Coo... well we've certainly been handed an exciting topic for debate this week. Be warned that the combination of pensions and ethical responsibilities might just cause me to loose it.
A business owner has a moral responsibility to it's employees after their retirement beyond the agreed upon employment contract.
Wikipeida said:
Moral responsibility can refer to two different but related things. First, a person has moral responsibility for a situation if that person has an obligation to ensure that something happens. Assume that John promises to baby-sit for his neighbor while she goes to a job interview. However, he decides he will go to a concert instead. Arguably, John has moral responsibility for finding another appropriate babysitter for his neighbor.
That's how Wikipeida defines a moral responsibility. Now I know what you're all thinking, and I agree, that page does not conform to Wikipidea policy, but we'll run with it anyway.
Moral responsibility in business, and well as in life, only extends to the fulfilment of pledges already made. Just as the mysterious 'John' has no ethical compulsion to serve as a babysitter until he has agreed to do so, a business has no ethical compulsion to provide for an employee anything not previously promised outlines in the employees contract.
The assertion that businesses across the globe should be forced to provide something that the have never promised is both laughable and, the be quite frank, dangerous.
My opponent puts forward the argument that businesses should reward loyalty, and to a certain extent I agree.
Where I make opposition in that businesses have a
moral responsibility to reward loyalty.
Businesses should reward loyalty if and when it proves to be good for business. Loyalty incentives can help to inspire loyalty, and as such be beneficial for the company, but if this is not the case then there is absolutely no reason why the company should be compelled to hand them out.
Moral responsibility and business are simply two things that do not match. Companies have financial responsibility to their shareholders (profit margins, expansion and suchlike), and certain legal responsibilities imposed by the government(minimum wage, safe working conditions), beyond that their job is simply to succeed.
If we start plastering companies with additional "ethical responsibilities" than all that will happen is that those companies that attempt to abide by the "code of conduct" will fail because of the costs involved, and when a company fails it's bad for it's customers, it's employees and the market place as a whole.
You might call it a sad state of affairs, but you simply cannot mix morality and money. If you want to place obligations on employers then the only way to do it is through contracts and employment legislation... anything else is just idealistic froth.
