Business Ethics Reluctant Security Guard case

BUSINESS ETHICS
Name:
Grade Course:
Tutor’s Name:
(26 October 2010)
Business Ethics
This essay is going to centralize on the unethical treatment which employees are subjected to by their employers. The essay shall detail the story of a young security guard named Tuff whose refutes to obey company policy which is in violation with the state of Minneapolis, and the police laws under which his working ethics of conducts are monitored. This will combine also with personal reflection on the happening which led to the unjust dismissal of Tuff as an employee of Blue Mountain Company.
Moral Ethics on the Security Guard Action
Tuff an employee of the blue mountain security company took the right action of being the whistler blow of this organization unethical policy. The policy which Tuff was on about was in violation of the employee’s rights which are protected under National Labor Relation Act of 1935. The employees were submitted to acting against their will on policies which are against the requirement of their licenses as noted by Pinedo and Beauchamp (1998).
The policy instilled by the Blue mountain company was in violation of the requirement instilled by the state concerning the conduct of the security officer behavior. The penalties which would have arise if one of the drunkards whom had been ushered into the road without reporting to the police caused harm to human life or accident resulting to property destruction, would have resulted to outright revocation of the license.
The merit behind Blue Mountain policy was targeted at pleasing their clients and also the drunken patrons who frequented the malls. This however, this policy was in violation of the conduct of security officers which are mandated by the county police department and Minnesota State and locals laws. Under Section V, subsection D which indicates that should there be a serious accident or criminal activity arise within the parameter where the licensee (security officer) is deployed, then the licensee should notify the police unit which they are assigned. However, failure to do so would result to revocation of the license. Further the promulgation rules behind the security officer license states that all lawful orders are to be obeying if they align with the orders promulgated by the superintendent police officer as echoed by Pinedo and Beauchamp (1998).
Personally I would also have taken the same action executed by Tuff, this action are based on the good of the majority of the people. The director of security Manuel Hernandez main concern was pleasing the clientele other than minding their safety and other rod user’s lives. Tuff decision is morally and ethically right, although the rest of the workers showed discontent on the policy they were mostly concerned with their paychecks more than their revocation of the licenses which would have resulted to the same thing (Pinedo & Beauchamp, 1998).
Case of Unjust Dismissal
Although the organization particularly advocates that employees do not disclose organizations policies to the press. Tuff had tried at all level to level out his grievances to the director of security Manuel Hernandez. However, all Tuff concerned were counter attacked and regarded as complains. The board even named Tuff a complainer whose ethic are morally that of a lazy person. When Tuff brought concerns about the drunkard being escorted to the main road from the parking lot without reporting this drunkard behavior to the police, the director indicated to Tuff that in the event of an accident he should contact his supervisor who would then make the appropriate decision (Brink, 1999). The license and the regulation set by the promulgating police officer in charge of Blue Mountain were in corrosion with the new policies which indicated that security officer without reporting the scenario escort drunk patrons from the malls parking lot.
The manager and director of security had been prior informed about the risk whic...