This paper examines the ethical implications of corporations promising pension and healthcare benefits to employees and later withdrawing or failing to honor those commitments. Using examples such as United Airlines and IBM, the paper argues that leveraging benefit promises to retain skilled workers — only to later renege on those promises — constitutes a "bait and switch" that is both ethically and arguably legally indefensible. The paper also acknowledges competitive business pressures while maintaining that such costs must be incorporated into long-term financial planning. The argument draws an analogy between unpaid employee benefits and a company defaulting on a commercial contract, underscoring the moral obligation firms bear toward their workforce.
The paper employs a refutation structure: it presents the opposing view (that companies face intense market pressures) and then dismantles it by arguing that those pressures do not excuse companies from obligations that were knowingly built into their employment contracts and financial forecasts. This technique strengthens the original argument rather than weakening it.
The paper opens with a direct ethical claim about broken benefit promises, supports it with examples of specific corporations, then pivots to address the counterargument in the second paragraph before closing with a reinforcing analogy. Though brief, it follows a classic thesis–support–counterargument–rebuttal arc that is appropriate for a short persuasive ethics essay at the undergraduate level.
Is it ethical for a company to promise benefits and then, years later, walk away from that promise? The ethics of gaining years of productivity and dedication from an employee — with the explicit promise of a pension and healthcare after retirement — and then failing to deliver on that promise is a serious moral failing. The vast majority of employees do not have the opportunity to benefit from equity participation, including stock options or stock grants. When a company chooses not to deliver on the promises made during recruitment, or uses those promises during periods of high demand for skilled positions to effectively "freeze" staff from leaving, it has chosen to engage in a "bait and switch" — securing continued employee commitment in exchange for nothing more than continued employment.
If an organization such as United Airlines or IBM has benefited from the hard work of its employees, it is ethically obligated to fulfill the pension and healthcare benefits promised in exchange for that work. The behavior of the companies highlighted in this discussion illustrates how trust and the concept of lifetime employment have vanished from the global landscape. Employees who dedicated careers to these organizations did so with reasonable expectations grounded in explicit commitments — commitments that the companies later chose to abandon for financial convenience rather than necessity.
Consider the case of United Airlines reneging on paying for a new commercial jet from Boeing: Boeing would repossess the aircraft. Yet the workers promised these benefits cannot repossess the years of effort and commitment they have already delivered. There is no mechanism by which an employee can reclaim a career. It is therefore both the ethical and arguably the legal responsibility of these companies to pay the pensions and healthcare costs they promised. Allowing corporations to profit from labor secured under false pretenses — and suffer no meaningful consequence — fundamentally undermines the social contract between employer and employee.
You’re 72% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.