Business Law - Case Analysis

Assignment 1-4: Case Analysis (40 points)

    ACTION ITEMS:

1. Go to your text at the end of the chapter you will see questions/problems.   Using Microsoft Word, type the answers for the questions listed below.  BE SURE TO ANSWER IN DEPTH – DEFINE, EXPLAIN, PROVIDE ANALYSIS TO EARN ALL THE POINTS.
2. After you have inserted your answers, save this document. 
3. Go to the Assignment 1-4 in the course, upload the paper using the "Submit" tool by Sunday of Week One. 

Chapter 1.

     5.

1. Do you agree with Friedman?

I do not agree with Friedman because his employer was not only protecting themselves following an occupational health and safety management procedure, but they were also protecting his (Friedman) health and integrity by conditioning the position to the use of the vaccine as a consequence of a recognized health hazard.

In my view, the only exception would have been if an alternative vaccine not grown in chicken embryos would be available.

Also, there should not be a religious discrimination because veganism is not a religion, but rather a philosophy or way of life.

1. Do employers have a duty to respect the beliefs of their employees?

Yes, employers have the duty to respect the beliefs of their employees, and even more if such beliefs can be categorized as religion.  However, as stated above, veganism cannot be considered a religion.

1. If so, what happens when that duty conflicts with employers' duty to provide a safe and healthy work environment?

If there would have been a religious conflict 8which is not the case) the there is an ethical dilemma, but in my opinion the employee also has the liberty to look for another job that would not interfere with his/hers beliefs. Would the employee sign a document waiving his right to sue the employer if a health issue arises because not having been vaccinated?

1. What values do you think influenced the court's decision granting the injunction against sharing copyrighted material?

Using the WPH framework I think that the following values where of influence:

• Security: to be safe from those wishing to interfere with your property rights
• Justice: To receive the products of our labor

1. Do you agree with the court's decision?

Yes I agree with the court´s decision, because it was a clear violation of the plaintiff´s copyrights.

1. How do you think Kozlowski would have acted had he considered the public disclosure test before engaging in these corporate misdeeds?

If Kozlowski would have considered the public disclosure test or television test, perhaps he would have not committed such crimes in view that such act would have later consequences.

1. What if he applied the universalization test?

The universalization test asks us to consider what the world would be like were our decision copied by everyone else.  Therefore, I see two possible results.  If Kozlowski would include moral values within his analysis, then he would not have committed such crimes because he wouldn´t want that someone else to commit the same crime against him.  However, there could be another more sinister approach, where Kozlowski would have thought that every CEO in the world is going to commit such crime, then there wouldn’t be enough money to cover such loss, and therefore he would have thought to commit such crime before anyone else.  This last approach however would be highly improvable.