In reference to this article, my colleague asks:  “do believe that this telemarketer company is justified in hiring inmates?”

My response:

The ethics between hiring inmates for less than minimum wage is blurred; however, firing existing workers because of the cheap labor alternative is unacceptable.  I believe that hiring inmates is a good opportunity for inmates to learn and develop the skills needed for when they are released. I am a believer in second chances, and hiring inmates is a positive way for the inmates to become productive and learn to be responsible. In a complete business perspective, hiring the inmates at a cheaply cost is a smart way to cut down company costs, and I am impressed by the company’s ability to think of this approach. However, is it ethical to be paying 3$/hr? There is no difference between the prisoners and the sweatshop workers in China, but because these inmates are viewed as criminals, it makes it a bit more acceptable. On another note, as mentioned above, it is completely unethical and unacceptable to be firing existing law-abiding workers due to the new rush of cheap labor. These workers are capable individuals, “people [who] are coming in every day, and are generating a lot of revenue […] there’s no reason why these people should have been fired”.

Bottom line: It is unjustified for the telemarketer company to be hiring inmates if they are going to fire valuable staff.

On another curious note, will this become a trend? While it is certainly unethical for major companies such as Apple and Nike to manufacture their products in sweatshops with underage and underpaid workers, will it now become more acceptable if companies hire prisoners who owe dues to society instead?

References:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/aug/08/prisoners-call-centre-fired-staff

https://blogs.ubc.ca/larrycheong/2012/09/12/a-law-abiding-citizen-losing-their-job-to-a-criminal/

As of this month, Bell has offered a $3.4 billion dollar deal to buy out Astral Media, Canada’s largest media broadcaster. While the CRTC is on it’s third day of hearings on whether or not the deal should go through, Bell’s competitors are fighting in opposition against the contract. BCE is one of Canada’s largest telecom company, owning CTV television , former Chum radio group and other specialty TV channels. “If Bell is allowed to own both CTV and Astral, it will have overwhelming control over television on all screens in Canada,” said Pam Dinsmore, vice-president of regulatory affairs at Rogers. Rogers representatives also argue that it will be impossible for them to launch new services without paying the high costs of content owned by Bell, which would ultimately cut the services they can provide to their customers on their mobile devices. In a less competitive perspective, the deal will not only crumble Bell’s competitors, but also extinct media diversity, provide unreasonable market share to Bell and reduce employment opportunities.

In business, everything is about competition. Is it reasonable for Rogers to oppose the Bell-Astral deal? Yes, they need to protect their business, but is their argument valid enough to protect the media society as a whole? On the other hand, is it wrong for Bell to expand their company? When do we need to stop businesses from growing too much?

References:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/competition-bureau-flags-bell-astral-deal/article4548430/

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!