USING THE BELOW CAN YOU PLEASE MAKE ME ABSTRACT, SUMMARY, AND CONCLUSION, AND ?
ID: 333406 • Letter: U
Question
USING THE BELOW CAN YOU PLEASE MAKE ME ABSTRACT, SUMMARY, AND CONCLUSION, AND ? CAN U GIVE CITATIONS AND REFERNCE IF POSSIBLE
WHEN MARY DAVIS, ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT for plant management at Whitewater Brewing Company, wrote an article for a large metropolitan newspaper in her state, she hadn’t realized where it would lead. At first she was thrilled to see her words published. Then she was just worried about keeping her job. It all started when her husband, Bob, who was working on his MBA, talked her into taking an evening class with him. She did and, to her surprise, really got into the course, spending most of her weekends that semester working on her term project—a study of wine and beer marketing. Among other things her essay discussed those respectable wine companies like E. & J. Gallo (the nation’s largest) that market cheap, fortified wines such as Thunderbird and Night Train Express. With an alcohol content 50 percent greater and a price far less than regular wine, these screw-top wines are seldom advertised and rarely seen outside poor neighborhoods, but they represent a multimillion dollar industry. Skid-row winos are their major consumers, a fact that evidently embarrasses Gallo, because it doesn’t even put its company name on the label.86 Mary’s essay went on to raise some moral questions about the marketing of malt liquor, a beer brewed with sugar for an extra punch of alcohol. It has been around for about forty years; what is relatively new is the larger size of the container. A few years ago, the industry introduced malt liquor in 40-ounce bottles that sell for about three dollars. Packing an alcohol content roughly equivalent to six 12-ounce beers or five cocktails, 40s quickly became the favorite high of many inner-city teenagers. Ads for competing brands stress potency—“It’s got more” or “The Real Power”—and often use gang slang. Get “your girl in the mood quicker and get your jimmy thicker,” raps Ice Cube in a commercial for St. Ides malt liquor. Like baggy pants and baseball caps turned backward, 40s soon moved from the inner city to the suburbs. Teenage drinkers like the quick drunk, and this worries drug counselors. They call 40s “liquid crack” and “date rape brew.”87 Mary’s instructor liked her article and encouraged her to rewrite it for the newspaper. The problem was that Whitewater also brews a malt liquor, called Rafter, which it had recently started offering in a 40-ounce bottle. True, Mary’s article mentioned Whitewater’s brand only in passing, but top management was distressed by her criticisms of the whole industry, which, they thought, damaged its image and increased the likelihood of further state and federal regulation. The board of directors thought Mary had acted irresponsibly, and Ralph Jenkins, the CEO, had written her a memo on the board’s behalf instructing her not to comment publicly about malt liquor without first clearing her remarks with him. Mary was hurt and angry. “I admit that the way the newspaper edited my essay and played up the malt liquor aspect made it more sensationalistic,” Mary explained to her colleague Susan Watts, “but everything I said was true.” “I’m sure it was factual,” replied Susan, “but the company thought the slant was negative. I mean, lots of ordinary people drink Rafter.” “I know that. Bob even drinks it sometimes. I don’t know why they are so upset about my article. I barely mentioned Rafter. Anyway, it’s not like Rafter is a big moneymaker. Most of our other beers outsell it.” “Well,” continued Susan, “the company is really touchy about the whole issue. They think the product is under political attack these days and that you were disloyal.” “That’s not true,” Mary replied. “I’m no troublemaker, and I have always worked hard for Whitewater. But I do think they and the other companies are wrong to market malt liquor the way they do. It only makes a bad situation worse.” The next day Mary met with Ralph Jenkins and told him that she felt Whitewater was “invading,” as she put it, her rights as a citizen. In fact, she had been invited to speak about wine and beer marketing at a local high school as part of its antidrug campaign. She intended to keep her speaking engagement and would not subject her remarks to company censorship. Jenkins listened but didn’t say much, simply repeating what he had already written in his memo. But two days later Mary received what was, in effect, an ultimatum. She must either conform with his original order or submit her resignation.
