London School of Commerce Name: Hasanur Rahman ID No: 00220T0T0209 Subject: Business Law and Ethics Lecturer:

Contents
Executive Summary Problem 1: Scripts Problem 2: Distractions Problem 3: Moral Exclusion Conclusion Bibliography

Executive Summary
Some of the problems which today are present in the workforce are scripts, distractions and moral exclusion. Scripts are something which takes place when someone is used to do something and does that thing automatically. For example someone after waking up in the morning brushes teeth and that person will brush every day after waking up. But routine and repetitive jobs in the workforce are risky as they cause unintentional damage to the organization. Then there are distractions where peoples attention gets interrupted while they intend to do something else. Distractions in workforce can also cause harm as they hamper the real work and incur loss for the organizations. Finally there is moral exclusion; this takes place when one person chooses to stray from the original moral fiber as they disregard one person or a group. These kinds of problems are unethical but are present in the workforce today.

Problem 1: Scripts
What are scripts? Scripts are something that is for example when a person who is so used to do the same thing over and over again and will not ever question themselves on what they do. Instead they use what is called a "script" and perform the action mechanically without paying attention and this leads to bad things. To know scripts better we need to understand how someone acts when a similar situation takes place. For example it can be if the door is knocked the related action is to open the door. The actions taken are done by our unconscious mind. Different types of situations that took place beforehand are recorded in our mind and situations which take place are stored in our memory and thus we respond to those actions when they take place. Routine and repetitive jobs in the workforce are a danger because they lead to unintentional ignorance of situation which causes mishaps on the job that are detrimental.

Research and Analysis One ethical fall in connection to "scripts" for example the Ford Motor company in May of 1968 launched a subcompact car in order to acquire a large portion of the market share. The automobile Pinto was unveiled before the due date. At the beginning the sales of the Pinto was running smoothly but after a certain time the sales began to fall. According to the case Grimshaw V. Ford Motor Company stated that Lily Gray and thirteen years old Richard Grimshaw was travelling in a 1972 Pinto and their car was struck by another car which was something like at thirty miles per hour. The collision ignited a fire into the Pinto which resulted Lily Grays death and left Richard Grimshaw with destructive injuries. A judgment was made against the Ford and the Gray family was rewarded $560,000 and Matthew Grimshaw $2.5 million as compensation. The jury also awarded $125 million in disciplinary damages as well which later was reduced to $3.5 million. After some time of the Grimshaw case Ford got involved in another case. The Pinto had some flaws in its fuel system which caused three more deaths. The Pinto car was hit by another vehicle at a very low speed, although the driver of another vehicle was consuming alcohol and drugs at the moment of the accident. But the fact here is that Ford neglected to improve their fuel system beforehand which leads to explosion of the car.
(http://www.wfu.edu/~palmitar/Law&Valuation/Papers/1999/Leggett-pinto.html)

There were many other similar cases discussed above and to mention the main problem with the Pinto cars were their fuel tank which was located behind the rear axle intended to create more space for the trunk. The fuel filler pipe of these cars were designed in such a manner that they would detach if the car crashes increasing more chances by the leakage of gas which would result the car to blow.

Justification I stand against this problem according to the research and analysis of the cases related in connection to scripts with the Pinto cars because the company had the technology and access to change the design but they did not choose to change it as it would cost like 11 dollars per car and research also shows if the changes were made it could have prevented 180 less deaths. The Ford Company defended them by saying that they used risk benefit analysis. The company obviously went through the process of examination and found that if they implement the new designs the cost to change it would cost greater than monetary cost. The number of cars used would cost like 137 million dollars to upgrade the changes and they could have benefited like 49.5 million dollars so the company decided not to implement the new design as it would cost more. The company legally chose not to change the design which could have made the cars safer. Something legal does not always have to be ethical and it is very complicated to put a price on the life of a human being. To justify this problem there are several reasons which can be discussed. Firstly to talk about it is not at all ethical to let people die when the company Ford knew that there produced car has a greater chance of exploding causing people to die or may injure severely because it would cost more to implement the change. As I have mentioned before that it is really difficult to put a price on human life and cannot be substituted by means of money. Another reason can be the reputation of the Ford Company. After all the incidents obviously the company had no goodwill and they also had to pay a bulk of money as compensation. This kind of situations takes place often today in the workforce. To prevent this kind of fall repetitive jobs needs more observation and attention with these things problems like this can be minimized.
(http://www.wfu.edu/~palmitar/Law&Valuation/Papers/1999/Leggett-pinto.html)

Problem 2: Distractions
What are distractions? Distraction is something when a person wants to achieve a task attentively by performing an act but the attention of that person is diverted by something else. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/distract) It can be if someone at office is working on a project gets a phone call and on the other side of the phone his/her friend invites that person to a party. After that call that person will think about the party for a while and this thinking will obviously switch his/her mind and this can be an example of distraction. This phone call interrupts that persons work and distracts him/her from work. Distraction can also be if there is a conflict in the workplace it can harm the actual intended task to result in poor outcome. It is something which is observed frequently in our daily lives. This is certainly a problem which sometimes can cause a severe harm to one as it occurs from lack of awareness.

