Final Research Paper

Introduction of issue related to worker’s death  

The issue is how can Qatar be so irresponsible and unethical towards the migrant workers?

As per Ira Boudway of Bloomberg Business week, The FIFA 2022 World Cup could be deadly for the workers of Qatar. The death rate may be high due to the extreme hot weather of Qatar and due to the irresponsible people involved in the management. For the preparation of the FIFA 2022 World Cup, numerous migrant workers are working in Qatar. The place where the immigrant workers live is filthy, dangerous and cramped. This is the situation even without the pressure of the world spotlight. It has been found out that hundreds of men die every year due to accidents, heart attacks and suicides and their bodies are being shipped back to the respective countries from the United Arab Emirates. Though it has been argued that none of the workers have died in building the venues for the World Cup as construction has not been started yet. (Boudway, 2014)

As per Owen Gibson of the Guardian paper, the death of almost 964 workers from India, Nepal and Bangladesh has been reported due to fall, suicide or cardiac arrest. Qatar government admits almost 1000 fatalities in migrant workers.  (Gibson, 2014)

However, various international reporters have proved that numerous deaths have already taken place but the boss of the Qatar 2022 committee has claimed that there has not been a single death or injury in the FIFA 2022 World Cup project. It was been found out that more than 450 Indian workers who were working in Qatar have died in 2 years. (Reuters, 2014)

Examine the ethical issues involved and the different ways of looking at the problem –

The biggest ethical issue that is involved in the said case is that most of the officials are not ready to admit that numerous workers have died during construction. According to them, no construction worker has died or has been killed during the preparation of the FIFA 2022 World Cup. This proves that either they are unaware about the situation or they do not care about the lives of the immigrant workers. As per them it is a rubbish report and they defended themselves by saying that it is just not possible to have 400 deaths while just digging holes in the ground. (Newman, 2014). The International Trade Union Confederation has actually criticized Qatar for its treatment towards the migrant workers. The death issue has resulted in fear that the problem could worsen as the pressure rises and the actual construction work starts.

Qatar employs the Kafala labor system which controls the lives of immigrant workers. Immigrant workers generally take a loan from Sponsor Company in order to cover the cost of living and travelling and in return the sponsor has the right to control the lives of the workers and their right to leave Qatar. As per, Sharan Burrow who is the general secretary of the International Trade Union confederation (ITUC), this condition will result in almost 4,000 deaths during the construction of the World Cup venues. It was due to pressure from human rights organizations and the International Trade Union Confederation that Qatar announced that it will make amendments in its labor laws and would remove the employer’s control over the exit of the immigrant workers. This proves that due to pressure Qatar would take some steps and not due to moral ethics. (Boudway, 2014)

As per a daily article by Tony Manfred, there are 14 reasons why Qatar’s FIFA 2022 World Cup is going to be disastrous and a few of the major reasons are –

1. Human rights agencies estimate 4,000 workers will die during the construction of infrastructure related to the FIFA World Cup
2. There is huge bribery. This can be known from how a 10 year old daughter of one of the FIFA official received $ 3.4 million after voting
3. Jack Warner who was a FIFA official was paid $ 2 million for FIFA voting
4.  The Emirate is allegedly using modern day slavery in order to build infrastructure
5. It was announced by Qatar that FIFA would be hosted and played in summer but the temperature of Qatar goes to 120 degrees and thus the tournament would be played in winter
6. Huge investment would be done i. e. almost $ 200 billion
7.  There is no stadium for the World Cup which is ready in Qatar
8. Futuristic air conditioned stadiums which Qatar had promised to build are not possible actually
9. Playing it in winter would screw up European leagues totally (Manfred, 2014)

In order to deal with the death issue, Qatar in the month of February was forced to actually establish a worker’s welfare standards document. The said document includes greater scrutiny of the worker’s payment, their accommodations and other related issues. It was announced that the issue is been taken seriously by the Qatar authorities and it was instructed to adopt the highest standards for workers’ welfare. The officials also said that for Qatar, human rights and security is the top priority and the Emirate aims to work closely with every section of the society so that each person gets equal economic, political and social rights. Qatar has adopted efficient methods as well as a solid partnership for proper human security for its people. (Thomas, 2014)

