Protecting The Unborn At Work

By Author: Sherry Roberts
Total Articles: 81
Comment this article

Summary of Facts
Johnson Controls is a company with a strict policy that prohibits the hiring of women of childbearing age. The company adopted the policy as a measure to protect unborn children from lead exposure. The company’s manufacturing processes involves the release of lead. The workers are exposed to the toxic lead particles in small quantities as the particles fill the air inside the plant. Johnson control maintains that the lead exposure is not harmful to adults, but it is harmful to children and fetuses. The company believes that the policy is in the best interest of the unborn fetus. Unfortunately, the policy means that most women of childbearing age miss work opportunities at the company. The company does not hire any woman of childbearing age irrespective of whether they are married or single (Amos, & Ristow, 2009). Women allowed to work at the company must produce evidence that they cannot fall pregnant. Several women working at the company have had to take drastic measures such as tubal ligation as proof of their inability to have children. Women and women rights groups find the policy to advocate ...
... for discrimination at the workplace as the company out rightly favors hiring men to women. Additionally, women rights groups find the policy to be intrusive of a woman’s privacy as she has to furnish the employer with details of her productive health. Critics argue that Johnson Controls can strive to improve its work environment by minimizing the lead release and subsequent exposure.
Ethical Issue
Individual level
Johnson control appears to be acting from a moral angle where it strives to protect the life of the unborn. However, it fails to acknowledge the ethical aspects it violates on an individual level. The policy fosters discrimination against the female employee. The policy gives Johnson controls the authority to manipulate women and their reproductive health. The company requires women to prove their inability to give birth. The company thus shows a strong preference for men over women. Discrimination on the basis of gender is unethical as it sidelines women who would have been productive employees at the company. The policy also invades the women’s privacy as they have to discuss their reproductive health with their company to determine their suitability for employment. The company may mean well with its intention to protect the unborn child, but its process violates women’s rights
Organizational Level