Research and Analysis There are several examples of distraction. Some of the examples of distractions are: Talkative Colleagues According to research it shows that 50 percent of the Australians say that they do not like their chatty coworkers. Sometimes coworkers does not even realize about their continuous jokes which can affect someone elses work. Mails and Internet Browsing - Checking mails and browsing internet can also be distractions at work. Microsoft research showed that employees spend like a third of their time reading and replying mails. Relating with internet browsing there is another factor which is social networking sites for example Facebook also acts as a distraction. But very few percentage thinks this as distraction maybe because of its newness or they keep importance is peoples lives. Smoking Breaks This factor obviously diverts the employees from work and research shows that it takes away 5 percent of the worker from work. Telephone calls and text messages calls and text messages does alters people attention. If someone is at work obviously his/her attention is drawled away from the task. According to the analysis of an American company Basex, came up with that distractions takes away two hours per workday where it takes like five minutes to recover the same attention which someone had before they were interrupted. (http://www.smh.com.au/smallbusiness/blogs/work-in-progress/disturbing-the-peace-work-distractions/2010073010y85.html)

Justification According to the reasons explained in the research and analysis part I stand against this problem as distractions hamper peoples work at organizations. Distraction is something which people do not like but it is not taken into consideration that somehow people get distracted. Distractions like mails appearing in computer screen, phone calls and text messages obviously does harm at ones work. The problem distraction results a huge loss for the organizations. To reduce this problem at first one should identify his/her distractions. After identifying them they should deal it properly. For example while working at office one can put the cell phone on voice mail so that others trying to reach the person faces a hard time. The person wont be avoiding others but can deal with the voice mails at lunch time or break time. Without leaving home someone can move to a distraction less place for example it can be a spare room, garage etc where there is no means of distractions like television, noise etc. If someone has to work on an important project sometimes in his home or office letting others know that person needs to finish an important task may also work. This is because then others would know that person is working, if they need to talk they can communicate but not for long so that the work is not harmed. Sometimes deadline also helps to achieve a task. The main thing here is setting rules for oneself. Virtually everything has an opportunity cost in this world but one should understand the value of their work so that task is not delayed or hampered. Dealing with distractions is important; if someone can deal with this problem surely they can achieve a certain task with without incurring loss.
(http://articles.sitepoint.com/article/dealing-distractions)

Problem 3: Moral Exclusion

What is moral exclusion? Moral exclusion takes place when one person chooses to stray from the original moral fiber as they disregard one person or a group. It affects a certain person or a group by someone but that person does not think morally that it is unethical. For example a manufacturer producing a good but not thinking that how the product will affect the consumers. It may result harm for the consumers but the manufacturer is not taking this into concern.
(http://ww.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v10n2/peopleatwork.html)

Research and Analysis An example of a Japanese company which produced medicines understood what was happening and in 1980s when Haruo Naito became the CEO of the company Eisai, his advisers mentioned him that his managers were lacking to understand the consumers. After listening to this Haruo Naito thought of it and decided to put attention on to the customers. He thought to implant this perception to his employees so that they can understand the consumers better. This idea was new at that time and needed alteration, Naito thought that his employees needed a clear vision of their work so they can care for it.

Naito said Its not enough to tell employees that if they do something, the company will grow this much or their salary will increase this much. Thats just not enough incentive, and he also said You have to show them how what they are doing is connected to society, or exactly how it will help a patient. (http://ww.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v10n2/peopleatwork.html) Here Naito meant that letting the workers know if the implementation was done, if the organization grew larger and the increase in the salary of the employees was not that important. He was seeing more than earning more money and growing his organization. He was thinking ethically what will actually help the consumers or patients. Naito made his managers to attend seminars and later they were sent to different parts of Japan to deal with different people who were experiencing severe conditions. These managers met different sorts of patients and some of them even died. Later most of the employees of Eisai frequently met patients.

Justification

I stand against moral exclusion as it harms a certain person group of people. To harm a person or a group of person is not at all ethical. In the above case of Haruo Naito, he understood how his employees beforehand were actually harming the patients with moral exclusion. Later he made his employees understand by sending them to meet the patients how they were actually harming. This change encouraged the moral inclusion among the employees of Eisai and they kept in mind about the consumers who uses their product. This alteration also helped the company to create new product ideas.

Conclusion
Problems like scripts, distractions and moral exclusion are present in the workforce today and can cause severe damage to the organizations but it is not likely that they cannot be minimized. They can be minimized with the awareness and observation of the employees of the organization.

Bibliography
(http://www.wfu.edu/~palmitar/Law&Valuation/Papers/1999/Leggett-pinto.html)
(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/distract)

(http://www.smh.com.au/small-business/blogs/work-in-progress/disturbing-the-peace-workdistractions/20100730-10y85.html) (http://articles.sitepoint.com/article/dealing-distractions) (http://ww.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v10n2/peopleatwork.html)