Give your own position and explain why –

After looking at the various aspects, according to me, Qatar authority has been careless and is behaving in an unethical manner in relation to the lives of the migrant workers working for the FIFA 2022 World Cup. Strict actions need to be taken by the Qatar government and it should also try to adopt the recommendations given by international law firm named DLA Pipers as far as possible. The recommendations given by DLA Pipers include recommendations related to recruitment, the Kafala sponsorship system, accommodation, wages, contracts, health and safety, freedom of association, inspection, and access to justice. (Gibson, 2014)

The issue of human rights and welfare should be considered as a corner-stone for any country and thus measures to deal with the same should be taken as early as possible. The country should provide full support in ensuring that the rights of the individual are not hampered. (Thomas, 2014)

Conclusion

One thing that is clear from the above issue is Qatar does not have stable politics and they seem to be behaving like a teenager or even younger who tried to tease the experienced and the specialist in any field. I am sure that they could over-run the FIFA 2022 World Cup and thus it should not be hosted in Qatar especially because it is a country where they have not even experienced such large events in their life time. Looking at this it would be much better if FIFA hosting is taken from them by law especially if we consider the construction workers’ deaths. 

The issue can be dealt with if proper security measures are taken and this is possible only when strict and clear rules and regulations related to worker’s safety and accommodation is taken care of. Qatar needs to adopt the DLA Piper recommendations as early as possible.

 

Bibliography

Boudway, I. (2014, May 14). The 2022 FIFA World Cup Could Be Deadly for Qatar's Migrant Workers. Retrieved May 15, 2014, from Bloomberg BusinessWeek: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-05-14/the-2022-fifa-world-cup-could-be-deadly-for-qatars-migrant-workers

Gibson, O. (2014, May 14). Qatar government admits almost 1,000 fatalities among migrant workers. Retrieved May 15, 2014, from theguardian: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/14/qatar-admits-deaths-in-migrant-workers

Manfred, T. (2014, April 21). 14 Reasons Why The Qatar World Cup Is Going To Be A Disaster. Retrieved May 15, 2014, from Business insider: http://www.businessinsider.in/14-Reasons-Why-The-Qatar-World-Cup-Is-Going-To-Be-A-Disaster/articleshow/34066735.cms

Newman, L. (2014, May 14). Qatar World Cup Official Denies Death of Workers. Retrieved May 15, 2014, from http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2063224-qatar-world-cup-official-denies-death-of-workers

Reuters. (2014, May 14). No workers have died on World Cup projects, says Qatar. Retrieved May 15, 2014, from https://au.sports.yahoo.com/news/article/-/23490057/no-workers-have-died-on-world-cup-projects-says-qatar/

Thomas, B. (2014, May 14). "Not a single death" on projects, says Qatar 2022 boss. Retrieved May 15, 2014, from arabian business.com: http://www.arabianbusiness.com/-not-single-death-on-projects-says-qatar-2022-boss-550253.html

Research 1

IS IT DANGEROUS TO USE CELL PHONES ON AIRPLANES

INTRODUCTION

Cell phones are a scientific reality. They have proved to be a phenomenal invention in terms of building the communication. The technological progress has even transformed the entire society and its people’s approach to communication. The radical usage of such phones has proved how men depend on them. It has become such a handy mode of getting communicated across the world that people so often carry cell phones wherever they travel. (Kavoori, 2006) 

THE ISSUE IN GENERAL

The usage of cell phones on air planes is indeed a topic of controversy. A number of airlines allow the users to use phones while some others impose a prohibition. The passengers on the other hand, due to their excessive dependence, emphasize the allowance of the phone. In fact the issue has extended to such a point that some other alternative and more beneficial technologies are being sought after. But it would be pertinent to point out that the aviation agencies are not very willing to enforce any new endeavor in this regard until it is assured to be wholly safe. However, the problem of using cell phones on the airplanes can be explained from an ethical point of view.  (Kavoori, 2006) 

