Paper on Unauthorized Immigrant Workers at Chipotle Mexica Grill Restaurants

How being an unauthorized immigrant a form of workplace diversity is similar to and different from the other types of workplace diversity discussed in Chapter 16 of your textbook.

Workforce diversity helps to improve production capabilities in any organization. According to Goss, Wade, Skirvin, Morris, Bye, Huston (2013), it is the human characteristic variations that distinguish different persons within the workplace. Organization leaders are likely to harness the differences in human characteristics in order to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency within their operations. The skills each person each person brings into the business proves the need to achieve diversity. The unauthorized immigrant is a form of diversity within the country or workplace. In relation to the text in chapter 16, there may be certain similarities and differences that exist. As per the definition above, the similarity comes from the fact that an unauthorized immigrant is a form of diversity in itself. However, the case of unauthorized immigrants presents certain complications because of the legal issues within the country. When the situation is taken to include the legal aspect, being an unauthorized immigrant does not form workplace diversity.

Chapter 16 clearly shows that an organization must achieve workplace diversity through lawful recruitment process. The text indicates that workplace diversity should achieve workplace diversity by recruiting men, women, authorized immigrants, the aged, young persons, the disabled, different ethnicities and races. The difference comes from the fact that it fails to mention that unauthorized immigrant is an accepted form of workplace diversity. As much the unauthorized immigrant presents human variation to an organization, the recruitment process requirements fail to recognize such a person within the workplace. The Chipotle Mexica Grill Restaurants employed unauthorized immigrants illegally because the law requires all immigrants to have proper documentation.

The person who fails to meet minimum recruitment requirements an only find their way into the workplace through other illegal means. According to Liu (2010), all person making up the workforce should undergo a legitimate process that allows them to form part of the organization. However, the text shows that the Chipotle Mexica Grill Restaurants failed to follow the US regulations on recruiting immigrants, especially the verification of the documents. Unfortunately, it seems that the organization knowingly recruited unauthorized immigrants for their selfish reasons. The illegality comes from the fact that unauthorized immigrant comes into the country through organized criminal gangs as well as through bribery of the immigration officials.

The text in chapter 16 is categorical that all immigrants must acquire work permits before acquiring a job within the US. Dishonesty that the Chipotle Mexica Grill The restaurant shows that the organization has knowingly disregarded the law in order to gain from the cheap labor and reduced tax remittances to the government. Therefore, the text shows that the intention of the restaurant was not to achieve diversity but to gain from the cheap labor provided by the desperate individuals who run from their countries to the US for greener pastures. They willingly provide cheap labor for the restaurant at the expense of other authorized and documented immigrants. In the context of the case, undocumented immigrants do not form workplace diversity.

Which stakeholders, other than employers are helped and which are hurt when an organization hires unauthorized immigrants?

When an organization employs unauthorized immigrants, certain stakeholders are helped while others are hurt. Employers enjoy the financial incentives that come from reduced salary expenses (Schaeffer, & Kahsai, 2011). The benefits may be extended to customers from the cheaper product offerings. On the other hand, legal immigrants and local citizens are hurt in the process. Chipotle Mexica Grill Restaurant hired unauthorized immigrants because of the monetary value. It is obvious that all business organizations prioritize profits in all its operations. Salaries are part of the major expenses that a business entity has to optimize in order to gain profits. Employing unauthorized immigrants means that an organization pays fewer salaries. No law regulates the employment of illegal immigrants; therefore, employers are sure of the financial incentives. Illegal immigrants are not entitled to certain benefits from the business, leading to the reduced payroll.

Decreased expenses leads to cheaper products and services for the customers. When an organization cuts on expenses like salaries, profits increase. When such occurs, employers are likely to reduce prices of the products in a bid to have a competitive edge over the other similar businesses (Palivos, & Yip, 2010). Therefore, customers also enjoy incentives that accrue from employing unauthorized immigrants. For instance, the restaurant was able to retain loyal customers by reducing their prices and at the same time attracting more customers. Customers only compare the prices versus the quality of the products and services.

