Ethics

This paper analyses the verdict of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case between International Union (UAW) and Johnson Controls. The plaintiff accuses the defendant for imposing fetal policies in the workplace. The Supreme Court takes side with the plaintiff in that their position is grounded on the Title vii of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Both the defendant and the plaintiff however, base their positions on valid grounds. While (UAW) bases itself on the bill of rights the Johnson Controls bases itself on the safety act. This is what makes the matter complicated and very hard to determine who is actually guilty. Therefore, a reconciliation of the two is important especially in the light of value ethics and fundamental principles of legality. The study also gives the morality of the whole saga and proposes some of the options that can be adopted in addressing the issue.

Among the major places that people have their rights violated is at the workplace. Statistics indicate that most people spend a lot at their work places and do little in their free time.  More of this shall be illustrated in the case between UAW versus Johnson Controls Inc. The contention between International Union (UAW) and Johnson Controls Inc was based on the fetal protection policies where workers especially fertile or pregnant women are barred from operating within hazardous work sites. The reason identified with fetal policies is it protects an actual or potential fetus from encountering possible danger like in the case or premature miscarriage.

The Plaintiffs, in this case the UAW, argue that the defendants, in this case the Johnson Controls, have overstepped their mandate in respect to Title vii of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination in employment. Further to this, the Congress is on record for having passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which again forbids employers discriminating against workers with pregnancies. This occurred in 1978. Other observation has it that this Act prohibits sex discrimination against the opposite sex in the light of their potentiality to become pregnant. This is what fetal policies do and they should be erased from the statutes governing workplaces.

In the Courts opinion this was in contravention of the principles in the civil rights Act. The court asserted that the policies were unjustified as per the Title vii Civil Rights Act. As such, the employer cannot presuppose that fertility or pregnancy in women make them improper to work in hazardous work sites (Clauss, et al. 1993). The court categorically states any attempt in blocking fertile women realizing their desirable goals not excluding discrimination at the work place is offensive and punishable by law. In spite of the courts efforts in ensuring a non-discriminatory atmosphere in the work place it was contested that it did not address the issue adequately especially on the subject of health. In this regard, the position of the court does not take into consideration the issue of health, all that it emphasizes is equality in the assignment of duties no matter the circumstances.

This study therefore, critically examines the options available to Johnson controls to respond to the problem discussed in the Supreme Court case. The ethical dimensions of the case, including an analysis to Johnson Controls approach to the problem (of lead exposure to fertile women) will also be considered. In addition, the study will also reflect what, if any are the ethically preferable options to their policy of protective exclusion.

UAW versus Johnson Controls
From a moral standpoint the fetal protection policies deserve 50 recommendations and on the other hand 50 criticism. It is important that employers create an environment that safeguards the health of the workers at all times. The statute informing the UAW versus Johnson Controls as per Title vii of the Civil Rights Act (6) needs amendments in the light of ethics. It is impressive to have a provision that ensures that the rights of all are respected without any discrimination to it. This, in deed, is a good thing and only to this extent can the aforementioned Civil Rights Act be morally justified. Nonetheless, it can be even more impressive if it also addresses health issues. The lawyers participating in the case rarely raised matters on health. However, facts indicate that the effects of lead on reproductive health and in general, health, also succumbs to gender based discrimination (Clauss, et al. 1993).

As indicated above, discrimination extends into matters of reproductive health. There can be no greater moral initiative in fostering dignity of workers if employers do not first consider their health. It is indisputable that unhealthy workers cannot be adequately productive unless they work in good and sound health. In fact, the Occupational Safety  Health Act clearly spells out requirements for ensuring a work place free from notable hazards. Therefore, the employers cannot claim that they do not know their legal obligation. In Latin, it is said, ignoratia facti excusat, ignoratia juris non excusat which typically means that ignorance of the fact exonerates but ignorance of the law does not. From this dictum no excuse can be taken lightly for any employee who fails to conform to the set standards as far as workplace is concerned. This is important. To recapitulate what has been mentioned above, the Occupational Safety  Health Act serves as a standard guide in ensuring that among many other decrees safety of the employees in mandatory and a priority. The employer who fails to put in place adequate safety standards contravenes or acts illegally. Please note, illegally.

