Case Study: Sandwich Blitz
First of all in the scenario described Dalman need to do some further research. He should contact the City and Government offices needed to determine if he can be grandfathered in and not have to comply with the law changes. In many cases if something is established legally when it is built or purchased, it can stay that way as new laws are applied.
Let’s assume in this scenario that Sandwich Blitz Inc. is not being grandfathered in and will have to make changes to comply with the new local health code laws. The new laws require trash dumpsters to be a minimum of 30 feet from the rear of the building and require all out buildings to be at least 6 feet from the property lines. Sandwich Blitz locations are on small parcels of land and …show more content…
I think the fact that the holiday party is for his dad, clearly indicates that the deal is in exchange for a personal favor non work or government related. If the deal was in exchange for food for a government holiday party we could then more logically question if the deal was made legally allowing him to be grandfathered in. So Dalman should use the Ethical Decision Making Process.
The Ethical Decision Making Process starts with the first step of understanding all of the moral standards and all of their impacts. Who is it going to harm, who will it benefit? In this case it could harm Dalman should someone find out of the illegal deal made between the two ignoring a new government law in exchange for his personal benefit. It could also harm the business and the integrity of it in the future. This would not benefit anyone in the long run.
The next part wants you to define the moral problem. In this situation it is pretty simple. You are faced with the expense of moving the enclosure 1 foot from the property line or taking an unethical, illegal deal from a government inspector. The deal would benefit the inspector and his dad for a personal holiday …show more content…
The economic outcomes would take some money up front to move the enclosure to make it legal with the new law. The economic outcome if he were to take the deal from the inspector could cost the lost business in the future, fees and fines. The legal requirements are that Dalman move the enclosure. The other option he may have would be to take the dumpster out of the enclosure if one is not required for the dumpster. Then the dumpster could remain where it is as long as it is within 30 feet of the rear door. Ethically Dalman should decline the offer and make sure to report to the responsible supervisor the conversation that took place between the Government Inspector and the unit manager.
The last step would be to propose a convincing moral solution. Dalman should contact the appropriate manager and or offices to do a couple of things. First of all he should report the unethical offering from the inspector. Secondly, he should check with the manager and or office to see if it is possible to be grandfathered in and avoid having to make changes to apply with the new law due to his lot size restrictions and it is only a foot off the minimum from the property
Let’s assume in this scenario that Sandwich Blitz Inc. is not being grandfathered in and will have to make changes to comply with the new local health code laws. The new laws require trash dumpsters to be a minimum of 30 feet from the rear of the building and require all out buildings to be at least 6 feet from the property lines. Sandwich Blitz locations are on small parcels of land and …show more content…
I think the fact that the holiday party is for his dad, clearly indicates that the deal is in exchange for a personal favor non work or government related. If the deal was in exchange for food for a government holiday party we could then more logically question if the deal was made legally allowing him to be grandfathered in. So Dalman should use the Ethical Decision Making Process.
The Ethical Decision Making Process starts with the first step of understanding all of the moral standards and all of their impacts. Who is it going to harm, who will it benefit? In this case it could harm Dalman should someone find out of the illegal deal made between the two ignoring a new government law in exchange for his personal benefit. It could also harm the business and the integrity of it in the future. This would not benefit anyone in the long run.
The next part wants you to define the moral problem. In this situation it is pretty simple. You are faced with the expense of moving the enclosure 1 foot from the property line or taking an unethical, illegal deal from a government inspector. The deal would benefit the inspector and his dad for a personal holiday …show more content…
The economic outcomes would take some money up front to move the enclosure to make it legal with the new law. The economic outcome if he were to take the deal from the inspector could cost the lost business in the future, fees and fines. The legal requirements are that Dalman move the enclosure. The other option he may have would be to take the dumpster out of the enclosure if one is not required for the dumpster. Then the dumpster could remain where it is as long as it is within 30 feet of the rear door. Ethically Dalman should decline the offer and make sure to report to the responsible supervisor the conversation that took place between the Government Inspector and the unit manager.
The last step would be to propose a convincing moral solution. Dalman should contact the appropriate manager and or offices to do a couple of things. First of all he should report the unethical offering from the inspector. Secondly, he should check with the manager and or office to see if it is possible to be grandfathered in and avoid having to make changes to apply with the new law due to his lot size restrictions and it is only a foot off the minimum from the property