Unauthorized immigrants are a source of cheap labor in the US. Due to the fact that these are persons who illegally cross their borders into the country to look for better opportunities, they offer cheap services to organizations that do not care about the legal requirements. Therefore, organizations that seek to maximize profit employ such persons. As noted above, illegal immigrants have not properly documented persons within the US, and the organization that employs them does no offer other benefits. In most cases, the authorized immigrants, with proper documents are likely to lose their jobs due to the cheap labor from unauthorized immigrants (Hotchkiss, & Rios-Avila, 2013). On the same note, the local citizens who deserve these opportunities may not get them because of the labor demands. The legal immigrant other employees are likely to also miss out on other benefits like pay rise and promotions due to cheap labor from illegal immigrants.

Families are hurt when organizations fail to employ the locals due to the presence of cheap labor from illegal immigrants. Most of the eligible person will either have no source of income or earn less. Such a situation reduces the purchasing power of the people. Many individuals and families have less to spend on goods and services, leading to the deterioration of the local economy. The situation also hurts other local businesses that strictly follow the labor laws. These businesses spend more on their employee welfare, unlike businesses that employ illegal immigrants. The difference in the prices of goods and services between the two businesses is a problem in the market.

Part B: Case Study: Merck, the FDA, and the Vioxx Recall

Do you believe that Merck acted in a socially responsible manner with regard to the development and testing of Vioxx? Explain why and/or why not.

Merck did not act in a socially responsible manner with regard to the development and testing of Vioxx. Today, organizations must ensure that social corporate responsibility becomes one of the core determinants of operations. Every business must take responsibility for the business operations that may affect the public and the environment (Surroca, Tribo, & Zahra, (2013). This calls for a thorough inspection of all the processes that lead to the production of goods and services for the consumers. An organization should avoid any processes or ingredients that may harm the environment and consumers. Based on the above concerns, it comes out that Merck did not act as a socially responsible pharmaceutical manufacturer. Despite having knowledge of the side effects of Vioxx, the company went ahead to release it to the public without addressing them.

Research and production department of the company knew that the drug could affect the hearts and blood vessels of the patients, they notified the executives about the same but no action was taken. Corporate social responsibility demanded that the action be taken in the early stages to modify the formula in order to mitigate the side effects. After the research department has raised questions about the dangerous side effects, the executives could have stopped further plans to release it in order to allow for the modification and further tests. Releasing the drug to be sold to the patients disregarding the warning was socially irresponsible. After the drug had been released to the market, FDA also tested and proved the side effects. The entity advised the company to add the effects into the drug’s label; however, they never responded to it in time. They failed to disclose full information about the drug to potential consumers.

A socially responsible company should always act to mitigate the probable effects of its activities on the people. When a company fails to disclose important information to the public concerning the side effects, it is obvious that the pharmaceutical company has failed the important test of social responsibility. Notifying the potential clients on the side effects of the drug could have helped them make a decision whether to use it or not. The company was also aware of the catastrophe that the side effects could cause to the public in terms of other health complications. Social responsibility demanded that the company tests modify the drug and only releases it when it is safe. Or else, the labeling could have indicated the probable side effects.

Financial gain may have been the main reason for Merck’s irresponsible behavior. The company may have looked at the huge financial investment it had used to develop the drug and the best thing was to release it and gain more. It was unethical to release the drug to the public with faults in order to maximize sales. According to the executives, releasing Vioxx without disclosing the side effects was to ensure maximum supply and use in the market. Unfortunately, they heavily advertised it without mentioning the side effects.

Do you believe that Merck acted in a socially responsible manner with regard to Vioxx in its relations with customers and shareholders? Explain why and/or why not.

