Even though the columnist signed a contract with the newspaper chain, she does not have a moral obligation to them.  The contract does state that she agreed to work with them for a specified amount of time.  It is not wrong to want a better paying job.  What should be done is, she should let the chain know she is leaving within the proper amount of time. 

The decision is not a choice of good or evil, or even right or wrong.  She should be allowed to make the decision for what is best for her.  Going to the new job could be seen as morally wrong because she is doing it for the money.  Greed is what makes a choice wrong or unmoral.  It is seen as one of the seven deadly sins, and therefore evil.

Ethically she should stay with the current chain until her contract is up.  The contract was a promise from her to them.  This would show that ethically she is breaking a promise.  If the promise is broken with them, it raises other questions about who she broke other promises with.  There is no telling how long she will stay with any of the chains.  She may have made a bad choice, but it cannot be seen as wrong or evil.  It was a decision she thought was best for her.  If the decision is made for the wrong reasons, it would be unethical.

St. Augustine would probably tell the columnist that she should stay with the current chain.  He would talk to her about the decision she is about to make, and have her tell if it is all about the money.  He would say she is being immoral for going after the money.  The columnist may also be seen as unethical for breaking a promise.

St. Aquinas may have the columnist ask for permission from the chain to go to the other one.  He may also talk to her about why she is making the decision she is making.  There would be a warning about the right and wrong in the choice..  He may also warn her of the evil that may exist in her decision.  As long as she is doing it for the right reasons, there should not be a problem with her changing jobs.

The office worker is making the wrong decision.  We all have work and jobs to do, which others rely on us to complete.  It is wrong to decide how much time off we deserve.  This worker has the mindset that he is owed the time off.  This selfish act shows a little bit of evil.  They are taking the time off and in turn hurting their coworkers and the business.  To do the good thing, he would only take the time he is given as needed.

The actions taken by the worker show both wrong and evil choices that he appears to think are OK.  This situation affects the rest of the employees.  Imagine the entire work force having this mentality.  The supervisor is making the wrong decision in allowing this to continue happening.  Expressing frustration is not going to make things change in cases like this.

The office worker should be punished for taking too much time off.  The lack of work should be included in the punishment.  By lowering the morale of the coworkers, the worker shows signs of not caring.  This action can be considered evil and wrong, due to the lack of caring.

St. Augustine may fix this problem by having the worker fired for not doing his job.  He may conclude that the evil intentions of the worker must be stopped.  The worker may also be driven to ask for forgiveness and change his ways.  St. Augustine would say that this should not be happening.  There should be a punishment given, and then forgiveness, once the worker changes.

St. Aquinas may have the same attitude as St. Augustine.  These types of actions are not permitted by any of the religious figures.  There are right and wrong ways of doing things.  The right thing to do would be, the employer stop skipping work.  The way they are doing things is seen as wrong and evil in the teachings of St. Aquinas.  They would also ask for forgiveness for doing the wrong things.