Week 1- The New York Times Article Discussion
In Another Blow, G.M. Recalls 3 Million More Defective Cars, The New York Times, June 17, 2014
I was surprised, since I did not know of the past history of the recalls at G.M. According to the New York Times article, consumers had complained back in 2000 (Vlasic & Ivory, 2014). Also I am shocked at the amount of makes and models that had defects (7 in total!). What is appalling is that G.M. was aware of the issues in its Impala model; it discontinued selling this model to the consumers yet continued the sales of the model to rental fleets (Vlasic & Ivory, 2014). Why does this concern me so much? I travel considerably for work and this model of car I have driven many times when I have traveled. Apparently G.M. may have taken into account the price of a life verses its cost benefit analysis for “fixing” its problems; sounds a bit reminiscent of Ford Motor Co. and its Pinto episode… (Trevino & Nelson, 2011).
How will the stakeholders in this case be affected?
According to Trevino and Nelson, a stakeholder is “any person or group with a stake in the issue at hand” (Trevino & Nelson, 2011). This would mean that any stockholder of G.M., any family member of the victims of accidents that had occurred, the individuals that lost their job and their family members and many others in this situation. Trevino and Nelson mention that in most situations it may be difficult to mention all of the stakeholders in question (Trevino & Nelson, 2011). I believe in ethical standards learned throughout the first few chapters, those 15 employees that were released from their position had some consequences to encounter. Their families were now affected by the debacle that happened within G.M. Yet these employees were let go as the result of an internal investigation that G.M. conducted (Vlasic & Ivory, 2014). These individuals should have gone through some moral questioning as to see if their actions where moral...