Customers and shareholders are important stakeholders within a business organization. Merck failed to be responsible in relation to both of these people with regard to Vioxx. A pharmaceutical company manufactures drugs meant to heal and reduce pain in patients. This requires elaborate research during the production and development of the drug. Merck did well until it discovered the side effects Vioxx could cause to patients. A socially responsible pharmaceutical company must ensure that the drugs are safe for use by the patients. On the same note, the prices should reasonable to the buyers (Skard, & Thorbjørnsen, 2013). It comes out that Merck prioritized making profits to offering quality products to the public. When the drug was released into the market, it was more expensive than similar drugs from other competitive companies. It means that the company failed to be honest with the drug, going ahead to exploit the ignorance of the customers.

Lack of disclosure of the full information to the shareholders is an irresponsibility. Shareholders have invested their finances into the businesses in order to gain profit. Production and research departments could have disclosed the information in order to find a way before releasing Vioxx into the market. Informing the shareholders could have helped in making a decision that safeguarded the long term interest of the company. As much as the company gained profit after the extensive advertisement and media campaigns, the recall that followed harmed the business through share price drops. Such a scenario could have been avoided if the executives had been responsible enough to regard the future implications of their actions.

Do you believe that Merck acted in a socially responsible manner with regard to the marketing and advertising of Vioxx? Explain why and/or why not.

Companies spend a lot of resources in marketing and advertising in order to promote their goods and services. Marketing and advertising present’s information about the product on offer to the customers to allow them to make a decision (Zavyalova, Pfarrer, Reger, & Shapiro, 2012). Customers have a right to the truthful information about the drugs availed to them. This case shows that Merck spent a fortune on advertising and marketing Vioxx on different platforms to enhance its sales. The company conducted an effective campaign that elevated the effectiveness of the drug; however, the information on the public domain was not factual to the customers. The company failed to disclose the side effects of the drug on human health. It can be said that the company practiced false marketing and advertising of the drug in order to gain pretentiously from the customers.

Merck did a lot of campaign among other pharmaceutical outlets, doctors and direct to customer advertising. Direct information to customers could have been made in a way that allows them to have a preview of the side effects. However, the information was not forthcoming. Medical practitioners and pharmaceutical outlets can easily interpret and understand the information on the pharmaceutical labels. Therefore, unlike the medical practitioners, the normal customers only react to the general advertisement on the media platforms. They are never aware of the dangers caused by the side effects on human health. It is obvious that the company wrongly used advertisements to market Vioxx that hard adverse negative effects on the consumers.

Doctors and other pharmaceutical product distributors played a role in marketing Vioxx. With full knowledge of the negative side effects, Merck used their finances and influence to ensure that Vioxx was embraced in the market. The doctors were given the incentives to recommend the drug to patients. Therefore, the doctors contributed to the false marketing of the dangerous product. According to the text, the company also sponsored certain promotional forums disguised as the educational programs for doctors. It was irresponsible for the company to use doctors and pharmaceutical outlets to promote a drug that could harm human health.

Do you believe that Merck acted in a socially responsible manner with regard to Vioxx in its relationships with government policymakers and regulators? Explain why and/or why not.

Merck did not act socially responsible with regard to Vioxx towards the government policymakers and regulators. In order to quicken the influence of the drug in the market, the company influenced different regulators in the market (Kuczewski, & Brubaker, 2014). They used their connections and financial ability to lobby for support from policymakers, despite having the knowledge of the potential public harm. It was unethical and wrong to influence for a dangerous drug. The regulators who went ahead to endorse the drug failed to think of the future implications of their actions. Legal actions could be taken against these institutions in cases of public uproar and recall.

