This entire case has become a “cause celebre” over on the ethics alarms website
http://ethicsalarms.com/2014/02/11/...ethical-course/comment-page-1/#comment-169404
Sample comments:
Pro Forever Broadcasting:
We all have an obligation to keep our private life from adversely affecting our work. Forever Broadcasting’s ethical duty is not to risk its business, the health and safety of its employees, and expensive lawsuits for the benefit of one employee in crisis; its duty is, in fact, the exact opposite. The duty is to eliminate the potential workplace disruption and danger, and to get on with its mission. This decision is necessarily cruel and unfair from Nancy’s point of view, but that is what zero sum ethics is. For the company to meet its primary obligations requires it to leave Nancy to her own resources. It would be irresponsible for Forever Broadcasting to do anything else. Nancy Lane has no right or justification to demand that the company shift its priorities from broadcasting to helping the victims of domestic abuse.
We pay for our mistakes. She married a violent nut job, and, unfortunately, she’s the one who will pay the price for the mistake. The rule isn’t “do your best to keep your private life from interfering with you job.” The rule is: if it happens, and there isn’t a law forcing the business to accommodate you, then you are in trouble. Strict liability.
Anti-Forever broadcasting:
It seems to me that a quite proper mission of a company can be to include its employees as stakeholders on par with others. We are getting past the narrow minded view that a corporation only obligation is to shareholders, so this is not a radical proposition. In addition, and I am influenced by currently reading a biography of Marvin Bauer, you can make a pretty good case I’m purely business terms that the devotion to the welfare of employees as individual human beings, extending past the W-2 form relationship, is a remarkably powerful business strategy. McKinsey is Exhibit A, but there are others.
We must also ask ourselves, would this same decision be made if the CEO of Forever Broadcasting was the subject to identical harassment? Would the consequences be the same? If not, then the termination is unethical.
I understand the reasons but am not in complete agreement that the radio host should have been terminated for the actions of her ex-husband. The idea that we protect the group by sacrificing the weak to the predator works fine in the jungle but human predators can only be stopped when met with uncompromising power; and we are not animals without the ability to reason. The predator always separates the prey from the pack. That is the modus operandi of the predator. If we took a lesson from the African water buffalo that puts the weak inside the herd and faces the predator head on, maybe the harassment would stop.
Forever Broadcasting operates in 5 different markets with over twenty stations. It seems to me that she could have been provided an opportunity to work in an alternate capacity in one of the other markets. This would help her find employment in an area unknown to the ex- husband. Granted she would have to take steps to protect the identity of her location but if the perpetrator is jailed it will be far more difficult for him to track her down. Such options should be considered first and termination should be the last resort.
See the link above for further back and forth on this fascinating dilemma – thus far no response from Forever Broadcasting management
For further comments see the petition page – now over 20,000 signatories strong
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/502/...ncy-who-was-fired-over-her-ex-husbands-abuse/
I don't know how many RD site readers follow the Altoona/Johnstown page but perhaps those who do may find tghis link useful.