n February 26, 1986 The Washington Post ran an article describing Korb’s speech at a press conference held the day prior as “critical of increased defense spending. ” Following the publication of the article, several military officials “expressed their disapproval” of Korb’s comments. [77] Despite writing a letter of retraction which ran in The Washington Post, Raytheon terminated Korb’s position after it continued to receive “Navy, Air Force, and Armed Services Committee objections. [78] In adjudicating Korb’s claim of wrongful discharge, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts found “no public policy prohibiting an employer from discharging an ineffective at-will employee. ” His claim under the State Civil Rights Act was dismissed as well. In affirming the lower court’s decision to dismiss, Justice Abrams wrote: “Although Korb has a secured right to speak out on matters of public concern, and he has a right to express views with which Raytheon disagrees, he has no right to do so at Raytheon’s expense. [79] The above article shows one perspective of the courts on this matter. Furthermore Mary Davis needed to be sure her personal opinions could withstand the scrutiny of being challenged for slander, unless there was very strong specific data supporting her views. Despite Mary’s strong personal views, even if validated, she is in conflict by the very nature of working for Whitewater and having such strong personal views. She may have morally sound arguments about liquor products but she is ethically wrong then for working in the liquor industry.
My view is that Mary’s intent, though ethically sound, is still less ethical than that of Whitewater. Mary attempts to peanut butter spread the first amendment right to free speech across the board, when in fact Whitewater too has rights and expectations within the first amendment. While Mary is entitled to do as she chooses outside of work; there are limitations when her choices can have specific negative impacts to her employer. And for these impacts she can be held accountable legally, despite her moral righteousness
In conclusion there is no clear path to moral righteousness and ethical behavior. What I feel is important is that in the end we can do either in a manner that withstands legal implication (much of it already established) and exercise our own personal moral conviction in a manner that does not leave us conflicted. QUESTIONS FROM THE BOOK. 1. Do you think Mary Davis acted irresponsibly or disloyally? I don’t believe at the time Mary Davis intended to act irresponsibly or disloyally; however Mary should have thought more about the big picture and talked with her management first about her intentions.
Mary does have conflicting obligations. If so what are they? They are her obligations to survival, money, job stability, employment, etc. On the other side is her obligation to her conscience and her moral beliefs, particularly the one that is contrary to the production and sale of malt liquor to individuals (specific individuals). 5. Is the company right to be worried about what Mary Davis writes or says, or is the board of directors exaggerating the potential harm to Whitewater of her discussing these issues? The company is totally right to be worried about Mary Davis
Explanation / Answer
solution-
1. No Mary Davis did not acted irresponsibly or disloyally. To be honest that was the most responsible thing to do from anybodies perspective, all the companies should act responsibly on customer related issues. As a matter of fact they should consider this as an opportunity and look at how they can care about the customers by providing healthy drink and market themselves with a positive image. Coming to the question of loyalty, she did not disclose any internal information of the company she was working for and also the report was given on the general perspective basis the observation through her study for her MBA project.
The term irresponsible and disloyal is out of question in this case.
2. My answer was basis the case facts provided. I believe, Mary is just a communicator of facts here.
3. Definitely there should be restrictions on employees freedom of speech. All the companies work on their own values, and if these values are getting affected then there definitely should be some restrictions in place. But, those restrictions cannot be expressed in terms of social issues.
In the above case, if the company does not want to make comments on its competitor, they can ask Mary not to disclose herself as a worker of their company and the reports/columns of Mary in news papers would have been her own views. But restriction on a social issue is not a good thing.
The restrictions are important because we live in a very diverse community and in a data rich world, where the business needs some confidentiality to be maintained. Hence definitely business related restrictions are good to have.
4. As answered above, that is definitely a relevant issue and it is a good thing. Because when someone writes in a newspaper and discloses the company he/she is working for, immediately it will seen as a companies view on the subject. Which the board of the company might or might not agree. In such cases board should be consulted before providing his/her view, at least in the issues that are sensitive or might impact the business.
5. Mary Davis can fight against the ultimatum, as per outsider view there is no wrong doing from her end.
6. Yes it definitely will have a impact on the company as they are in the same business. But what they should realize is that, if Mary hasn't raised the issue, someone will. May be by then the company might be exposed to more loss, because of their investment into expansion of their product.
Right now they haven't invested much is my assumption as it is one of the small revenue makers. This product is actually leading to a major risk in the business, which they can evaluate before moving further.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.