Today in class, we watched an episode of The Office which raised certain ethical dilemmas for behavior in the workplace. Even though this show is meant to be a comedy, it is nonetheless true that some of these issues arise in real-life situations. We saw examples of everything: from manipulation of power, to having inappropriate relations with a coworker, to bullying.
What stood out to me from this episode, was the dispute between Michael and Holly on whether or not Meredith should be fired. On one hand, Michael argues that the fact that there was supposed "immunity" in the seminar is enough so that she should not be fired for her confession. Holly believes that she should not have to share her work environment with someone who is so unethical, and that she should do the morally right thing by reporting her.
While I do see Holly's point, in my opinion, the sole fact that all of the employees were promised immunity for their confessions is enough so that Meredith should not be punished for her confession. Even though her behavior is unethical, what she did was done outside of the workplace, and as such, is not her coworkers business, but her own.
I believe that while in any regular office it'd be understandable that Meredith trusted her boss but Michael is constantly making up rules and generally making an ass of himself in the office. Something must be done about the behavior that was exhibited in the office that day. I'm not saying the disciplinary action should be as extreme as firing. I'm not even saying the disciplinary action should be done to Meredith. The truth is something needs to be done about a boss that cant even get his employees through a simple ethics seminar, (a seminar that he was not even supposed to take charge of) without starting a huge conflict.
ReplyDeleteDespite this being an extremely unlikely event to occur I feel like it would be hard to decide unless we were actually in the situation. However, if your superiors are telling you to turn the blind eye and everyone is fine with it I would have let the situation go. This mentality has faults in it of course. What if everyone is rooting for something that is wrong for example. My argument against that is that we are all smart enough to plays the pros and cons of each situation. The fact of the matter is that every situation is not the same so every situation should have a different set of principles to follow on coming up with the conclusion.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the HR woman was in the right to think about firing Meredith. Even though she was in the wrong for saying that there would be "immunity" she was being ethical for wanting to punish Meredith for her actions. The situation was very serious, and should not have been taken lightly, and Michael was the one being unethical.
ReplyDeleteWhile her behavior was indeed unethical, proposed immunity should protect her from getting fired. Unless those inappropriate relations were done inside the workplace, there shouldn't have been a reason to be so overcome with her being fired. I believe that a person's business is their own, and if it's not directly affecting or harming me, it doesn't need to be addressed by me.
ReplyDelete