Ethicality of Hiring Illegal Workers

Let's say you go out to eat for a friend's birthday, a date with a special someone, or maybe to take a break from the daily grind of cooking. You order your favorite dish, exactly what you wanted. Did you know that there's a 20 percent chance the meal in front of you was prepared by somebody who is illegally here in the U.S.? According to a 2008 study of the Pew Hispanic Center, over 20 percent of restaurant chefs and head chefs are illegal immigrants, and nearly 30 percent of dishwashers are illegal. These statistics continue to increase as more immigrants come into the U.S. illegally and are hired by restauranteurs and other employers willing to take advantage of work at cheap costs.

Employers who hire illegal immigrants create a controversial debate. Is it ethical for employers to be hiring people who are not legal citizens of this country in order to take advantage of the low prices they are willing to work for? Many people argue no, it is not ethical because there are plenty of unemployed Americans who need work and are not offering to do so below minimum wage (and therefore cannot compete with illegal workers in this area of the job market). Employers who do not thoroughly check the legitimacy of a potential employee's citizenship or choose to turn their heads and remain ignorant fuel the debate. Hiring legal workers is required by law, and abiding by the law is ethical, and you cannot argue that.

People on the other side of the spectrum argue that illegal immigrants are willing to do the dirty jobs unemployed Americans are not willing to do, so they are not stealing any jobs from Americans. Others argue that employers are giving them opportunity- what they came here for. Yes, you are giving them opportunity (a paycheck), but you are still exploiting them for their willingness to work at such low wages. Additionally, as insensitive as it may sound, illegal immigrants provide companies with lower operation costs due to lower wage expenses, and most companies will take the lowest cost structure possible.

Chris MacDonald, Ph.D. an ethics professor at Saint Mary's University in Canada, discusses the negative ramifications that could possibly result from firing (or not hiring) illegal immigrants in restaurants. Firing or not hiring illegal immigrants would increase overall costs for the restaurant, driving up the price of a given meal. As a chain reaction, this negatively affects the customer. Chris MacDonald talks more about the role of illegal immigrants in the restaurant industry specifically in his blog (link posted below).

Ethics of Hiring Illegal Immigrants

Abiding by the law and not exploiting workers versus cheaper operations costs and opportunities for those in need. Because these issues are so controversial and often contradictory, these issues will continue to lay at the foundation of the debacle about employers' practices in hiring or not hiring illegal immigrants.

Ethically yours,

Heather

Professionally Creeping

Creeping. A verb once used to describe creepy crawly bugs now has a total new meaning. In recent years, creeping has become a normal word in most people's daily vocabulary when regarding the social medium Facebook. Today, creeping means following and searching others' Facebook pages to see what they are involved in, who they are involved with, and much more. And let's be honest, we all do it. Whether you are checking in to see what your old elementary school friend is up to these days or you want to know how your cousin's friend's aunt's neighbor's vacation was, most, if not all of us, are guilty of being "creepers." Most Facebook users are aware of the fact that friends are checking their pages; this is why people create a Facebook in the first place. However, more people than just your friends or random connections search your page to see what you're doing. It is becoming more common for employers to research job candidates by their Facebook profiles to judge candidates' professionalism and character.

This new form of an informal background check has stirred up a controversy. Is it ethical for employers to "creep" on you via Facebook and use that information to determine your capability of performing at work? Or are employers crossing the line into personal privacy, stepping into unethical territory?

The following link provides further reading about the pros and cons regarding Facebook and employers, an article by BusinessWeek: "Get Outta My Facebook"

Both sides of the spectrum hold valid arguments. On one hand, when somebody makes a Facebook page, they are publishing content on the Internet, understanding that their life is now public regardless of Facebook privacy settings. Employers see creeping as an inexpensive and valuable opportunity to evaluate the true character and priorities of a job candidate. When employers are informed of a candidate's personal responsibility, it allows employers to further screen candidates who could potentially be reckless or represent the company poorly.

On the other hand, many argue that it is completely unethical for employers to regard your Facebook when considering you for a job. These people proclaim that personal information displayed on Facebook offers no relevant information about how somebody will perform in the workplace. In addition, is it really necessary for job seekers to undergo this type of background check on top of the many others they face such as credit checks, criminal background checks, drug tests, and more?

I believe much of this debacle stems from the issue of what is perceived as "public" and what is "private" on the Internet. According to The Technological Citizen's interview with Tom Demello, CEO of Ziggs.com, a professional networking site, current Facebook users do not understand the impact our posts, pictures, and statuses will have on us in the long run. Regardless of whether it is ethical or not, the fact is employers are using Facebook to screen candidates. Sharing pictures and information too comfortably on Facebook could potentially and significantly harm your efforts in landing a job, and current Facebook users should accept this or learn it the hard way.

Here is the link of the video with Tom Demello regarding Facebook, job seekers, and employers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCrBNeCdDIo&feature=player_embedded

Ethically yours,

Heather

The Squeeze on Colgate

Brushing your teeth. A simple task most of us (ideally) practice twice a day and have been doing so since the earliest corners of our childhood memories. Most people brush their teeth to keep them healthy and free of germs. However, new health concerns suggest a common toothpaste could be doing just the opposite unbeknownst to its users. Scary, right?

Colgate, a global leader in the toothpaste market, faces current health concerns regarding their most popular toothpaste, Colgate Total. According to the Cosmetic Dentistry Guide, Colgate Total contains the ingredient triclosan, a chemical with antibacterial properties originally used as a surgical scrub. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is paying close attention to the potential health hazards surfacing. Research shows this chemical may be causing humans harm including gum and bacterial mutations, not exactly what most people want from brushing their teeth. However, triclosan proves to fight gingivitis as well as some other benefits. According to the magazine Business Ethics, this is why Colgate was approved by the FDA in 1997 to use triclosan in their product Colgate Total.

Although health concerns for Colgate's product continues to rise, the FDA has yet to ban it or deem it unsafe and will not know until spring 2011. This is where the ethical question comes into play. Should Colgate inform their customers that the product they use to clean their teeth at night and before work could potentially be harming them? This would definitely impose some questions, discontinuation of Colgate products, and fear among many Colgate customers. But if the chemical is technically not banned, is it really necessary for Colgate to hurt profits, credibility, and customer loyalty right now?

Corporate social responsibility is becoming an increasing factor in today's business world. Should Colgate inform its customers that a key ingredient in their toothpaste is facing questions and health concerns? Or should Colgate simply wait until spring 2011 for official results?

I believe that as an industry leader in toothpaste who places this potentially harmful ingredient in the mouths of millions worldwide, Colgate is obligated to inform customers right now as it deals with the health and safety of Colgate Total consumers. It is best to err on the side of conservatism and assume the worst results in spring 2011. If the results released in spring 2012 come back to prove triclosan's harm to be substantial, and customers find out Colgate did not inform them of the potential risks, Colgate could suffer exponentially and lose goodwill with consumers globally.

According to Barbara Burton, a corporate responsibility consultant of the Burton Company in La Jolla, Califronia, only time will tell if Colgate is informing consumers enough to put itself in the best position as we await the results and the FDA's official decision on triclosan. The following link provides a detailed article about Colgate's current situation regarding triclosan:

http://business-ethics.com/2010/10/03/5050-controversial-chemical-poses-disclosure-challenge-for-colgate-palmolive/


Ethically yours,

Heather