The Boeing Company is a multinational aerospace and defense company, founded in 1916. It is one of the world's largest global aircraft manufacturers. It is the United States's largest exporter by value, and the world's second largest military contractor. In recent news, Boeing is in the process of a new design that uses carbon fiber rather than aluminum and innovative new jet engines to produce a plane that will be able to fly farther on less fuel. This new innovation is called the Dreamliner 787. Boeing is relying a lot upon this 787 for its future success both domestically and internationally.
The Boeing Company has a plant in Washington (a union state) in which it is trying to move to South Carolina ( a non-union state). Many union leaders claim that this move is to punish its workers for a nearly two month strike in 2008. Boeing figured that getting away from unionized workers would most benefit the company's overall profits. Boeing is multinational, and a hit like this could cause problems for its future business, especially from a socialistic EU. So, Boeing is trying to avoid future potential conflicts with labor unions that might affect negotiations across cultures.
The Seattle courts are suing Boeing over whether move on their party is legal or illegal. Boeing is fighting the courts and the unions for the innocence of their company. With Boeing being such a large company important to many countries, these lawsuits could cause Boeing to lose a lot of value to their name. Even without the lawsuits, Boeing supposedly "trying to get back at its union workers" could cause a lot of harm to the company's reputation.
We've touched in class about making ethical decisions. I think Boeing is moving the factory to undermine the unions negotiation power. Is it illegal, maybe. Ethically i think its ok if it make the company more competitive with the European competitors. A two month strike in the airline military business could destroy a company. Because orders are placed and expected to meet deadlines. those orders are millions even billions of dollars.
Regardless of whether or not this case turns out to be legal or illegal, what are your opinions on this? Did Boeing make the right decision ethically? Are there exceptions of ethical behaviors based on the size and industry of the company?
14 comments:
I believe that Boeing did nothing wrong. The main goal for any company is too make money and increase shareholder value. I believe that its not ethically wrong since they kept their factory in the U.S unlike other companies that just get out and go to Asia, China, India. I believe since Boeing is still an American company is located within our borders, they are ethically safe.
Just as workers had the right to go on strike against Boeing, Boeing has every right to make a similar move in response. Companies should be able to freely make decisions based on whatever factors they choose- in this case it is the previous actions of their employees. I therefore do not believe that Boeing did anything unethical in this scenario.
Contrary to Ashref's belief, I personally find their move to be not only unethical, also possibly detrimental. With Boeing trying to open more possibilities in Europe, performing a move that can be seen by some as "striking back" at their unionized workers seems a little near-sighted with the EU being largely unionized and respectful and cooperative with their unions. I do not see businesses in the EU wishing to do business with a company that has a reputation for "union-busting". The silver lining to the whole maneuver is that, as Ashref pointed out, they are remaining inside America.
I think the NLRB's ban on Boeing's plant in South Carolina is wrong. The state of South Carolina wants this plant to increase the local economy as well as open up many jobs across the state. I really couldn't put it in better words as Jessica did above "just as the NLRB had the right to strike on Boeing, Boeing has the right to move to South Carolina". Therefore, I do not think Boeing is acting unethical in this situation.
If Boeing is really trying to take a swing at the union by moving the plant, I think it is quite unethical. One theory in ethics concerns creating the greatest good and doing the least harm to the greatest number of people. If Boeing were to ditch its plant in Washington, it would be doing harm to all of the people who work there and probably damaging its own image (maybe even enough to outweigh the losses from the strike). Only the people in South Carolina would be positively affected. However, if it stays in Washington much less harm occurs.
If the information presented I dont think its illegal because the company is not moving outside the country abut outside the state. Just like Tennessee and Amazon, the states regulations and laws determine the entry or departure of an organization. Most businesses their objective is to maximize profits and minimize losses. Should this be Boeing's goal, any actions that would threaten its security would not be welcomed. We just have to hope that an international organization like Boeing would not end up outsourcing most of its functions offshore. I would think that the state of Washington would review its regulations and laws so other companies would not do same.
I think Boeing is acting in their best interest and is absolutely ethical in their decision making. Now a days we have so many laws protecting workers that unions are really not necessary, their main purpose is to dispute the companies goals because some workers are lazy and want to "unite" so they have power against a corporation. Well one of the risk involved when going on strike is being fired. The unions need to realize that this is not their company they are employees for the company and should act accordingly. Boeing has every right to move to a non-union state, and a very smart move at that. Unions do nothing but cause extra problems for companies. The people at Boeing need to realize that they can be fired, and just because they are grouped together as a "union," doesn't mean a company can't fire every one of them when they strike, or move their production facilities to a non-union state.
I believe that Boeing's actions are slightly unethical, but in this dog-eat-dog world, they did what was necessary for the survival and growth of their company. It is not as if they acted in the way Nokia did in Germany, and are actually keeping their business within the borders of the United States. Additionally, those who decided to go on strike cost the company money, and evidently didn't value their jobs then, so why all of a sudden do they value them now? A classic case of someone wanting to have their cake and eat it in the same motion.
In the grand scheme of things, legal certainly does not equate to being ethical. There are many perfectly legal acts that companies may do that are extremely unethical, and the reverse is also true. Based on the facts presented, Boeing's actions are legal (although because there is a suit, the legalities may more complicated than they appear). Regardless of the legality, I am torn on deciding whether the company's actions are ethical. While its goal should be to make a profit in the interest of its shareholders, as Ashref states, Boeing seems to be ignoring the fact that its unionized employees are also shareholders. Boeing faces bettering the interests of some share at the direct expense of other shareholders.
Based on what's presented in this post, I think Boeing's actions are indeed unethical, but I will agree with what has been said about this being a dog-eat-dog world. The decision has to be based on what will be best for the company in the long run. If that means having a plant in a non-union state,so be it.
Naturally, legal does not equal ethical. However, it is impossible to regulate a company's moral code. Even if the government passed laws preventing these sort of moves, businesses would find a way to circumvent the law. It is a futile case.
David Mouron
Not everyone agrees with the law and most people have different opinions of what is considered ethical. In this case I think we need to look at Boeing's company policies and see what they consider to be ethical. In my opinion, I don't think Boeing would move its facility without good reason and certainly not without leaving some type of compensation for its workers in Washington.
In this situation, I believe the Boeing has every right to relocate their plant. Since Boeing has the right to maximize their profits, they have the right to make moves that will do such. If it is more costing time and money to be in Washington than South Carolina, I feel as though it is important that they act upon their needs. I do not believe it is unethical because tons companies relocate due to profit maximization every year and rarely are they sued for making these decisions.
Kierra Warren
Here is a quote from this article http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204831304576594622547658168.html "Boeing officials, however, said the site was the one most likely to fail and that startup costs for the new plant would significantly exceed the costs of adding capacity at the company's Everett, Wash., factory." from the Wall Street Journal's online publication. I believe that when a company decides to move to a location far less suitable than their current one, with the only issue being a union based issue, the reasoning behind the move is quite clear. What is not clear is why a company would treat their employees, who stayed with Boeing as the company tanked along with the economy in the last ten years, who are currently asking for a raise in their pension plans that costs less than what Boeing has already lost with their strike, when Boeing is reporting profits that are comparatively high due to a resurgence in demand for jet airliners?
Post a Comment