A the 8th week, we didn't have a class in the Monday because of the transportation strike. Actually, I think that transportation strike has an ethical issue on it. It was about the ethical issue between the jipniy driver and the government. The government should have more considering about the jipniy driver's perspective and needs. But from what I knew, the strike has end with the result that the government allow the jipniy driver to raise the cost from 7 peso to 8 peso. Actually from my perspective as a foreigner, it wasn't a big amount to raise the cost from 7 to 8 peso because the public transportation cost in my country is even higher than it. But the government also have to make sure for some other aspect such as making sure that the jipniy driver will treat the passenger nicely and drive well as a benefit of the higher cost.
At the beginning of the class, we discussed about the case fourth which is about Rachel who works as a Quality Assurance Engineer at a large electronics company. The ethical issues that we found from the case is that the company’s business model does not give sample to conduct Quality Control tests for their products, which may lead to a defective product. Also other ethical issue is that the company would be deceiving its customers when it ships out untested products to the market and Rachel placed the profit of the company and it’s advantage from the competitor over their customer’s safety.
Related to this case, we decide that the best alternative for it is to ship out the products but put a disclaimer that it is not guaranteed to be safe. It cause this alternative considering well about the company's image, company's goal, company's loyalty and relationship, and also about Rachel's own career.
After discussing the case, we have a debate about McDonald vs Liebeck. I found this debate very interesting because I have never heard this case before even though its a very big and interesting case. Actually this case is happened in 1994 and well known as McDonald's coffee case and the hot coffee lawsuit. This case began when Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman who suffered third-degree burns in her pelvic region when she accidentally spilled hot coffee in her lap after purchasing it from a McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was hospitalized for eight days while she underwent skin grafting, followed by two years of medical treatment. After it Liebeck's attorneys and Mc Donalds lawyer argued service quality of Mc Donald's coffee when Mc Donald's actually has followed all the coffee legal and standard.
Its a very interesting debate cause I learned a lot not only about how to giving argument in debate, but also how I should think if I was Mc Donald's lawyer. Its like I learn about looking for the legal and standard of any case. I just realized that a very simple thing like putting the "hot coffee" label in a product is a very important thing.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar