The Story of Television Contracts, Case Study Example

With regard to the ethical issues of actors demanding higher salaries, it appears that the ethics themselves evolve through the circumstances, insofar as excess of network revenue alters the parameters of each case.  More exactly, the conflicts would be less likely to exist if the actors involved were employed in programs not as successful.  Consequently, quantity alters ethical perspective, at least to a degree, and it seems more ethically valid to adjust a performer’s income when it is evident that the performer is largely responsible for the profits enjoyed by the network.  By this reasoning, all parties concerned must acknowledge that, as program popularity can only be ascertained after the contracts are signed and the show is aired, there can be no truly ethical financial arrangement in place beforehand.  The actors, therefore, are ethically entitled to insist on contract revisions.  However, and employing the same rationale, the possibility of great success exists with that of failure, and both of these potentials appear to influence actor salaries initially.  They are, in no uncertain terms, high, which may be construed as a network/actor compromise with regard to the program’s future.  This being the case, then, the actor is ethically bound to adhere to the initial contract, and addressing significant raises due to extraordinary success may be addressed by the actor’s stipulating that potential at the outset.

In the case of my hypothetical ownership of an appliance store and what policy I would exercise in regard to repossession and credit, it seems that such a policy would need to be highly flexible in order to be ethically sound.  On one level, a consistent policy would reinforce an ethical strategy.  The nature of my business, however, is consumer-related, and I am obligated to take into account individual variables.  To that end, and with reference to each instance of credit granted, I am ethically obligated to attain as much information as possible; an understanding between myself and the customers as to their ability to pay in a timely manner translates to a smaller likelihood of repossession.  In keeping with a proactively ethical approach, I must also inform the customers of when delayed payment will force me to act.  This is the basic structure of my policy and, with this in place, I may then modify it according to individual concerns and conditions.  For example, the customer who informs me of impending lateness in payment, and who can assure me of future income that will address the problem, prompts me to relax the policy.  Such contact implies commitment and a reciprocal sense of ethical responsibility. Similarly, the late customer who makes no contact and does not return my messages encourages a more stringent enforcement of the policy made clear when the credit was granted.  In all such cases of lateness, I am further influenced by the items purchased, as I will be less inclined to quickly repossess an essential appliance as I will an entertainment item.  Underscoring my individual decisions are the costs incurred to me and the impact of late payment on my business and my employees, to whom I am ethically bound to provide paying work.

In regard to Title VII as being applicable in the dismissal of the black employee, the facts of both women’s work histories are essential.  As they appear to be virtually identical, it is therefore desirable that more information be had, in order to differentiate the two cases.  For example, while their performance evaluations are similar, any variations must then be considered, as this is the only information that may ethically guide the decision.  The company’s interests must also be considered, but not in a way “fearful” of Title VII repercussions; rather, the company must know that it acted in a non-discriminatory and professional manner with no concern of legal consequences.  This being the approach, then, and if the black women is designated to be fired, there is no violation whatsoever of Title VII.  On the contrary, retaining the black woman in spite of poor performance noted as even only minimally less acceptable than the white employee’s would be a form of discrimination, and actionable by the discharged white woman.

In no uncertain terms, the company director mandating that applicants of a certain race be told that no hiring is possible is violating Title VII and acting unethically.  He is responding to facts in evidence, in that it is documented that members of this race perform poorly at work, but the significant difficulty here is that this alone is informing his decision.  More exactly, he does not have all the facts; something in the work environment, for example, may well be generating this unique problem, and he is obligated to investigate all such possibilities.  Then, he is in no danger of violating Title VII if every employee, regardless of race, is informed of the company’s expectations of them and monitored in a professional; and consistent manner.  To pre-screen by race not only eviscerates the company’s responsibilities in management, it also places at risk all the stakeholders, from investors to the workforce. The impact of such a policy is, in fact, immeasurable, and not in a favorable way.  Given the facts guiding this unfortunate decision, the director should instead enforce a stronger uniformity of interview and hiring processes, which will ensure that all employees understand the exact terms of their employment.