Ethics and business means thatprofessionals must hold a standard of moral and ethical duty to their obligationsand duties. In this case the ethical issue is sexism in the gig economy. Whatis gig economy, it is an environment in which temporary positions are common andorganizations and companies contract independent workers for short periods oftime. Sexism is an issue because it is morally wrong to treat one person betterthan another let alone one-person base on their sex.
I believe not just oneethical model is modeled in this case but two is, Utilitarianism and deontology.Utilitarianism is the act that any action are the only standards of right andwrong. This case shows this ethical model by the actions of the businesses showingsexism and favoritism towards males over females. It is wrong to treat onegender lesser than the other. The other ethical model in this case isdeontology. Deontology is the study of the nature of duty and obligation. Ibelieve this is shown in this case because business individuals that show asense of duty and obligation to their job, should not be wronged andmistreated. The pertinent facts of this case are that sexism is morally andethically wrong.
A code of ethics is attainable to guide the actions in thiscase. A company code of ethics sets the companies values, ethics, objective andresponsibilities. An industry code is where principles of honesty,professionalism, and confidentiality combine to support the professionssuccess. Professional code is the ethical benchmark for professionals aroundthe globe regardless of job title, cultural difference or local laws. The companiescode of ethics in this case should highlight the value of their employees,ensure that they act with integrity and respect, and place the interest of theclient above their own.
The company’s industry code in this case is where theprofessionalism of the employee to client is seen. For example, where Schneiderinadvertently used Hallberg’s email signature in his messages to the client andthe client’s tone was rude until he mentioned to the client that it was him andnot Hallberg. The companies professional code should be fair and ethical acrossthe bar. All employees should be held at the same standard and with that thosewho outperform other colleagues whether male or female should be given the sameopportunities of promotion and respect. The importantstakeholders in this case are Schneider and Hallberg because they are theemployees. Both Schneider and Hallberg decided to perform an experiment to seehow clients would react if they switched signatures and acted on each other’s behalf.Ultimately Martin Schneider is the beneficiary due to the fact that hissignature provided a more positive response from clients. Nicole Hallberg isbeing harmed because her signatures provided a negative response from clients.
The benefits that were received were those of Martin because the clientstrusted his opinions and feedback rather than Nicole. Schneider’s rights were exercisedbecause he received more respect and honor than Hallberg did. Martin received negativeand condescending feedback while Nicole received positive feedback. Hallberg’srights were not denied but they were not respected in an honorable manor asthose of Schneider’s. By doing this experiment martin saw first-hand how womenare treated and he didn’t like the results. The experiment showed that male privilegeputs woman at a disadvantage and shows how impossible it is for professionalwomen to get the respect they deserve.
Some alternative strategies toremedy the issue in this case would be to 1) demonstrate more women in apowerful role, 2) allow women to speak more freely, and 3) ensure positions areearned fairly and not biasedly. In every alternative the managers, HR, andboard of directors should be key players in this case. These three classificationsof individuals cover an expansive extent of what makes the business. Managers, overseeemployees on an everyday premise while HR handles issues of misconduct on differentlevels. The board of directors settle on the important decisions they representthe organization and search for the best advantages of the organization. Allthe more the board of directors tries to make sure that there is no negativebusiness or conduct going on within or adversely out of the company’s walls. Thesealternatives will help remedy a portion of the sexism and male mastery that goesahead inside the working environment.
All representatives should feel importantand comfortable when they appear to carry out their duty. The alternative strategies to remedythe issue in this case are to 1) demonstrate more women in a powerful role, 2)allow women to speak more freely, and 3) ensure positions are earned fairly andnot biasedly. Showing more women in powerful roles will not only show thatwomen are capable and qualified to hold such a position, but more so that morewoman than man are capable to hold a highly qualified and commonly maledominated position.
