People Versus Profit
Join now to read essay People Versus Profit
People vs. Profit
Business Ethics
Introduction
After researching this topic I have come to the conclusion that people vs. profit means more than one thing in the business world. Many people think of it simply as downsizing. In my opinion it means much more. Downsizing is definitely one way that businesses act unethically. People are viewed as dispensable and replaceable. Companies also do not care much about their customers, they only care about how much money they can get from them. Companies like Ford and Microsoft are two companies that have also placed profits above people and ethics. I’m going to discuss the ethical issues as related to downsizing, Ford and Microsoft. I will inform you of what they are doing and how they justify their actions.
Downsizing
Downsizing is a major issue within corporate America today. Almost daily another company is downsizing their staff. The interesting part about this is that downsizing as a word makes it appear that the company is actually getting smaller or losing business when in reality that has nothing to do with it (Lurie,
Ford Motor Company
Ford Motor Company has been around for many years. This company was the pioneer of the automobile and yet their ethical behaviors leave something to be desired. In the early 1970’s Ford introduced a new car, the Ford Pinto, that was to cost less than $2000.00 and weigh less than 2000 pounds (Strobel, pg 48). This was a new innovation that would allow more people to afford cars and get good gas mileage. At that time, the Arab oil boycotts were in progress and gas prices were staggering. The Ford Pinto would increase miles per gallon due to its low weight and small engine. This car was projected to be a huge moneymaker for Ford, not because of the high price, but by sheer volume of sales. Prior to introducing this car to the public, Ford conducted crash tests and found major flaws in the gas tank and the filler pipe leading to the tank. The problem was that the tank was not properly protected and if a rear end crash were to happen at speeds as low as 20 miles per hour the design would cause the gas tank to rupture and a fire or explosion to ensue. Ford’s own conclusion following these tests was that it was not safe. The suggested changes to upgrade each vehicle would cost Ford approximately $11 each. The total cost to Ford would have been in the neighborhood of $137 million. However, a confidential memo was written telling upper managers that this modification would not be made and the Pinto would be sold as originally manufactured. Ford based this decision on the fact that paying lawsuits out for people who actually died or were injured in this car would cost them less in the long run then modifying all of the cars that were manufactured (Velasquez, pg 74). This is not only profit ahead of people, but gross negligence on Ford’s part. In many