The stronger the market pressure for profit, the greater the pressure applied on their profit and care conscience decision. In their strongly competitive share market environment, survival depends or means the generation of larger profits in order to grow and resist takeovers. Those who can afford or choose to ignore their conscience succeed only at the expense of those who cannot or do not. There is no other way to look at the situation. Society views health care providers as those who can be trusted in a socially responsible way even under pressure and to place patient care ahead and above personal considerations and convenience. Recent and continuing events in the health care marketplace in the U.S.A. strongly indicate the response of the market to adverse economic factors and the instability that response creates in the patients and their care. Market demands for large profits have caused companies to behave imprudently and to stretch themselves in order to survive and resist a takeover. They had to manipulate care just to succeed and scandal, fraud allegations and large losses followed manipulative acts (Wynne). Non-profit organizations present a welcomed picture. Not-for-profit nursing homes, for example, were reported to have done better financially under funding pressures by changes in Medicare in 1997 (Wynne 2000). These organizations had greater concern with care than with profit or growth. They did not have large loans and reports said that these organizations throughout the U.S.A. maintained superior standards of care. While these nursing home organizations were pressured to adopt many of the competitive practices of the corporate marketplace for the sake of survival, they still seemed to keep an eye on their mission, serve the community better, were less expensive, had fewer complications and a lower mortality rate. Their focus on service tended to increase costs and did not help them compete. Their market model failed and they were taken over and restructured by new corporate owners so as to make them profitable (Wynne). This has been the recent fate of this type of not-for-profit...

Better yet, it demonstrates how far the profit motive can ignore the welfare of workers. The global call center industry boasts of overwhelming $70 billion revenue and employing more than 1 million workers worldwide. Most call center sources are in the U.S.A. And outsource to countries such as India and the Philippines to serve clients. These workers have been subjected to various problems at work, such as traveling at odd hours, submitting to strict supervision, performance pressure standards day after day and the burnout of the work itself for long hours, especially those on night shifts. In addition, they are also subjected to verbal abuse by customers from the U.S.A., United Kingdom, and Australia who resented that their problems were handled by people in faraway countries who were trained to ape their accent. Indian call center workers are preferred for their good English skills and ability to work with discipline. Approximately 350,000 people in India work at call centers, which generate $5.1 billion annually. Clearly, these organizations must face and solve their employees' problems at work in order to retain the profit advantage (Outsourcing Times).
Bibliography

1. Ping, a.C. Profits vs. Principles. Insight Works P/L, 2001. http://www.insight-works.com/Articles/New-ways/Trustme.htm

2. Outsourcing Times. Is Caller Abuse Worth it? Dotmarketer, 2005. http://www.blogsource.org/call_centers

3.Putnam, Mark S. Getting Rid of Greed: Choosing Principle over Profit. Character Training Center, 2003. http://www.character-ethics.org/articles/greed.htm

4. Sleek, Scott. The Battle of Creativity: Principle vs. Profit. APA Monitor: American Psychological Association, 1998. http://apa.org/monitor/oct98/good.html

6. Wynne, Michael. Profit vs. Care. University of Wollongong, 2000. http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/health/corp_perform.html