Business Ethics Case Study

Final Exam

1a. My opinion is that Sheila should not collect that document as it can infringe the ethics of business. In such situation, I would not collect the document from the reception, the reason is it violates my own morals as well as the business ethics as per my view. Also, as per my view I would have counseled the person and would have tried to find out the reason behind the disgruntlement with his company. As he told Sheila that the promotion he deserved he didn’t got, I would have asked the reason behind that to him. If he was that good in his work as he is saying than no company or organization will halt his promotion. I would have counseled him according and could have suggested to not to repeat this type of thing and would have

In cases of such type, I will follow the guidelines or rules which I have signed during my recruitment and will also follow my own ethics. As far as I know, I would say that theoretically and practically it is fair to do such type of things to survive in market. But, I believe the person who is hired for such type of jobs must have potential to expand their business with some innovative ideas or strategy. If you compare market competition with war than it is ok to that nothing is wrong in doing so, but my personal view is no to do such things because it doesn’t allow my own ethics.

1c. As per my view, the person who was sharing information was doing voluntarily, Sheila was not interested at all in his information. As the person intently stopped her and said that he wants to share some information that will help Sheila in getting promotion but, I think that who knows that how Sheila is doing in her job? So basically, I don’t see anything here that Sheila should oblige to that person.

1d. My suggestion is that I would never recruit an employee who was not loyal to previous employer. But, I would like to know reason behind the person disloyalty to previous employer and then I will take some decision but, basically I would not recommend to hire the

At one level, the issue is that the wording of the Section makes it so obscure as to be pertinent to for all intents and purpose anything anybody may discover "terribly" hostile or bringing about "disturbance or drawback". Moreover, tasked with surrounding a law for something as open, voluble, free, and even unknown, as the web, the stunningly crafty artist chose to make it conceivably material to anything said on the web. Furthermore thus draconian. Thus, the threat, as with the numerous cases of the misapplication of charges of dissidence, of it being utilized both specifically and aimlessly against people, gatherings, rights activists, columnists, political non-conformists. All of which goes against the thought of a lively majority rule government in which a hundred considerations fight and impact without apprehension of being gagged by the state. In the meantime, Clause 2 of Article 19 of the Constitution makes it clear there are "sensible confinements on the activity of the right" allowed by subclause An of the Article. The agent word is 'sensible '. Finally, something effectively debilitating the security of the state, or even an individual or gathering, needs to be limited. However that is a long ways from how Section 66a has been