Discrimination

This is where I found this article: http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/jun2006/sb20060606_087038.htm

The article discusses the negative effects that discrimination creates especially for women and minorities. Supporting discriminatory policies can in fact hurt a company. It can limit the company's competition by restricting certain groups or employees that truly have the qualifications and could make a difference in the business, but they're discriminated against. The overall morale could change if the employees feel that the company is causing negative attitudes by basing someone off of their gender or race. Job applicants can actually sense that something is wrong and if they are not hired then they will then spread the word to other people that may want to be hired by that specific employer. It could even become a big enough deal that the company would be in legal trouble. I totally agree with the author. Discrimination only causes negative effects to businesses and society.

Child Benefits

This article can be found: http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/healthday/618931.html

This article explains how California was the first to adopt the family leave law. It consisted of one dollar per week, an automatic payroll deduction funded by employees. The program provides most employees with a six week "non-job-protected" paid leave to care for ill family members. It actually pays up to 55% of an individuals salary. That is a lot of money. I think that it is a good idea because no matter what employees are helping one another by giving. The downside of this article is the survey that was taken of parents with ill children. The majority of the parents who took enough leave to qualify for the program actually did not know it existed. These parents stayed at work because they feared losing income or their jobs. I believe it is the corporation's responsibility to inform each employee of something this important.

Web Privacy

Here is where I read this article: http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/aug2008/tc20080813_306363.htm

This article explains the support for protecting consumers online privacy. It also suggests that the law may require companies to get approbal from consumers before collecting information about their Web-surfing habits. The legislation may also demand companies to diclose information on how they collect people's data. I believe that businesses should keep another individual's information disclosed because it violates our rights for that information to be exposed. Behavioral targeting is watching what people are doing on the Internet. There are now methods to track certain indivduals and their site-viewing. I think that the government should protect our rights and limit companies to access of what people are doing online.

Unions and Money

Here is the website I found my article
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/aug2007/gb20070821_057707.htm

The article describes how the European Trade Unions Confederation freaked out at the internal market commissioner because of the financial crisis of regulating hedge funds. Hedge funds, "are entangled in the subprime mortage sector in the US, where loans ate given to home-buyers with poor credit histories." The ripple effect resulted in hedge funds not being able to make their payments due to banks. Trade unions, "argue that these funds are motivated only by profit so workers rights are forgotten and the social fabric of societies is undermined." I think the unions make a solid point about respecting the employees. Also, the issue of all these loans being given out, the banks are liable, in my point of view. Isn't is the bank's fault for not looking at their credit and whether of not the individual is able to pay.

Capitalizing

The article I used can be found at http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2007/db20070622_285766.htm

The stock market is a big deal in the economy. If a specific stock is doing well, they're going to let [eople know and have people talking. Blackstone has, "cultivated a mystique as the biggest, most audacious and most successful among the private-money 'value' creators." Blackstone and a rival seemed to explore a way of increasing taxes for private equity firms. This is a big deal because these businesses are capitalizing on their own profits and trying to gain more money and not thinking twice. The tax rate could possibly increase, interest rates are higher now and could increse in the future. They would be risking a lot, on the other hand they could increase productivity and earnings. Anything could happen at anytime.

Prisoner's Dilemma

The article I used can be found at http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jun2008/gb20080630_831726.htm.

Europe truly does truly has it's own way of doing things. The article basically states the fact that Europe wants to be stronger and more powerful through politics. The treaty consists of making Europe a full-time president and foreign policy chief to represent and eliminate national veto power in several areas. It was designed for a union of 27 countries. Countries rejected the bill causing a cluster. This deals with the prisoner's dilemma because countries have the right to self-regulate themselves. I believe it is the country's choice to have changes that are necessary for it's people.

Corporate Downsizing

Here is the website that I used to find the article: http://www.businessweek.com/archives/1993/b334510.arc.htm

The author states that there is an increasing fear and loathing of losing their jobs and employees experience this because employers and management feel the need to worry more about profit than having a commitment to their employee's. Downsizing also sends a message to the nation; leading to general worker apprehension about job security and less job satisfaction.
It is understandable if the business is going bankrupt and must layoff a couple hundred of workers, but it is not right if the company knew ahead of time if they were in financial trouble.

Walmart and Ethics

Here is a link about an article from Business Week dealing with speaking up and the situations it causes:

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2007/db20070612_548611.htm

Wal-Mart is constantly under scrutiny with the media for different curious management acts. This proves to be one of those yet again. Chalace Lowry, who began working as an administrative assistant in January of 2007, was given a practice in ethics during one of her early seminars with Wal-Mart. The company explained that it was important to report any possible unethical acts that may be happening. Lowry did just that when she noticed a senior executive making copies of stock related papers just before it was mentioned that Wal-Mart was planning a stock buyback. To Lowry this seemed like possible insider trading, but her questions lead to the need for a new job.

When Lowry first noticed that the vice president for corporate communications, Mona Williams, was making copies of what she believed to be papers relating to stock, she thought nothing of it. Soon after however when Wal-Mart detailed their plans for a $15 billion stock buyback Lowry thought something was awry. Remembering what Wal-Mart executives had preached in her seminar on ethics Lowry decided that she would report Williams and see if a possible investigation could lead to potential insider trading. Lowry did not accuse Williams of any wrongdoing and even admits what Williams was doing could have been legal. She just believed that the red flags around the issue should be pointed out and investigated just in case there was a problem. The same day Lowry first filed a report Wal-Mart had already established a response saying that there was no insider trading going on and that none of Wal-Mart’s code of ethics had been violated. After this Lowry’s name was released to Williams and informed of the fact that she questioned some of her actions. Lowry then realized that she needed to request a transfer because Williams, who was essentially her boss, would not want to work with her. Things could have went over more smoothly if Wal-Mart would have informed Lowry that it was possible for her to not mention her name in the report given to Williams. Instead Lowry explained that Wal-Mart executives made it seem like it was a necessity with filing the claim. In her attempts at a transfer Wal-Mart informed Lowry she had 90 days to do so before they reassessed her situation. She considered this act to be unethical and is considering a lawsuit on Wal-Mart.

Patrick