THE ETHICAL ISSUES ATTACHED TO IT

The ethical issue of using cell phones on airplanes can be either teleological or Deontological. The first one prescribes to use cell phones because it is necessary although the impact may turn out to be an unwanted one. But on the other hand, the second ethical norm dictates that the phones should not be used on airplanes because they become a cause of utter nuisance. However, there must be a balance between the two ethical issues. Extremist views of should and should not may not be useful all the time. If we try to follow the below mentioned points, the ethical issue can be handled. (Tavani, 2011)

·         There are many passengers on an airplane who prefer to experience the flight with closed eyes. Besides many children or patients also travel on airplanes. In this case, the sudden ringing of the cell phones causes irritation. It hampers the calm of the situation. It is indeed unethical to disturb others. (Tavani, 2011)

·         Audible conversations on cell phones in a public place like that of an air plane often disturb the peace of the others. Such conversations often become a cause of disturbance. Such acts must be controlled even from an ethical point of view. (Nefer, 2014)

·         Discussion of private matters on cell phones often leads others to become aware of the facts which are of course unethical. Although the listeners do not deliberately pay heed to the discussion yet the topic is heard without any restriction majorly due to the callousness and stupidity of the speaker. It must be avoided. (Tavani, 2011)

·         The health hazardous effects of using cell phones so often and so frequently also turn out to be an ethical prescription that counsels not to use these phones so randomly. (Carlo, 2002)

·         Speaking loudly or angrily on the phone becomes childish in a public place like that of a plane. If something is to be sorted or clarified, it is better to do so privately instead of on phones and moreover in public places. (Tavani, 2011)

·         Sometimes people travel on a plane with friends or family members. In such a situation, taking a call and talking throughout may turn out to be out of etiquette. It sometimes also becomes disrespectful or insulting for the other friends or family members.  (Nefer, 2014)

MY ETHICAL VIEW

So far as my ethical standpoint is concerned, I would opine that the two ethical perceptions are to be combined and explored in a decorous manner. To ensure such a balance I would take care of the following issues:

·         I would keep my cell phone in silent mode so that even if my phone rings the other passengers do not get offended with the ring tone and I get enough time to leave my seat and take the call privately.

·         I would try to keep my voice low so that it does not disturb anyone.

·         If I have talk about something private or personal, I would make sure that it is done in such a way that the privacy is completely maintained. The conversation must not reach anybody else’s ears. But to be frank the best way out is to avoid the personal calls in a public place. SMS can serve as an alternative.

·         I would try not to avoid my friends or any family member (if any along with me in the airplane) just to take the call because it may hamper the ethical norms.

·         To be general, the usage of cell phones must be avoided, for the hazardous impact it leaves upon health, no matter if we are in air planes or anywhere else. The electromagnetic effect that the usage of cell phones leaves upon us can be very dangerous. It affects the circulation of blood, causes dizziness and fatigue, disturbs the digestive system, causes headaches and increases the stress. On a serious issue, the excessive usage of the phones also causes cancer. (Carlo, 2002)

·         The electromagnetic field is dangerous for the aircraft system as well. Not only cell phones but also any radio transmitters like computers, walkie talkies etc. prove to be dangerous for the aircraft electronics. So I would try to avoid the usage of all such items on the air plane. Ethically I do not have the right to undo or affect the system.

CONCLUSION

The paper is indeed an ethical one because it not only helps me to judge the disadvantages of the cell phones in general but also helps me to evaluate the situation from other co-passengers’ point of view, if I had been an air plane passenger. But I must acknowledge that cell phones are indeed a miraculous invention of science that has enabled the people to reach their friends or relatives in no time. It is a means which enables men to gain immediate help. These phones are indeed a source of emergency. Although the problem areas of the usage are also a reality yet the complete denial of technological progress would be a stupidity. We should try to gain the utilities of cell phones as much as possible by trying to make a balance with the negative aspects as well.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Carlo, L. M. (2002). Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age. Basic Books.

