This paper examines the moral and ethical dimensions of union shops through an analysis of Case 8.5, in which a licensed electrician, Mr. Paul, is terminated by Bechtel Power Corporation while the company simultaneously retains unlicensed workers and hires new employees through a local union. Using three major ethical frameworks — consequentialism, utilitarianism, and non-consequentialism — the paper evaluates the conduct of all parties involved, including the employer, the union, the National Labor Relations Board, and the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The analysis concludes that ethical judgment requires consideration of both outcomes and intentions, and that institutional rules must be enforced with integrity to protect workers' rights.
This study assesses the morality of union shops using a case study approach. Morals are principles that guide an individual's conduct by defining what is right and wrong; they emerge from within the belief systems one holds. The actions of union shops as an entity are subject to ethical scrutiny. Using the theories of ethics and morality, one can establish how acceptable the actions of unions are. This study also examines the conduct of other agents involved in the case under analysis.
Case 8.5 illustrates a conflict of interest among Mr. Paul, a local union, his employer, and the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Mr. Paul is a licensed electrician with extensive experience and skill. He obtains a job with Bechtel Power Corporation to work at one of their power plants, but after three months the company lays him off, citing workforce reduction as the reason for his termination.
The week before Mr. Paul's termination, the company had hired nineteen electricians through a local union. Among the workers the company chose to retain were sixty-five electricians who held no licenses. A critical analysis of the company's actions reveals a case of wrongful termination. Ethically, Mr. Paul's dismissal was unjustified; he had the experience and qualifications necessary to perform his role. Mr. Paul subsequently sues the company for job discrimination, which is unlawful.
An administrative judge hears his case and rules in his favor, ordering that Mr. Paul receive compensation for the unfair treatment he suffered. The National Labor Relations Board, however, fails to uphold this decision. Mr. Paul files an appeal to challenge the board's ruling, and the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation steps in to offer him legal counsel. This case raises important questions about the ethics and morality of both individuals and institutions operating within the American labor system.
The company has an interest in dismissing a licensed electrician while retaining unlicensed ones. A licensed electrician poses a relative threat to the organization because his job mobility is greater than that of an unlicensed worker. Furthermore, if the company's payment structure is merit-based, his wages would be higher, meaning the company bears a greater cost to retain him. Mr. Paul's experience also makes him less easily influenced. The company therefore gains more by letting him go and retaining the unlicensed electricians.
The company sources new employees through the local union. The terms under which these employees are hired may be more favorable to the company, explaining its willingness to accept them. The union, in turn, gains popularity among job seekers. The unemployed will register as union members in hopes of increasing their chances of finding work, raising membership subscription revenues. Newly employed members will be able to pay their dues, providing the union with sufficient funds to advance its agendas.
Collective bargaining by labor unions has brought meaningful improvements to the workplace. Employees who belong to labor unions benefit from better working conditions and wages. Unionized employees typically have employer-paid health insurance and can access retirement benefits more easily than their non-union counterparts. Termination of union members generally occurs only in cases of serious misconduct.
Mr. Paul is not a member of any union. As a result, it becomes easy to dismiss him using superficial justifications. Joining a trade union requires an employee to pay membership fees and to relinquish the right to represent oneself in bargaining. Mr. Paul's choice has cost him his job and led to an extended legal battle for his rights. At the heart of his case is his interest in maintaining his constitutional right to work.
"Evaluates parties through outcome-based ethical theories"
"Judges conduct by motive and virtue, not outcome"
The morality of a person's actions cannot be judged exclusively using one perspective. The context of the situation in question and all participating elements must be taken into consideration. This does not negate universal standards of right and wrong. In Case 8.5, it was wrong to fire Mr. Paul. The qualifications that led the company to hire him remained unchanged; interfering external factors should not have resulted in his unlawful termination.
You’re 45% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.