American Apparel CEO’s philosophy has been the object of many sexual harassment suits because it is considered inappropriate by many people, it has affected the company since it’s publicly held. In my opinion the CEO’s philosophy of “each person’s right to pursue one’s affection for another human being” is inadequate inside a company since it’s not a professional behaviour.
American Apparel’s ethics policy talks about “promoting ethical conduct, including the handling of actual or apparent conflicts of interest between personal and professional relationships”. Being the director of a company and forcing younger employees into sexual acts is not appropriate since you are not giving your customers a first good impression when promoting your brand.
The company’s sexual freedom philosophy has to be reviewed by the CEO and board of directors, since not only is it affecting their public image, but because their finances are dropping, showing that consumers are not looking at sexual images as a good way of marketing anymore.
Can there really be consensual sex in a workplace where individuals have different status, salaries, intentions and one has power over the other’s situation in the company? I don’t think so, even though it’s always been American Apparel’s image.
Even though the company pays its 10,000 employees well above the garment industry rate, future employees should consider the company’s philosophy before accepting their jobs, you should work at a company that reflects your values so you feel comfortable promoting them to others. Until what point do high salaries make up for the image that the company you are working in gives to the public?
In this article we could actually see some of the concepts that “http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html” talks about. Like the social responsibility, and how American Apparel’s CEO is using its company’s image to get profits.