Blow the Whistle or Breath Insulation - Essay Example

The issue was dealt with by county inspector who recommended the improvement of the condition such as cleaning of all fallen fibers and removal of the asbestos or sealing of the pipes. However, the management did nothing to change the situation apart from cleaning the fallen asbestos. They however informed the workers to continue working in the same environment, but never to do anything that will disturb the asbestos and cause fibers to fall off. The high cost of eliminating the asbestos hazard prohibited the company from implementing the recommendations of county inspector.

The dilemma in this case is whether the high cost of mitigating the risk posed by asbestos to the workers is worth the health risk to the workers. The workers are in disagreement as to whether asbestos truly cause cancer and whether the company should incur that cost in order to implement the recommended action by the county inspector. Some workers believe that if the asbestos is left undisturbed, there are no fibers hence no health risk to those working in that environment. Main ethical principles in Manly Construction Company The working regulations require both workers and employers to be truthful in their operations (Anonymous, 16).

In this case, Manly Construction Company is deceitful by assuring workers that the environment is safe for them yet they warn workers against revealing their negligence to the external stakeholders. The company has already been fined by the county inspector and requested to clean up the fallen asbestos. The county inspector further recommended the removal of asbestos or sealing of the pipes, but the company has refused to do so due to high cost involved in executing the recommendations. The ethical principles require individuals to be given an opportunity to exercise their autonomy of expressing their views and ideas regarding the issues affecting them (Anonymous, 18).

In the case of Manly Construction Company, the workers have no autonomy to speak up their mind or enjoy better working conditions. The company’s management is forcing them to work in a risky environment by assuring them it is safe yet they do not the workers to share their views regarding the risk they are exposed to with external stakeholders. The company is acting unfairly by issuing threats to workers and by failing to protect workers against dangerous asbestos (Anonymous, 19). It is not in order for the organization to force employees to work in an environment that is likely to cause them health problems such as contracting cancerous diseases.

This may result to disagreement between workers and employers since the only alternative for workers is to expose the malpractices of the company hence the workers may end up being fired from their jobs. The company is acting against the law since they have failed to rectify the issues that are posing threat to the workers despite the county inspector’s recommendations for the company to do so (Anonymous, 25). Furthermore, the company is prohibiting the workers from sharing their experiences with corporate world since they are aware of the consequences it will pose to the company’s image.

The main issue is balancing between the cost of mitigating the health hazard the current condition in the company is posing to the workers and wellbeing of the employees. The condition in Manly Construction Company affects both workers and the organization. The workers are exposed to cancerous diseases, while the organization has already been fined by county inspector and are likely to lose contracts in case they are exposed by their workers. If the workers suffer health problems the company will have to incur