The organization needs to address its efforts to protect the unborn and whether the adopted strategies are ethical. The organization means well by protecting expectant mothers and their unborn children. However, the organization needs to reconsider its strategies and ensure that they are moral. For instance, it is unethical for an employer to manipulate employees to make a life-changing decision about their reproductive health. The organization must address the ethical aspect of the invasion of privacy that arises with their requirement of proof of infertility.
Societal Level
The society needs to address the mandate of organization in relation to regulating an employee’s personal life. The policy has a moral perception, but it advocates for the control of women and their life choices. The society must address the ethical aspect of the influence of the policies on the position of women in society. Organization should implement policies that promote rather than demean women in the society. The society must speak for the women and demonstrate the need to move forward by promoting equality and fairness.
Alternatives
Johnsons control’s policy stands on a thin line on morality. The policy looks out for the interest of the unborn child but in the process, it interferes with the autonomy and rights of the woman. Prior to instituting the policy, the organization should have considered other alternatives. First, the organization should consider improving its health and safety standards. For instance, the organization should determine the best way to filter the lead from its manufacturing processes. Alternatively, the organization should consider alternative manufacturing steps that involve minimal to no emission of lead. Additionally, the organization should consider strategies to enhance the safety and well-being of its employees. The employees should wear protective gear and take calcium supplements to counter the damaging effects of lead (Hughes, & Ferrerr, 2013). In summary, the alternative of Johnson Controls would thus emphasize on minimizing lead exposure among employees. The efforts to change the manufacturing process may be costly for the organization since it requires a complete overhaul of its systems. However, the move will be appreciated by special interest groups and woman who desire for equal employment opportunities.
The organization also has the alternative of abolishing the policy and start a massive recruitment initiative irrespective of gender. The public would embrace the abolition of the policy; however, the move would be ignoring the fatal repercussion of long-term exposure to lead. The company may begin to hire women, but the women may begin to experience health complication association with continuous lead exposure. Ultimately, the company may experience a series of expensive lawsuits that may dent the organization’s reputable and finances (in terms of legal fee and compensation) (Amos, & Ristow, 2009).
The employees have the option of adhering to the policy thus seek employment if male or female with a medical record to certify infertility. The individual has to make a choice between taking the job and risking his or her health and that of their future children or avoiding taking the job. Prolonged lead exposure can have devastating effects on any adult irrespective of gender. However, women experience the greatest effect because the exposure can affect their ability to have healthy and normal children. Johnson control may present a policy that appears discriminating and invasive, but it provides a valid health concern that individuals must consider. The company finds the alternative to be fair and protective of the future generations. Unfortunately, special interest groups as well as individuals seeking employment may find the alternative to be discriminative and an infringement of the civil rights acts. However, an in-depth analysis of the policy would reveal that the organization has the best interest of the female employee in mind.
The Ideal Alternative
Since the organization may not manage to make a 100% elimination of lead from the air. It should embrace realistic measures to prevent occupation lead exposure among female and male employees. Instead of emphasizing on not hiring women, Johnsons Control should aim to minimize inhalation and ingestion. The organization should focus on preventing continued exposure to lead by providing employees with protective gear such as respirators and overall. The respirators will sieve the contaminated air thus minimize inhalation of lead. The overall will also protect workers from contaminating their clothes. Clothes can carry the lead that can result in the transfer of lead contamination to family members including the children that the company is aiming to protect. Workers have the right to a safe work environment, and organizations have the responsibility of providing employees with a work environment that is free from dangers. Johnson Consulting can seek OSHA’s on-site consultation services. The team will evaluate the workplace and determine whether the lead exposure levels are suitable. The Occupational Safety and Administration (OSHA) sets the permissible exposure limit at 50mg of lead per cubic meter of air.
Perception of the Alternative
The organization has demonstrated its willingness to protect women and children from lead contamination and its related health effects. However, the organization adopted an option that led to the discrimination of women; a move that continues to elicit harsh reactions from the public and interest groups. The organization may demonstrate receptiveness towards the alternative of improving its work environment. The policy protects the mother and the unborn child; however, it does not protect them from secondary exposure from their male relatives working at the facility. The organization and society are likely to appreciate the alternative of improving the safety standards at the workplace (Hughes, & Ferrerr, 2013). Efforts to improve the work environment would benefit all employees, as well as the surrounding community. It is true that pregnant women and women who intend on becoming pregnant must avoid lead exposure due to the high risk of miscarriage and fetal deformities. However, minimization of lead exposure at the workplace will also reduce the risk of neurological, gastrointestinal and kidney disorders among employees and the surrounding communities.
Strategies to Counter Negative Feedback
Special interest groups such as environmentalist may launch a scathing attack on the organization due to its release of lead to the atmosphere. The environmentalist may strive to demonstrate the widespread lead contamination arising from the company. The company must invite the special interest groups for talks on environmental conversation measures. It is through communication that the environmentalist may suggest ways to minimize continued exposure. Additionally, the organization will get an opportunity to inform the special interest groups of the strategies they have undertaken to minimize lead contamination. The organization can abolish the policy against the employment of women and start a recruitment initiative for female employees. The organization will ascertain that it has elaborate safety measure in place to minimize contamination. Additionally, the organization will engage in regular monitoring of their lead levels in the atmosphere, under watchful eyes of OSHA (OSHA, 2012). Lead is an important metal that most industrial companies utilize during their manufacturing process. Therefore, it is impossible to eliminate its presence in the workplace. However, the organization should strive to embrace strategies at minimizing exposure to the workers and the environment. Lead causes adverse health effects in the people. The fact that lead is also available in the air means that the nearby environment can also be affected. Organizations such as Johnson control should strive for long-term strategies that are beneficial to all parties involved.
References
OSHA, (2012) Lead.
Huges, P. & Ferrerr, E. (2013). International health and safety at work. Routledge Publishers
Amos, T. & Ristow, A. (2009). Human Resource Management. Juta and company publishers

Sherry Roberts is the author of this paper. A senior editor at Melda Research in online nursing papers. If you need a similar paper you can place your order for a custom research paper from custom research paper services.