Download When considering downsize in the face of economic difficulty using

When considering downsize in the face of economic difficulty using an ethical lens, each case
might be considered alike unless certain aspects differentiate them ((Shaw, 2011, slide 3-5). If,
for example, a company of 500 persons was pondering a fifty per cent reduction in size and that
required a disproportionate number of layoffs among the laborers, this would perhaps
demonstrate why this is unethical. After all, it would require the employed laborers to assume the
duties and responsibilities of their laid off counterparts without benefit. It would increase the
physical and emotional levels of stress for them and confer a greater amount of stress on their
families and society, by extension. This, in turn, delimits autonomy and illustrates how the
company simply uses them as a means to an end. It, therefore, violates Kantian ethics because it
suggests that it is always ethical to eliminate workers and reward managers for the sake of profit.
If, the company also investigated downsizing the monetary benefits instead of employees, this
could be immoral dependent upon situation. If the company enacted a ten percent decrease
across the board, this would be immoral through the lens of Rawls’ distributive justice theory
(Shaw, 2011, p. 110). After all, it would disparately arrange society and circumstance to the
disadvantage of those most challenged (p. 110). After all, those who are not management often
struggle with rising transportation and living costs more than their middle and upper
management counterparts do. Moreover, those employees that are not managers also fill in the
gaps on a daily basis and therefore contribute more knowledge, physical and emotional labor
than their supervisors do. Therefore, a company considering this option should enact a tier-based
monetary compensation decrease. Non-management employees would realize a 5% decrease
while middle management and upper management would realize steeper percentage based
decreases. This would not only demonstrate management’s commitment to the company, its
mission and goals but also extend a more fair solution to the current problem.
Inevitably, some could argue that steeper cuts for the management incur significant losses in
many more sectors. However, management earns much more than their nonsupervisory
counterparts do and generally have much more disposable income. Because of this, they exert
less energy to perform their tasks or to get through daily life tasks than their worker counterparts
do. Since the company needs all of these employees but needs the persons who perform the
manufacturing or service based tasks in order to deliver products and services to the customers,
the nonsupervisory workers should be considered more valuable. Therefore, downsizing or
decreasing wages within this employee sector warrants careful economic and moral
consideration, especially since society will pay the price for such action. Through healthcare,
social services, and/or the criminal justice system, disparately downsizing the laborers benefits
few and unfairly burdens society.
For all of these reasons then, downsizing for the sake of profits is immoral. It limits autonomy,
uses people as means to an end, disparately effects the most vulnerable and arranges society so
that it benefits a select few. Therefore, downsizing for profit motives violates Aristotelian,
Kantian, Utilitarian and Rawls’ ethical standards.
Shaw, W. H. (2011). Business ethics. Boston, MA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.
(2011). Chapter three: Justice and economic distribution. Retrieved from
http://www.wadsworth.com/cgi-wadsworth/course_products_wp.pl?fid=
M20b&product_isbn_issn=9780495604693&discipline_number=0