I'm a night person. So it was no surprise that I went out for groceries at 1:00 in the morning. And, of course, if you want groceries at one in the morning, you have to go to Wal-Mart. Not a problem. I like it better at night- there is always people stocking shelves, but they're easier to navigate around than the the crowds during the day!
Anyway, as I got out of my car, I noticed an old man with a cane who was having serious trouble walking. He was pushing two carts towards the store, so I assumed he needed some help. I went over to offer help and I saw the Wal-Mart name tag hanging on his shirt. I was outraged, I must admit. I took in three carts for him and when I came out I saw someone else helping him. This man couldn't take two steps without leaning heavily on a cane and was having to take carts two by two from all over the parking lot to the store.
Couldn't Wal-Mart find an easier job for him to do? He could stock shelves- there were plenty of twenty something's stocking shelves. (I used to work in a grocery store...as long as someone loaded the cart for him, he could stock shelves.). Couldn't he change price signs? Sweep?
Then I realized that he took the job. Why? Does he need the money for food? I'm assuming yes, since he was clearly in pain and still out there pushing around carts. Is it fair of Wal-Mart to have to cater to employee demands?
I also realized that Wal-Mart was being amazingly stupid. It was going to take him all night and he still wouldn't be done. Someone else could have done the job in a quarter of the time. Using employees on tasks their not fit for is just a waste of wages.
The morals, the laws about not discriminating, the man's need for the money, the ethics of a business....my brain was trying to take all these things into account and by the time I got done, I came to the conclusion that I had a right to be outraged.
Morally- making a hurt person do a pointless job for hours on end is wrong. (at least to me). The utilitarian moral model would also say that having someone do a job less efficiently than another person is a waste of resources for society. Take your ethical view of choice and apply it.
Laws about discrimination- the laws are there to protect disabled/hurt/race/gender from being discriminated against for JOBS THEY CAN DO.
Ethics of business- Wal-mart is wasting their money with having this man do this job. He would be more efficient doing something he was capable of, and Wal-Mart would get more productivity out of him. Productivity= money (generally).
What do you think? Should an old man who had trouble walking have been pushing around carts?
Anyway, as I got out of my car, I noticed an old man with a cane who was having serious trouble walking. He was pushing two carts towards the store, so I assumed he needed some help. I went over to offer help and I saw the Wal-Mart name tag hanging on his shirt. I was outraged, I must admit. I took in three carts for him and when I came out I saw someone else helping him. This man couldn't take two steps without leaning heavily on a cane and was having to take carts two by two from all over the parking lot to the store.
Couldn't Wal-Mart find an easier job for him to do? He could stock shelves- there were plenty of twenty something's stocking shelves. (I used to work in a grocery store...as long as someone loaded the cart for him, he could stock shelves.). Couldn't he change price signs? Sweep?
Then I realized that he took the job. Why? Does he need the money for food? I'm assuming yes, since he was clearly in pain and still out there pushing around carts. Is it fair of Wal-Mart to have to cater to employee demands?
I also realized that Wal-Mart was being amazingly stupid. It was going to take him all night and he still wouldn't be done. Someone else could have done the job in a quarter of the time. Using employees on tasks their not fit for is just a waste of wages.
The morals, the laws about not discriminating, the man's need for the money, the ethics of a business....my brain was trying to take all these things into account and by the time I got done, I came to the conclusion that I had a right to be outraged.
Morally- making a hurt person do a pointless job for hours on end is wrong. (at least to me). The utilitarian moral model would also say that having someone do a job less efficiently than another person is a waste of resources for society. Take your ethical view of choice and apply it.
Laws about discrimination- the laws are there to protect disabled/hurt/race/gender from being discriminated against for JOBS THEY CAN DO.
Ethics of business- Wal-mart is wasting their money with having this man do this job. He would be more efficient doing something he was capable of, and Wal-Mart would get more productivity out of him. Productivity= money (generally).
What do you think? Should an old man who had trouble walking have been pushing around carts?
