Bien, John Carlo

BSBA II-5
Module 13

PRE-ASSESSMENT: Read and understand carefully the concepts shown in the

anecdote and answer intelligently the three questions given.

Where Is After-Sales Service?

Spidermart is a shop in Celia’s neighborhood. It is well known for being very

spacious, well supplied and for its enticing advertisements. Celia bought a shower
nozzle at the store and was assured by the salesman that despite the product’s being
quite expensive, Celia got more value for her money because the product is guaranteed
to last a lifetime and was imported from one of the largest sanitary manufacturers in the
world. However, when Celia’s plumber was installing the nozzles, he discovered that the
nozzles were defective. The plumber showed her the newly installed nozzles and she
saw how the water kept gushing out from the wrong places even if they were properly
installed. She was convinced that it is a factory defect, so, she went back to Spidermart
and told the salesman about it. The salesman would not believe her story but Celia
insisted until the store manager was summoned. The manager sided with the salesman
right away and kept convincing Celia that it must be because of wrong installation. The
commotion then resulted to Celia claiming the shop was only violating its catchphrase
and that she had been deceived. The manager still maintained not to replace the
defective nozzles. Celia told her friends about it and one of them suggested that she
raise this issue to the Consumers’ Union. The Consumers’/ Union met with the director
of Spidermart and warned that they will publicize the issue if the shop will not do
anything about the matter. The shop director, out of fear of having the issue blown out
of proportion by the Consumers’ Union, agreed to have the nozzles replaced. Only then
was the issue solved.
Questions:

1. In what instances in the case were violations of corporate social

responsibility evident?
When they didn’t replace the broken nozzles that was bought by the consumer
A breach of corporate social responsibility is obvious because the seller
has told Celia that the product will last for a long time and will be sold at an
expensive price considering its low consistency. Consumers have the right to be
 aware of the actual advantages or quality of a certain good. It is therefore not
acceptable to market a faulty product. It is the duty of the manufacturer to ensure
that all goods published undergo stringent quality management.

2. Was it right for the store manager to immediately side with the salesman?
Why or why not? Justify your answer.
Of course not, he should have checked the item first before siding with the other
side. He should have known better.
It is not right for me but customers have the right to be heard if they have any
questions about a product. The store manager was expected to first listen to
Celia and attempt to empathize with her before he suddenly sided with the
salesman. The manager should never fail to remember client loyalty as it would
have a direct effect on the image of the company.

3. Celia’s case may only be one of the many unpleasant episodes that
happened and remained uninvestigated at Spidermart. Replacing the
defective nozzles does not totally resolve the core of the matter as the
Consumers’ Union has given Spidermart a warning and many customers
may suddenly come out in the open upon hearing the news about the case
of Celia. As a shop director, what are the next steps that you must do?
Give the staff a training and guide them to be more accommodating and always
check theproduct before thinking of conclusions.

As a shop director, I will make sure that this issue will not happen again. I
will identify what caused the problem and will try to fix it as soon as possible. I
will also improve the production process of goods and will apply strict quality
control to prevent the resale of defective products. I will conduct special training
about consumer’s rights and corporate social responsibility to extend employee’s
knowledge about the topic to avoid any trouble or misunderstanding in the
future.   
Reinforcement: Analyze the case and answer the two questions given at the end of the
story.   

                                                     FAIR WAGE? 

         CHEHOMA Corporation has been operating for almost ten years now. After five
years of operation, it started borrowing money from the bank yearly to keep its business
going. Due to the global crisis and the weakening of the Philippine economy, the
company failed to pay its debts to the bank. Because of this situation, the bank issued
the company a letter of notice telling the company that if it fails to pay its debts, or at
least the interest, within a year, the bank will have no choice but to take over the
company. Consequently, the company was forced to act on it. It decided to cut down its
expenses by having a mass lay-off of its employees in order to cope with the demands
of the bank. But certain groups of employees opposed the idea so they initiated a
dialogue with the management. They said that they prefer a salary below the minimum
wage rather than to lose their jobs especially in those times. However, the management
told them that this is against the law and that the company might face a criminal
offense. Still the employees continued to plead until the company gave in. As a
consequence, they told the employees that they would have to sign a document stating
that they actually received the right wage. It is to appear that the company is paying the
right amount of wage to the employee. 

Questions: 
1. Clearly the company will violate the law if it allowed its employees to
receive the wage below the minimum than the law requires. Is this decision
morally correct? Why or why not? 

No, he's going to cut them off then make them work below the minimum
wage. In the future, it will be used against him to extort the company and use it
as a leverage.
2. The employees insisted on what was legally wrong. Is this action morally
justified?
Yes, because both parties agreed on a certain contract. It is acceptable
that employers would choose to earn a paycheck below the minimum wage
rather than losing their jobs, provided that it was a time of economic recession.
People should have a steady source of income at this difficult moment. The
decision may encourage greater happiness for a larger number of people as it
avoids extreme job losses. However, we cannot argue that it also breaks the law
and ends in another unethical act (untruthfulness).