair salaries and fix any unjust work conditions. If workers banned together to form a union then their issues could be settled in a more suitable manner. The worst case scenario would be the company firing all the reps which could lead to the filing of grievances and legal action on behalf of workers. By illegally taking funds from the company workers are not only risking getting fired, but also jail time. Ann approaching the newcomer with a Robin Hoodlike complex of taking from the rich and giving to the needy is a manipulative maneuver. Especially considering Jane is coming off training where she learned company protocol and vowed to abide by it. It is unfair for one of the highest reps to convince her to take illegal action within a company she’s never received any compensation from to begin