The government is responsible for the general health of the citizens. Different arms formulate laws that protect the interest of the citizens as well as the health industry players. The citizens must have safe drugs in the market and the producer and suppliers must also provide the same at a reasonable cost. Therefore, its agencies should only act towards maintaining the public health of the people. However, it comes out that Merck used its influence on relevant regulators in order to release a dangerous drug to the market. To make matters worse, the regulators allowed Vioxx to be sold at a price higher than the market value. FDA discovered the problem and tried to convince the company to add information about side effects on the labels; however, Merck still used its influence to delay affecting the same. In general, Merck did not act in a manner expected of the socially responsible company towards the policymakers and regulators. They provided false information and used their influence to have their way for maximum profit.

Do you believe that Merck’s voluntary public recall of Vioxx was an act of corporate social responsibility? Explain why and/or why not.

The decision to recall Vioxx was an act of corporate social responsibility because it came from the realization of the impact of the past mistake. The company had acted unethically, leading to health problems on a number of the customers (Puneet, & Ashish, 2012). It is unfortunate that the matter had to go out of hand for Merck to authorize a recall. As much as it was too little too late for a decision, it was a necessary step that was meant to save all the stakeholders.

To the shareholders, it was obvious that the decision to disregard problems with the drug before the release was a mistake. The recall happens when the damage has been done and many customers have been affected. The company’s reputation has been damaged out of the effect on the drug on the people. The recall is a responsible decision because it seeks to save the company’s reputation. Delaying the recall could have led to more damage than expected, especially for the shareholders whose livelihood depends on the company’s financial growth. Therefore it is responsible behavior towards saving the company’s reputation and its business activities.

The recall also shows responsibility towards the general welfare of the customers. Regret comes from the earlier disregard of the concerns from the research and development department to make changes to the drug before release. It is unfortunate that the recall takes place after some lives have been affected in one way or the other. However, the recall puts a stop to the continued use of Vioxx by customers.

 

References

Lawrence, A., & Weber, J. (2014).  Business and society: Stakeholders, ethics, and

Public policy (14th Ed). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Higher Education

Lawrence, A., & Weber, J. (2014).  Business and society: Stakeholders, ethics, and

Public policy (14th Ed). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Higher Education

Goss, S., Wade, A., Skirvin, J.P., Morris, M., Bye, K.M., Huston, D., (2013). Effects of

Unauthorized Immigration on the Actuarial Status of the Social Security Trust Funds

(Actuarial Note Number 151). Social Security Administration, Office of the Chief

Actuary, Washington, DC.

Hotchkiss, J. L., & Rios-Avila, F., (2013). Identifying factors behind the decline in the U.S. labor

force participation rate. Bus. Econ. Res. 3, 257–275.Vicino, J. (2013). Suburban Crossroads: The Fight for Local Control of Immigration Policy. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Kuczewski, G., & Brubaker, L. (2014). “Medical Education for “Dreamers”: Barriers and

Opportunities for Undocumented Immigrants”. Academic Medicine. 89(12): 1593–1598.

Liu, X. (2010). “Labor Market Search and the Dynamic Effects of Immigration”. Journal of

Economic Dynamics and Control. 12(34).

Palivos, T. & Yip, C. (2010). “Illegal immigration in a heterogeneous labor market”. Journal of

Economics. 101(1): 21–47.

Puneet, S., & Ashish, N. (2012). Social Responsibility and ISO 26000 Standards: A New

Beginning. Advances in Management.

Schaeffer, P. V., & Kahsai, S. (2011). “A Theoretical Note on the Relationship between

Documented and Undocumented Migration”. International Journal of Population Research. 1–7

Skard, S., & Thorbjørnsen, H. (2013). Is Publicity Always Better than Advertising? The Role of

Brand Reputation in Communicating Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-12.

Surroca, J., Tribo, J. A., & Zahra, S. A. (2013). Stakeholder pressure on MNEs and the transfer

of socially irresponsible practices to subsidiaries. Academy of Management Journal, 56: 549–572.

Zavyalova, A., Pfarrer, M. D., Reger, R. K., & Shapiro, D. L. (2012). Managing the message:

The effects of firm actions and industry spillovers on media coverage following wrongdoing. Academy of Management Journal, 55: 1079–1101.