Saturday, August 18, 2007

Ethical Dilemma

My business is in need of two new employees, and I placed a notice to that effect inside our store. As it happens, two of the best applicants so far work at a nearby small business. I know and like the owners of said nearby business and I am certain that losing two employees would present a hardship for them. On the other hand, it would be unfair to deny two individuals an opportunity to change jobs, and, presumably, improve their lives, for the benefit of their employer. What to do?


Anonymous said...

Well, this person is obviously interested in another job, so if they don't take yours, who's to say they won't find another job elsewhere?
I'd say it's not your responsibility what happens with the other business, I go with the person you really want.

Caledonication said...

Yes, that is a dilemma, but a personal one, not an ethical one. It is a business decision. Like all business decisions, the first priority is to decide what is best for your business. If one were to consider ethics into the equation, wouldn’t “not” hiring the best applicants for the reasons you mentioned, be unethical?

Denis Navratil said...

Good points anon and caledon. The fairest thing to do would be to hire the best applicants while working with the other business owners and our new hires to smooth the transition.

Caledonication said...

Denis, I have a bit of an ethical dilemma myself. I was over on another blog and I got kind of pissy about a particular subject. I’m kind of tired so bear with me. The Autism insurance mandate proposed by Doyle has gotten a lot of flack by the Republicans. I understand that the mandate could have a small effect on health insurance premiums (and I do mean small). I don’t like the high amount of my premiums any more than anyone else. I don’t want to see government managed healthcare, either. On the other hand, why shouldn’t my son receive the same benefits as my other children? Why should one disability (or medical condition) be covered and another not? Let me give you a comparison. The law now requires health insurance to cover a woman when she starts coverage, if she is pregnant. Well, my son didn’t have a pre-existing condition. He didn’t develop Autism until he was 2-1/2. I had the insurance before he was diagnosed with Autism. Is it wrong thinking, to think this mandate should pass? Don’t worry about saying what you think I want to hear, I’m looking for an objective perspective on this.

Denis Navratil said...

This is a tough one caledon. I am sure you are in a very difficult situation with your son. I am sorry to hear about your difficulties.

Speaking generally about insurance, a subject I don't know well, I would say that I would oppose mandates from the state. People should be able to tailor their coverage as they see fit. Of course things can happen that we did not anticipate, as in your case. On the other hand, lets say drug treatment is mandated, and I am 40 years old and I haven't used drugs and I don't intend to. I would not want to be forced pay for that coverage. So ideally people should be able to get coverage for what they want rather than have that decision taken out of their hands.

On the other hand, regular folks like us are at a huge disadvantage when it comes to negotiating and understanding the fine print of insurance contracts. We may think that we are covered for something only to find out later that we are not. I don't have an answer to this problem. I have signed 40 page business insurance contracts hoping that I am covered properly. Mostly I am relying on trust with my agent. Will I get burned someday? I don't know.

Have I understood your issue properly caledon?