Often times women are pushed aside rather than given thepromotions they deserve and statistics show that there are persistent gendergaps in pay, hiring and promotions across occupation and skill levels. Womenare looked at to be less likely to handle stressful situations, and are deemedtoo emotional. With respect comes a voice and women should be allowed to speakmore freely so their skills will be seen and valued. While these skills arebeing reviewed they should not have to be demeaned and harassed based on theirlooks. The harassment in private and public sectors show that sexism is stillalive and well. Lastly ensuring that positions are earned fairly and equallywill make for a more positive and efficient work environment. These threealternatives will have outcomes that will have positive and negative effects. Eachalternative can change the nature of the work environment and the efficiency ofthe work being done.
These alternatives will help women in the work environmentfor the better but it may also show that the men in higher positions aren’t soqualified or didn’t deserve the positions they were in. The effects of MartinSchneider would be minimal if this course of action is followed. Schneider iscurrently being treated better and given more respect not because he is abetter employee but solely off of his sex.
The effects of Nicole Hallberg foralternative one is that if she was demonstrated in a more powerful andrespected role than clients would respect her opinion more. Alternative twowould affect Nicole by giving her more of a voice and her employers seeing howshe is being treated and how clients are responding to her work. The lastalternative will affect Nicole in the best way because if every position isearned fairly and not biasedly than she would have a fair chance in theworkplace. I believe these alternatives satisfy both the utilitarian and deontologyethical models. These alternatives satisfy the utilitarianismethical model because it states what’s right and wrong. In this case it isextremely wrong that Nicole is treated in a rude matter than martin is. It isalso wrong that the burgeoning gig economy affects gender and other forms oflabor discrimination.
The good in this case is that the rise of alternativework arrangements may offer the opportunities for women to close the remaininglabor market gaps. I believe it supports deontology in light of the fact thatit is there duty to ensure that women have a place in workplace environmentsand give women the upper hand sometimes rather than always men. I consider thestakeholders whom are not important in this case to be the customers. Iconsider the customers to not be as important because they are not beingaffected in the gig economy.
The employees are the people that are beingaffected and more so the woman than anyone. The men have a positive outcomefrom the gig economy and earn greater platforms than deserved at times. The truthis that whether the workplace is created more equally for all employees thatdoes not change the prejudices and biases of the customers to employees.
Althoughwoman may start to get the upper hand in more situations that will not change customersopinions of if women are qualified and trustworthy to give them feedback.Thought that is morally wrong that is the way the workplace is and is somethingthat should be drastically changed. The business industry has adopted this stereotypethat women don’t bargain and they aren’t willing to bargain. There is a misconceptionthat women employees will be take advantage of more than male employees whenindividuals are barraging their salary.
I don’t believe that at all times theyare taken advantage, I just think that individuals have more confidence to askwhen there is a female interviewer. Most times people don’t think that thefemale interviewer necessarily knows what they are talking about but that isnot always true. People should give women more respect and not just give menmore respect and trust their word just because they are a man. I recommend that HR evaluate and monitor some of the behavior andwork that is taking place within the company. HR needs to address the sexismand male privilege issue that is going on within their company.
Deontologysupports my recommendation for this case because the nature of duty andobligation are a strong factor in this case. The fact is that sexism is morallyand ethically wrong. HR are the individuals that will handle misconduct, sexualharassments, etc. These individuals have a duty and obligation to see that allof their employees are being treated fairly and equally. Statistics show thatwomen are treated unfairly in the work environment and the gap is at astaggering high, the gig economy suggests that freelance work may make theproblem of male privilege even worse.
If employees have a duty and responsibilityto carry out the duties of their job in a respectful and ethical manor, thenthe employers should ensure that they are protected and in every aspect in thework place. Utilitarianism supports this recommendation by clarifying what’sright and wrong. It is clear that it is wrong that Nicole was being treateddifferently than Martin when her signatures were sent to clients. Although HRshould be held accountable they cannot change the prejudices and discriminationagainst women.
The code of ethics that would be applicable in this case toimprove the issue would be company values, responsibilities, and honesty. The companyshould see that the values, responsibilities and honesty are fulfilled withinevery employee no matter the classification.
