(a) Describe a work situation at your past or present employment, which posed an ethical dilemma for you.

The work situation at my past employment which posed an ethical dilemma took place a few years ago after completing my diploma. I worked at a production company as an assistant engineer. This company has subcontracted its production activities to five different subcontractors. I had many friends in the company who held positions such as technicians, assistant engineer, draughtsman, engineers, project engineers, project managers, and managers as well as the subcontracted workers who are all involved in the main process of the business, the production. The subcontracted workers are mainly from Sabah and Sarawak. They have left home due to the better prospects offered here compared to east Malaysia. The testing department is also subcontracted and it has workers who were from different racial backgrounds. I had a coworker who was entitled to over times claims. Though he has the same job description as mine, he was appointed as a technician. Therefore, due to the post he was appointed to he was given the privilege of over time. My friends and I who carry out the same duties, but under the post as assistant engineers, are not entitled to over time claims but only for mileage claims if we had to work in the weekends. This situation has demotivated us especially when it comes to working long hours and after office hours because we do not get paid extra, unlike my friend who does get paid. So we were in a dilemma, we could not decide on whether to complain to the Human Resource Department or to bring it up to our manager for enquiry on attaining the same privileges or just leave it as it is fearing that the Human Resource Manager decides not to give the privilege to our friend, as we were only interested to gain not to cause someone to lose out on

their claims. We decided to write to our manager about considering the over time allowance base on our long hours of work and we did not state our friends name. My manager who was so understanding and compassionate, he brought this issue up to Human Resource Manager and got us over time allowance. I also have a friend cum coworker, James, who is an engineer who complains all the time about his assistants and the subcontracted workers who earn an equivalent amount of salary as his or even more with their overtime allowance accumulated in a month with their low fixed salary which demotivates him and also makes him to be less productive. Therefore, he takes advantage on his expense claims. On the other hand, I had another friend named Rao, who works at the testing department (subcontractor). He complained about his boss who treated him unequally based on his racial difference when it comes to over time instead his boss passes it to others of the same race as him. Later he also found out his boss did not make his contribution to employees provident fund. After few months, I was given more responsibilities to handle as compared to the normal duties of an assistant engineer without any increments and the only incentive I had was the overtime allowance. My coworker, the technician mentioned above, was still having the same

responsibilities with the same benefits. In addition, there were few subcontractors who are based in the office to be in charge of data entry who also claimed over time unnecessarily. With all the happenings around me and unfairness I was in a dilemma on whether I should be honest with my overtime claims or not?

(b) Explain how you resolved your dilemma OR justify how you would resolve it. I decided not to claim my overtime unreasonably and not to complain about those who claim over time unnecessarily. I decided not to claim needlessly because I did not want to betray the trust my boss had on me. Trust in the sense of he never really checks on the details of my claims and approves the claim sheet immediately. Secondly, is because by having more responsibilities I could learn more and gain more experience and further add value to my knowledge which will be beneficial in the future. Thirdly is because during over time I do take a breather and converse with other coworkers, just like having coffee breaks during office hours, so claiming unnecessarily would be too much I believe. I decided not to complain about the subcontracted workers who claim unnecessarily because it is not within my control or power to decide on the approval of their claims. If they are getting the claims then it must have been approved by all levels. Now about what I would have done to all the other dilemmas my friends had which lead me into my dilemma, if I was in James shoe, the engineer I would have done the same as to motivate myself to do my job willingly but on the other hand it is not ethical. Therefore, the rightful thing to do would be for him to bring this up to his boss during the yearly review, saying he is looking forward for a better remuneration and benefit package as compared to others with lesser responsibilities and qualification and if he does not get what he is promised then he should start looking for a new job which would bring him satisfaction. Finally, Rao who was treated unequally due to the racial basis, if was him I would leave for a better job where equal treatment is provided.

The solution to all this problems starts from the top, implementation of rules and regulation. The company should provide a centre for complains for subcontracted workers so that when they are ill-treated they would be able to voice out their dissatisfaction. The company should impose rules like terminating the subcontracted contract if they are found to be exploiting their workers. The Human Resource department should come up with fair remuneration packages for all position which will not cause dissatisfaction with each other. (c) Choose at least one ethical theory and apply it to your resolution to assess whether the manner in which you resolved, or would resolve, the dilemma would be judged to be ethical (according to your chosen theory/ies). Justice Justice as defined by Aristotle says "equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally. Aristotle definition of Justice simply means a person should be treated equally if they are equally relevant in the situation they are committed. When it concerns my situation, my coworker and I had the same job description and pay but I was given more responsibilities for the same pay so clearly there is injustice done to me. Choosing to not claim my overtime excessively for the reasons mentioned earlier, I did indirectly not earn more or equally than James who is in higher post and having more responsibilities in terms of bigger projects so, I did act in the manner of justice and I acted fairly thus my resolution was ethical. Referring to James who makes expense claims unnecessarily, it may be an act of justice for him to be treated with equal and fair treatment. James act is unethical because he is misusing the companies funds by claiming unnecessarily and also causing more feelings of inequality and unfairness to other peers who are in his position thus causing an act of injustice and unfairness to

be further amplified. So the right way to get his equal treatment would be by talking to his manager about his dissatisfaction during his yearly review and get what he deserves the right way, ethically. Once the Human Resource Department comes up with fair remuneration packages for all positions it will not cause dissatisfaction amongst the workers. The department would be acting ethically by treating everyone equally and giving justice to all the employees.

Utilitarianism Utilitarianism emphasis that whatever action someone undertakes has to result in the most benefit to the largest number of individuals. As mentioned in part b, I decided not to complain about the unnecessary over time claims by the workers. As I am not in a prominent position in the company and the decisions are already finalized by the respective financial controllers and because I wanted others to enjoy a better income since it brings them happiness therefore I decided to remain silent. The companys financial controllers decision to allow employees or subcontractors to claim over time allowance or in other words allowing the production process to go into over time zone is due to the pressure from the customers. Customers tend to want the end product faster. They are also willing to pay the extra charges. This may sound good as it is going to contribute to the companies overall revenue, sales executives performance, consequently benefits its employees. Thus, resulting in the most happiness and benefit to the largest number which is ethical base on the utilitarian theory. When it concerns how that particular action affect people from different degrees, it does bring satisfaction to greatest number (people entitled to overtime) in the firm some way either in terms of money or job performance, so again the

decision is ethically correct base on the utilitarian theory. Now in the long run does it bring the most benefit or happiness to the employee? The answer is No; it does not bring the most benefit to the greatest number. Largest number does not only include the employees and the employer but also customers because when the company decision to fulfill customers needs to deliver the end product faster by allowing production to go into over time will incur higher cost to the customer. The companys customers consist of top companies from oil and gas industry. So when their production cost increases it will slowly lead to higher oil prices and causing products and services to cost more and thus causing inflation which affects everyone not just the employees and the company anymore. When this occurs, the company increases it cost and charges the customer again. Thus, it is a repetitive cycle causing happiness in the short run but unhappiness in the long run therefore it is not an ethical act base on the utilitarian theory. My decision not to complain about the unnecessary over time claims is also not ethical as it does not result in greatest happiness or benefit in the long run. On the whole, my decision not to claim unnecessarily is an ethical act as it brings justice and contributes a little to the greatest happiness in the long run.