Business Ethics

1. The creation of a structure, formed by two tiers, in many modern corporations, is a phenomenon that should bother not only the employees belonging in the second tier (low-paid contract workers, part-time or temporary), but also the employees of the upper tier (elite workers, enjoy best pay and benefits). The reason is very simple: a company can spread the use of under-paid workers into job categories and departments once reserved for higher-paid workers. The company can hire for two or three part-time jobs instead of one full-time job. So eventually, at some point in time there is a possibility that a full-time job will become a status symbol.

Of course the above is a statement from the employees point of view. An employer or a stakeholder could easily argue that since the two tiers structure increases firm's profitability is perfectly justified. It is true, though, that a firm's ultimate goal is the maximization of profit. But, does this profit have to be the outcome of employees' exploitation? Although there is nothing wrong with part-time positions, in terms of legality, each and every employee has the right to equal treatment. Thus, an employee who works with the terms and contractual obligations of a part-timer, but works 35+ hours a week and wants a full time job, should be treated as a full-timer and receive equal benefits.

2. UPS legally has no obligation to offer full-time positions to part-timers working over 35 hours a week. The employees, on the other hand, have the obligation to abide by the conditions of the contract. Since they agreed with the terms and the status of their position in the firm, it is their obligation to accept the specific situation. Nevertheless, a worker has also the right to be treated equally, and if not so, to go on strike and fight upon his rights. In the specific article the working conditions of part-timers are not perfectly clear. This is the reason why we cannot be certain about whom of the two "rivals" is right and who is wrong.

Teamsters, on the other hand, act as any union should to. They seem to try to achieve what is best for UPS' employees. And from the Teamsters' point of view a part-timer has the right, since that is what he/she wants, to have a full-time position, especially when he/she is already working for 35+ hours a week.

3. The facts stated in the article are not enough if someone wants to be positive in terms of who is right and who is wrong about the pension issue. However, it seems pretty reasonable the fact that UPS wants to contribute money for its workers and not for non-UPS Teamsters. Moreover, if the fact stated in the article, that with the creation of a UPS pension system the employees' benefits would be increased by an average of 50 percent, is true, then this seems to