1Running Head: Week 1 Assignment 2 Desperate Air

2Week 1 Assignment 2 Desperate Air

Week 1 Assignment 2 Desperate Air

Northeastern University

George Nash is the Vice President of Real Estate for Desperate Air Corporation (DAC) and recently faced an ethical dilemma were he would have to chose between being honest and helping others while harming his company and all who works for it, or withholding information and helping himself and his company while possibly harming others. Nashs decision was a pure ethical/moral decision and not a legal decision due to laws in Florida. In Florida, the traditional rule with respect to real property transactions is that a seller has no duty to disclose material facts that affect the value of the property, even if unknown to the buyer.(Bass, et al) Nash decided to withhold information about the hazardous waste allowing for the sale to take place, which solely benefits his company and its stakeholders. As a result, Fledgling will now be responsible for dealing with the waste and any harm that the waste causes. George Nash was put in a tough position with little training or guidance about how to handle ethical decisions. DAC did not have the proper channels put in place for Nash to properly assess the situation. He spoke to legal, which cleared him on any wrongdoing. He spoke to his wife, which made sure his own family was taken care of, and he prayed. He must have felt unable to speak with Williams about the issue because he chose to withhold the information from him also. He did not worry about any environmental or compliance issues. Without any outlet through work, Nash was left to make the decision on his own.If I had been in George Nashs position, I would have first informed Benton Williams about what I was told regarding the hazardous waste. This should have prompted at least an investigation to see if the claims by Nashs friend were true. If confirmed I would have reviewed an analysis of all the stakeholders and how they would be impacted by the decision I made. In Table 1 (see appendix), I have listed everyone that I felt would be impacted by whether I shared the information or withheld it and from that, I determined that it would be in societies best interest if I were to share the information.To summarize Table 1, the primary stakeholders are BAC, its employees and their families, Fledgling, its employees and their families, any workers that will be exposed to the hazardous material during construction, and future tenants. If I were to tell Fledgling, BAC and its employees will be harmed due to not being unable to raise the much-needed money to stay in business, but would benefit by keeping their integrity and preventing anyone from being hurt. This would also prevent DAC from being involved in any future legal battles about who is responsible for cleaning up the waste.If I chose not to tell, it would immediately impact Fledgling when they discovered the waste. They would have to decide if its worth taking legal action against DAC or just paying for the removal. Both options will be costly. Fledgling may not be able to sustain the financial loss caused by our actions and their employees and their families will be harmed. The worst-case scenario is that the waste in not discovered right away and causes medical harm to workers or the future tenants that are exposed to the waste. The benefits of choosing not to tell are very short sighted. DAC will temporarily benefit from the increase in cash flows but they may be short lived if we began a legal battle or have to pay for cleanup and removal.Based on this analysis, I felt that it would be in everyones best interest if we told Fledgling about the hazardous waste and began taking actions to clean it up. This may cause us to file for bankruptcy, but in my opinion, bankruptcy was inevitable unless we found a long-term solution to increasing cash flows. I do feel somewhat torn by loyalty for the company, but I did not cause the company to perform badly. I am an employee that can take my skills elsewhere if I need to. I should not have to compromise my integrity and cause potentially serious harm to others just so we can stay a float for a few more months.Table 1.StakeholderTell-HarmsTell-BenefitsDon't Tell-HarmsDon't Tell-Benefits

NashPrevent sale, lose job, be put in a position to lie, bankrupts companyPrevents future harm to anyone exposed, does not hurt DAC reputation, keeps his integrityCreates future liability for DAC, hurt Fledgling's finances, cause harm or death to people exposed.DAC gets cash, possible promotion

WilliamsPrevent sale, lose job, be put in a position to lie, bankrupts companyn/aCreates future liabilityDAC gets cash

DAC EmployeesLose jobsn/an/aTemporarily keep jobs

DAC stakeholdersLose moneyMaintain reputationFuture liabilityDAC stays in business

Fledgling Do not get land they wantedStay in businessLarge expense for cleanup/legaln/a

Fledgling Employeesn/aKeep workingLose jobsn/a

Fledgling Stakeholdersn/aKeep workingLose valuen/a

Fledgling Construction Crewn/aKeep good healthExposure/deathn/a

Future Tenantsn/aProtects themExposure/deathn/a

ReferencesBass, R. (1995, January 1). CONTAMINATED COMMERCIAL LAND. CONTAMINATED COMMERCIAL LAND. Retrieved June 21, 2014, from http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/landuse/vol111/bass.html#FNR113