Kavoori, P. N. (2006). The Cell Phone Reader: Essays in Social Transformation. Peter Lang.

Nefer, B. (2014). Cell Phone Etiquette on the Plane. Road & Travel Magazine . http://traveltips.usatoday.com/cell-phone-etiquette-plane-12463.html

Tavani, T. (2011). Ethics and Technology: Controversies,Questions, and Strategies for Ethical Computing. John Wiley & Sons.

Mandatory drug testing

The majority of employers have adopted mandatory random drug testing on their employees, arguing that the enormous damage caused by the pervasive use of drugs in our society carries over into the workplace. Typically the tests involve taking urine or blood samples under close observation, thereby raising questions about personal privacy as well as privacy issues regarding drug use away from the workplace that is revealed by the tests.

Present & defend your view concerning mandatory drug tests at the workplace.

In your answer, take account of the argument that, except where safety is a clear & present danger, as in the work of pilots, police & the military, such tests are unjustified. Employera have a right to the level of performance for which they pay employees, a level typically specified in contracts & job descriptions. When a particular employee fails to meet that level of performance, then employers will take appropriate disciplinary action based on observable behaviour. Either way, it is employee performance that is relevant in evaluating employees, not drug use per se.

What do you think?

Over the years, I have met and had the pleasure of knowing people who are basically drug addicts. Most of the times they didn't even show up when we were close to each other and gathered with our friends, especially as they choose that time to gather and dope and not answer their parents phone calls. Guess who gets to cover that family issue when they can't reach them plus rearranging a story to tell them they are asleep or they are studying or whatsoever ? Yes,  it was always me since I had the most clear reputation in front of their parents. You get old really fast. Another aspect is that drug users, even if they do show up for attending classes or work, well, they are likely to be either high or hung over. This can create safety issues.

Here's two examples: a guy I knew who was a pot smoker, well, he managed to put his hand into a running meat grinder. He lost 3 fingers while he was studying abroad and away from his family. Another girl I used to study with cut off a third of one finger using a meat slicer.

People who are high or hung over do not pay attention to details. This may mean that they go to mop the floor in a grocery store for instance, but neglect to put out the 'Caution - Wet Floor' signs. Then, if a customer slips and falls due to the wet floor with no warning signs, the customer can sue the store, and will likely win the lawsuit. (Although the customer may need a hip replacement or hip surgery or back surgery, yet even that probably would be covered by the lawsuit.)

It's a tricky question.
Should I allow my employees if I am the employer to get high on their off hours?
That is indeed their free time, and I have no right to tell them what to do in their off hours.
Yet, as a employer, I cannot have lawsuits based on drugged out employees.

Overall, as an employer, I have every right to have a drug-testing policy for my employees, mainly to reduce the chances of the aforementioned outcomes due to employees who might be drug users.  Drug testing saves lives, That's the bottom line.

Case Study 1

2006 Luluat Al Khair Hotel building collapse

 

 

Introduction:

On 5 January 2006 a 5-storey Hotel collapsed in Mecca just 60 meters away from the walls of Masjid Al Haram or the Grand Mosque, Islam’s holiest city, in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Casualties: 76 dead, 62 injured. The disaster marred the start of the annual gathering of millions of Muslims for the hajj pilgrimage in that year. The massive gathering suffered several tragedies in the past 20 years despite the Saudi effort to organize and accommodate more than 2 million people who descend on Mecca every year to perform the Hajj which is an obligation for every Muslim who is physically and financially able to fulfil at least once in a lifetime.