The emphasis on the illegality of the employer in a case where he fails to execute proper safety mechanisms already makes hisher operations or business unethical. This is why it was mentioned above that there is a 50-50 level of guilt between UAW vis a vis Johnson Controls. In principle, acting illegally is immoral and acting discriminatively is also immoral and a violation of justice so to speak. It is on this grounds that both camps fail in their moral obligations. Therefore the recognition of the Supreme Court ought that Johnson Controls bid to safeguard the reproductive health of the women is highly laudable. By so doing, the court will have fully exercised its mandate especially in the legal framework. Therefore, to note that the lawyers avoided the issue of reproductive health is a contradiction of what they are supposed to do as legal experts.

Fetal Protection Policies
As the name suggests fetal is coined from the word fetus. So, having this in mind one can deduce that fetal policies are associated more with women and conception. In this regard, fetal protection policies attempt to safeguard the fetus from workplace hazards (US Legal, 2010). The fetal policies were adopted by a vast number of private sectors in the periods between 1980s and early 1990s. This made it more complicated in the issue of gender equity in the work place. As such, it had gender discrimination as its denominator, it seems. It made it difficult in reconciling gender equality, employers duty for occupational safety and health, and fetal rights.

This conflict has been indicated above where it has been mentioned that UAW versus Johnson Controls is a 50-50 state of affairs. Both the court and the employer find themselves in a role crisis since each is acting in accordance with a given standard. As such, the employer argues his case from the point of view of the safety act whereas the court argues its case from the point of view of the principles of natural justice and affirmative action. According to the U.S. Supreme Court fetal policies contravened equal employment laws stated in the bill of rights.

In 1991, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that it is not in the discretion of the employer as to what work environment is hazardous for a pregnant employee this is in the sole discretion of the pregnant employee and to a large extent with her doctor (US Legal, 2010). It further argues that the employers intervention is welcome when a workers pregnancy interferes with her performance in the job.

Now, looking at the deliberations of the Supreme Court stated above one can capture the confusion in the whole thing. It is in this confusion then that one can reflect on the moral options in this context. The assertion of the U.S Supreme Court fails to take into consideration the provisions in the safety act which mandates the employer to ensure a healthy environment for the employees. It can be argued and justifiably so that the Supreme Court judgment somehow contravenes the law. Safety act is a legal document because its derivations emanate from the other laws in the constitution and in the penal code. Here, it echoes what was said earlier that acting contrary to the legal requirements is unethical. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court intention to advocate for a non-discriminative framework is also morally justified. This again, echoes what has already been illustrated earlier.

The fact that the employer is supposed to intervene in cases where a pregnant worker is unable to exercise her duties strictly because of her pregnant situation is an anticipatory indication that an employer should regulate the activities of such workers. Consider the following example. The court rules that a parent should never interfere with a childs TV watching whatever the circumstances. And that only the child can determine when to watch TV or when not to watch TV. But then, the court goes ahead to argue that the mother can regulate the childs watching especially if it prevents her from doing her studies or other responsibilities assigned to her in the house. Consider the ruling of the court once again. The mother has no right to control the child in TV watching as this is left to the child. But, the mother again is supposed to regulate her watching if it poses some dangers in the childs growth. See that, the court realizes that watching TV has some effects detrimental to the growth of this child and that is why it again confers the responsibility to the parent in regulating her watching. It can be inferred therefore that, the parent knows the dangers associated with the uncontrolled TV watching of her child. The parent can anticipate these dangers hence will always ensure that the child is either watching TV at regulated intervals or she never watches at all.

