Values Ethics Case 1
Annet David
Professor Koob
Case 1-Massey Energy
1. What were the costs and benefits to stakeholders of the actions taken by Massey Energy and its managers?
The stakeholders include everyone from Don Blankenship all the way down to the employees who were treated badly by Massey and their higher ups. Don Blankenship had a few more benefits than costs in regards to his company. He accrued $129 million over his 10 year stint as CEO of Massey Energy while also maintaining a power over others beneath him. He cost himself his reputation within his community and his employees. Massey’s employees barely had any benefits other than a relatively well paying job to support their families, otherwise the list of costs that occurred to the employees were endless. From evidence in the case, the employees were dismissed if they raised any issues regarding their working conditions in the mines. Many of the mine workers developed black lung disease due to poor air ventilation throughout the mines and if they complained about the lack of fresh air, they were told to go home. Furthermore, when inspectors were on their way down to the mine, a code word would be sent out to clean up any deficiencies until the inspector left and then the mine would go back to their previous ill conditions. The management of the company was not responsible and did not take adequate measures to safeguard its employees. This negligence on the company’s part resulted in loss of life for these stakeholders.
2. Applying the four methods of ethical reasoning (utilitarianism, rights, justice, and virtue), do you believe Massey Energy behaved in an ethical manner? Why or why not?
No I don’t believe that Massey Energy behaved in an ethical manner because the costs did not justify the ends. The high rate of employee injuries, illness, and eventually deaths along with the environmental degradation that Massey Energy has been contributing to its land, union busting, and its open violation of safety and health
Professor Koob
Case 1-Massey Energy
1. What were the costs and benefits to stakeholders of the actions taken by Massey Energy and its managers?
The stakeholders include everyone from Don Blankenship all the way down to the employees who were treated badly by Massey and their higher ups. Don Blankenship had a few more benefits than costs in regards to his company. He accrued $129 million over his 10 year stint as CEO of Massey Energy while also maintaining a power over others beneath him. He cost himself his reputation within his community and his employees. Massey’s employees barely had any benefits other than a relatively well paying job to support their families, otherwise the list of costs that occurred to the employees were endless. From evidence in the case, the employees were dismissed if they raised any issues regarding their working conditions in the mines. Many of the mine workers developed black lung disease due to poor air ventilation throughout the mines and if they complained about the lack of fresh air, they were told to go home. Furthermore, when inspectors were on their way down to the mine, a code word would be sent out to clean up any deficiencies until the inspector left and then the mine would go back to their previous ill conditions. The management of the company was not responsible and did not take adequate measures to safeguard its employees. This negligence on the company’s part resulted in loss of life for these stakeholders.
2. Applying the four methods of ethical reasoning (utilitarianism, rights, justice, and virtue), do you believe Massey Energy behaved in an ethical manner? Why or why not?
No I don’t believe that Massey Energy behaved in an ethical manner because the costs did not justify the ends. The high rate of employee injuries, illness, and eventually deaths along with the environmental degradation that Massey Energy has been contributing to its land, union busting, and its open violation of safety and health