 

 

 

 

Overview:

The building that collapsed contained shops, restaurants and is used as a hotel during pilgrimages; the building base was surrounded by market stalls as well as the path towards the Grand Mosque. Prior to the collapse a fire was witnessed spreading on the ground floor; the fire alarm was on and sprinklers were in operation. Fortunately, the building wasn’t full because most of the residents were in the holy shrine at that time. Nevertheless, most of the casualties were from the passers-by near the building. United Arab Emirates state news agency WAM said four of its citizens had been killed, and according to Islam, anyone who dies on the way to or during the hajj is a martyr (Allah’s will).

 

 

 

Ethical issues:

a)   Engineering: After a lengthy and through investigation, it has been shown that the building, which was constructed 50 years ago where the majority of contractors at that time were not professional in the real sense of architecture, and they were not bound to any professional ethics or code of conduct. They have used traditional methods, therefore, the building collapsed because of its ageing structure and ill-designed annex.

 

b)  Administrative: an investigation committee was formed after the incident where it examined all buildings housing pilgrims and ensured they are safe.

 

c)   National politics: Habib Turkestani, the Saudi owner and the operator of the hotel kept on insisting that the structure was safe; and related the incident to the matter of fate and divine decree. Therefore, the Saudi Government proposed public clarification, placing emphasis on how building disasters could be prevented rather than managing situations which might be costlier in order to identify the safety standard to all of the building owners, where nothing was released to the media whether an action was taken against Turkestani by that time or not.

 

d)  Shop owners: many of the market sellers around the hotel lost their shops and under orders from the minister of Interior, back at that time, Prince Naif bin Abdulaziz “may peace be upon him” they were provided with a financial assistance until they get settled with brand new shops at other locations around the Grand Mosque as well.

 

e)  Building inspectors: the built environment, in any country, determines the nature and pace of national development. Inspectors should always bear in mind that accommodation is one of the basic needs of human kind, and based on that, the governor of Mecca revoked all the licenses given before the collapse and ordered a re-evaluation from the building inspectors of all buildings.

 

f)    General pilgrims: the number of pilgrims that descend on Mecca each year has increased in the past 8 years; during that time, the Saudi government spent billions of dollars to improve the accommodation, transportation and medical facilities in order to ensure the safety of the millions of the faithful who arrive for hajj each year.

 

 

Conclusion:

 

After the lengthy and through investigation, the government of Saudi Arabia stated that the responsibility for the incident lay on the shoulders of the first tenant, the architectural department, the ministry of commerce and industry’s branch in Mecca and the general secretariat in the city. The investigation committee that was formed after the incident took the case in addition to the public prosecution in order to examine the allegations filed against employees of the ministry of commerce and industry in Mecca and the general secretariat in the city.


References:

1. Mecca Hotel Collapse Kills Hajj Pilgrims." Review. The Guardian [London] n.d.: n. pag. Theguardian.com. Guardian News and Media, 05 Jan. 2006. Web. 14 Mar. 2014.
2. Pilgrim Hostel Collapses in Mecca." BBC News. BBC, 05 Jan. 2006. Web. 14 Mar. 2014.
3. Rescuers Search in Rubble of Mecca Building." The Independent. Independent Digital News and Media, 6 Jan. 2006. Web. 14 Mar. 2014.
4. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Ministry of Hajj. Hajj Ministry Portal. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2014.
5. Adnan, Hamimah, Norfashiha Hashim, Norazian Mohd, Norizan Ahmad, and Yusuwan. Ethical Issues in the Construction Industry: Contractor's Perspective. Rep. Universiti Teknologi MARA, 9 Apr. 2012. Web. 14 Mar. 2014.
6. Curry, David. "Saudi Arabia MOH Issues." Global Vaccine Ethics and Policy. Center of Vaccine Ethics and Policy, 28 July 2013. Web. 14 Mar. 2014.