The above example should help in understanding why the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court is rather absurd and contradictory. The situation of the parent refers to the situation of the employer and the situation of the child refers to the situation of the pregnant worker. This therefore invites a need to strike a balance between the UAW and Johnson Controls. In deed, there is a middle ground for both cases. International Association of Fire Fighters is another case where fetal policies govern some of their operations. It bars pregnant women from engaging in firefighting activities. Pregnant women should take part in fire containment, hazardous operations, and EMS operations once they are confirmed pregnant (US Legal, 2010).

From an ethical point of view the fetal policies are by and large impressive. The aim to protect the unborn child is a good thing as expressed in such policies. Corporate fetal protection policies aim at safeguarding the child from being subjected to harmful substances in the workplace (Ira, et al. 1992). To resolve the crisis triggered by the fetal policies in workplace several options can be considered. This is what will be discussed here below.

As noted earlier, fetal policies have a good intention only that the intention is not geared towards the employee per se but to the unborn child. One can ruthlessly argue that the employer should not be concerned with the safety of the baby since she has not employed the baby but instead, should care about the interests of the worker, in this case, the pregnant worker. In deed, only women can tell when, what and how they want things done especially while in their pregnancy. However, they should also acknowledge that there are certain situations in the work place that can be of great harm to them and to the unborn child they carry in their womb. It is important that they reflect their situation and the medical risks involved. It can be advisable if they go through a thorough medical check up that can establish that they are in good shape. It is true that there no ways that a doctor can determine which woman to work where while pregnant it is very difficult in deed. But, it is also possible for a doctor to advice on what to be avoided in the case of a pregnant mother. For example, a doctor can propose that she avoids places with much noise say from the factory as it interferes with the babys heart beat or that she stops driving herself or that she keeps off heavy duty kind of work and so on and so forth. Such reports and recommendations from the doctor can ease the hostility triggered by the fetal policies. In this regard, the employers can assign the pregnant workers tasks based on their health and more so on the doctors report for the same.

The crisis can also be an avenue for improvement in the work place. In this light, employers should ensure an environment that suits women workers at all times. In other words, the workplaces should be such that they accommodate both a pregnant woman worker and non-pregnant woman worker. It should never be the case that when a woman falls pregnant she is discharged of some of her duties. From the word go, the employer should try to create workplaces that are accommodative. For example, having protective devices that women can use in case they become pregnant so that they do not have to terminate their job designation like in the case of a woman assigned to drive a truck once she becomes pregnant, she ought not stop driving the truck but, there should be other advanced protective devises she can use hence continue with her duty as a truck driver.

The government in conjunction with the private sector can rely on medical experts in identifying those conditions in the work place that can be detrimental to the fetus and more importantly, the well-being of the pregnant worker. They can therefore establish fetal policies based on valid and proper guidelines from the medical practitioners. Therefore, their policies shall be well grounded on fundamental medical views that not even women can dispute. In fact, the employers can use the very women to develop fetal policies that truly reflect world of women.

Conclusion
The debate on fetal policies is no different from abortion debate or maternity leave debate. They all share a common denominator namely pregnant women and everything involved in the same. I bet that such debates are not very easy as women remain very firm in affirming themselves amidst claims that they should abandon this or that. I concur with the U.S Supreme Court in that the decision on how or where to work for women is for them to decide. This is true. On the other hand, I concur with the defendants, in this case, Johnson Controls when they remain steadfast in affirming their position in the pretext of Occupational Safety and Health Act. This is good too.   In my opinion, there is a need to review both the Title vii of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Occupational Safety and Health Act. Both need adjustments and these is not to be sought any where apart from the two documents. By this I mean that some elements of the Civil Rights Act should borrow from the Occupational Safety and Health Act and vice-versa. In deed, each limitation in every document needs to repair the defect in the light of the other document. In this regard, the conflict between UAW versus Johnsons Controls is because each party had not considered the position of the other.

In my view none is guilty since they adhere to fundamental moral principles especially the principle of non-discrimination for the case of UAW and principle of subsidiarity for the case of Johnsons Controls. Subsidiarity invites the powerful to come to the aid of the less powerful. We can see this effort when an employer intends to protect the well-being of the fetus.