When someone has a medical condition that may hinder or prevent them from performing at their best, it is hard to make a decision in regards to their career.  There is almost no right choice in these types of situations.  The way people think and act are driven by the majority of others actions, more often than not.  How to determine what to do in these situations is one of the toughest things about being a business owner.  It is the way the situation is handled that can change how the decision is viewed, or perceived.

In the case of an employee being suspected of having AIDS, there are a few moral issues that come up.  One issue is the choice the employer has towards confronting the employee.  They must determine if it is right to bring it up without them mentioning it.  The other moral issue is the employee hiding the fact that they are sick, and have the possibility of endangering others.  Another moral issue is the decision on whether to keep the employee, or fire them.  The other issue that goes hand in hand with firing the employee is whether or not they should be kept from being promoted.

If the employer fires the person for having AIDS or MS, they are telling that employee that the business is more important than they are.  This in turn would take away the loyalty of that employee, especially if they are one of the best workers in the company.  This could also trigger a chain reaction from the other employees.  They could see it as the company showing the employees that they do not matter.  The loss of loyalty is one consequence to this action.  Another consequence could be the loss of customers if the employee is kept at the company.

There are not many obligations that an employer has.  One that does exist is the obligation to ensure customer and employee safety.  Without knowing when attacks could occur is risking the employee’s life, as well as those around them.  If someone starts to have an attack, they could fall and hit their head, causing trauma.  They could end up knocking a customer over, injuring them as well.  These things could lead to lawsuits.  The employer is not obligated to keep the employee on the payroll.  It would encourage loyalty from them, but it is not something that has to be done.

There are rights that are put on the line in these types of situations.  The right of the employee to work is infringed on.  In some beliefs, people have the right to work in order to make a living.  This right is protected in the teachings of Nozick.  In this teaching, people have the right to live how they choose to live.  If someone chooses to work, they have the right to fulfill that choice in their life.  The employer’s right to protect employees as well as customers is on the line as well.

The employer protecting the people conflicts with the employee’s right to work.  No matter which way the decision goes infringes on one right or the other.  There is a slight difference in the different approaches taken by the employer.  When taking the Kantian approach, as long as the employer is acting out of a sense of duty, the action will have moral worth.  If it is done out of self-interest, feeling or an inclination, it is does not have moral worth.

When the employer takes the utilitarian approach, the employer would have to make a decision that brings on the highest overall happiness in order to make the right decision.  If firing the employee would make the employees and customers happy, it would be the right one.  The difference between the two approaches is, in order to determine the right decision the employer would have to decide whether happiness or sense of duty is the way they want to make the “right decision”.

Another issue that has been presented in regards to companies is women who want to both work, and raise a family.  This situation is labelled as the mommy track.  The idea and concept of the mommy track exists in a lot of companies today.  They decide whether or not to hire someone who would rather be a mom and work part time.  They also decide how much to pay based on the availability.

Making a woman choose whether they want to work or raise a family violates their right to choose how they want to live.  Shwartz’s idea to separate the women into two groups tells women that the ones who choose the family side cannot make a lot of money.  Kant would say that this idea is a good one, as long as it is created out of sense of duty, it is the right thing to do.  Utilitarians would only agree to this if it gives the majority of people happiness.

The mommy track discriminates against women who want to be the ones to raise their own children while following a career.  The idea behind it basically tells single mothers that they cannot make the money to support them, and their child unless they stop taking care of their child and leave it to someone else.  It discourages those who want to choose to do both, which goes against the teachings of Nozick, where the women should be given the choice of how they want to live.  It is targeted towards the success of only the women that want to follow their career.

The mommy track also discriminates against men in the sense that it specifically applies to women, and not men.  Single fathers do not get the same benefits as single mothers.  There is little support for them from the company.  Men are expected to automatically be able to afford the necessities of life, without the assistance of others.  This follows the traditional view of how families are expected to work.  The man works, and provides the necessity, while the wife stays home and takes care of the house and children.

There are so many moral and ethical issues that can come up in regards to the work space.  A lot of decisions and views vary from person to person.  A lot of the standards are results of following popular beliefs, or a majority rules type ideal.  With the various beliefs and understandings of how things are supposed to work, we have to try to make the best decisions we can.  There is no way to make the right decision in a majority of the situations that do arise.  It is up to us to determine which teachings we want to follow, and understand that no matter what we do, there will always be something wrong with the decision that is made.