Human rights

The American Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The core of the American Declaration of Independence circled around some ideas of great thinkers from the Explanation Era. One of these ideas suggested that all men are created equal by the Lord Almighty and every single person had the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  those slaves were denied their rights of liberty and the pursuit of happiness while being torn away from their homelands and brought to a whole different place where they were not familiar to any of the aspects of the society. Moreover they were tortured by their white masters and were treated like objects and not human beings. Considering all these facts about slavery, the American Declaration of Independence sounded like a ridiculous irony that they kept making fun of which doesn’t represent the real comprehension of equality. It was quite an ironic declaration if one cared to relate these words by Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg address (November 1864) ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people’ to the social and political mechanism of the American colonies.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau:

"Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains" That was the first sentence of Rousseau's "The Social Contract."

This was the concept of ‘the noble savage’.

Thomas Hobbes:

"In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently, not culture of the earth, no navigation, nor the use of commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

Design, production & ethical issues

Aluminium cans

Approximately 1 billion are produced in the USA each year. The first can was designed in 1958 by Kaiser Aluminium. This metal proved ideal as it was a lightweight, flexible material that allowed manufacturing of the bottom & sides of the can from a single sheet, leaving the top to be added after the can was filled.

The first cans were opened with a separate opener but this was inconvenient so Ermal Fraze designed a small lever attached to the can which was removed as the can was opened.

The design was workable but after a while it created an ethical dilemma:

First of all it was a human problem because discarded drink tabs were a health hazard, despite what has been going around over half a century; the recycling of used aluminium cans has been the driving force in the growth of the aluminium sector world-wide.

So in 1976 Daniel F. Cudzik invented a simple, stay-attached opener of the sort familiar today.

As improvements were made in the design & production of aluminium cans, various ethical problems arose concerning:

a. Human safety: Millions of pounds of aluminium are used in producing aluminium cans; they are melted and cast safely in the industry at their specific foundries all over the world. However, there are inherent hazards in virtually every activity. These hazards can be minimized or eliminated by careful attention to safe handling practices.

b. Environmental pollution: Each ton of alluminum cans requires 5 tons of bautxite ore to be crushed, washed, and produced as an alumina product; this process itself is considered as a threat in terms of enviromental pollution since it creates about 5 tons of caustic red mud residues which can seep into surface and ground water.

c. Convenience: Few beverage can technologies of the past decade have made as big a splash as have aluminium cans. Yet another convenience technology,  aluminium cans have helped the aluminum beverage industry regain some of the ground lost to the rise in popularity of polyethylene cans.

d. Money: Aluminium cans are the only container permitted in a couple of Asian countries such as Himalayas, Nepal because they are light and easy to crush. The local people who collect used aluminium cans also earn money from recycling the cans.

 

Ethical Issues; Hiroshima and Nagasaki dilemma

Was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the right thing to do?

I believe World war 2 was the wrong thing to do for everyone involved in it. Having said that, I believe all bets were off in so far as what any of the parties did once it was going.

The Japanese chose to invade China, rape Shanghai and Nanking, bomb Pearl Harbor, to refuse to surrender when they were given a chance with regards to the bomb being dropped. Those choices were made by the Japanese.

At any point that war could have stopped in the Pacific if the Japanese had chosen to end it.

Meanwhile, the United States was acting and making choices, largely in response to choices made by the Japanese. Each side was acting in what it believed were the best interests of the populations or governments in each country. Neither was considering the best interests of the opposing side. It would be dishonest and unreasonable to expect them to.

The Japanese made the decision to have two bombs dropped on cities it controlled. It didn't have to happen. They could have chosen otherwise. The choice rests firmly on the government of Japan.

To suggest the United States had an obligation to lose a single soldier more than it would have otherwise to obtain a choice from Japan to end the war is contradictory to the entire concept of the times and the situation and has nothing to do with ethics, morals, anything but strategy and tactics with the object of squeezing a specific, narrow choice out of Japan and the leaders the Japanese had chosen to follow in their choices.

Furthermore, every population of every country lives with the consequences of decisions made by the governments of those countries.

 

References:-

1.       Hiroshima and Nagasaki." Www.crisismagazine.com. Terry Hall, n.d. Web.