Ethical Dillema

Week 2. A manufacturer received a multimillion-dollar contract to supply vehicles for a city transportation system. The vehicles proved to have a number of major defects that endangered the safety of the riders. When city officials sued the manufacturer, an investigation was started. An employee of the manufacturer voluntarily testified that his company deliberately used substandard workmanship, practices, and materials. The employee was fired for giving out confidential information. Was the action by the company justifiable?

Let’s first find out what are the different consequences of the employee course of action. If the employee gives away information about the company before the contract is delivered then the firm has to rework its approach in order to win the contract. If the employee doesn't say anything after the company has been sued he might face charges as part of the company. If the employee gives away the information after the company has been sued he will be seen as a helping the investigation process.

The company has the obligation to provide good material; indeed it provides a service and needs to maintain a certain level of quality so it can ensure security to their customers. Moreover, the employee has the obligation to respect the life of those who use the companies’ products. The employee has also the obligation toward to company to respect confidentiality, when being hire by the company, employee signs a contract of disclosure, and by revelling these information, he disrespects this contract.

The company was right to fire him, because he did not fulfil his obligation toward the company, he broke the contract between him and the company. However, the right course of action could have been to speak up about the practices before the contract was awarded, but once the vehicles are delivered speaking up will have no effect toward the safety of users.