https://www.inc.com/reuters/us-senator-questions-intel-ceo-about-15000-worker-layoff.html
Here is some context to help with the Case Study Creation:
Moral Problem: The article discusses one of the most significant moral issues with Intel laying off 15,000 people. At the same time, it received incredible amounts of U.S. government funding intended to boost job creation and semiconductor manufacturing. Ultimately, the moral question of whether it is fair to reduce jobs after taking taxpayer dollars and being provided with money has so much at stake, significantly if Intel could benefit beneficiaries’ obligations.
Possible Solutions:
Conditional Funding: In subsequent rounds, the U.S. government could require corporations with subsidy agreements to maintain certain employment levels as a condition of their grants and loans, such that Intel would have had job retention benchmarks they’d need met before earning or retaining other funding. It’d marry financial assistance to job-growth targets and shield taxpayer funds.
Reallocation of Funding: In cases where companies do not meet the requirements of job creation and retention requirements, funds can be moved to another company so that taxpayer monies go to only those businesses that align with economic growth and employment goals.
Internal Reassignment of Workers: However, the company might find positions to reassign or retrain most of these 15,000 workers who have been made redundant into other roles that help support its manufacturing and customer service needs. This would prevent the need for layoffs while accommodating Intel with a workforce that fits current needs.
Best Solution: Conditional Funding is the best alternative. It connects government financial aid for jobs to an essential minimum morale hazard reduction, gets bang for the taxpayer’s buck, and focuses on broader economic objectives such as growth/recommended. This helps to protect workers and ensures that companies are taking responsibility for the commitments they make when swallowing up public cash.
Course Study Creation – The Basics:
Identify a significant moral problem that was discussed in, exposed by, or even hinted at in your chosen article.
Consider the possible solutions to the problem you identified. Describe the stakeholders in (persons affected by) the problem and how they would be impacted by each of your alternatives.
Select a moral theory from those that have been presented in the early part of the course (these are Virtue Ethics, Utilitarianism, Social Contract Theory, and Kantianism/Deontology) which you will use to identify the best alternative among those you describe. Explain why that theory is well-suited to analyzing the particular problem you identified – That is, explain what important features of the case are likely to be well discussed by your chosen theory.
Choose one alternative as your moral recommendation to solve the problem. Give a moral argument that defends your solution, using the moral theory you chose to explain why this alternative is (morally) the best solution. You may choose, in addition to your written argument, to present your argument in formal style (as a list of premises and conclusion), but this is not required.
There is no specified length requirement for this assignment; Use as much (or as little) space as you need to do the above-mentioned tasks well. For a rough estimate, it will likely take between 2-4 pages to do all of the above well enough for an A on the assignment.
Course Study Creation – How to do well:
- At its most basic, your case study is a paper. As such, it should include an introduction where you introduce the case, the moral problem it raises, the moral theory you’re going to use to answer it, and how that theory works.
- Your case study relies on an outside source. You will have chosen an article to write about. You should identify the article you chose.
- Your case study is about a moral problem. You should identify what the problem is that you aim to solve. The article you chose will have introduced some issue or problem that has some moral dimension. You should identify the problem and make it clear that this is a moral problem.
- Your case study should utilize a moral theory. This means that you should say explicitly which moral theory you will use to solve the moral problem. In Unit 1, we surveyed a number of ethical theories; choose one from those we’ve discussed. You should also explain why that theory is well suited to the problem, or in other words, why you chose to use that theory rather than another one.
- Your case study relies on an outside source. You will have chosen an article to write about. You should identify the article you chose.
- Your case study should be written like a full-fledged paper, which means not a list or outline. You should give your argument in paragraphs, roughly similar to the way you would say it if you were actually talking to someone about it in real life. After that, you can do your formal argument as a list of premises if you’d like to (by listing the premises as P1, P2, etc., and the conclusion as C, in the way that we broke down the Drucker and Carr arguments). You’re not actually required to do a formal argument, but doing so may help you understand which parts of your argument are strong, and, maybe more importantly, where it is weak.
- Your case study should give an argument – that is, you should be giving your reader(s) reasons to accept some conclusion. The conclusion you argue for should be the solution to the moral problem you think is best. You should give reasons that support your position and show how those reasons lead you to that position.
- Your case study should consider at least one position that is not your own (in other words, some alternative to your conclusion). In the body of your paper, you should say what the alternative position is, and why it’s wrong/why your favored solution is better.
- Your case study should have a conclusion. You can think of this as “wrapping up” the conversation started by your paper. Commonly, conclusions in papers like this will re-state the problem your paper solves, re-state your solution/the conclusion of your argument, and quickly re-state the reasons you give in favor of your conclusion/solution. If you’ve done this, you’ve done enough for a conclusion — but, if you’d like to consider a few ideas for future thinking/research about the issues, you can state those here, too.
- Your case study has a rubric. It’ll likely be helpful to you that, when you write it, you check that you are doing what the first column (with the highest point total) says to do. If you do this successfully (that is, you actually do what the first box says to do, you get all the associated points.
- Notice that one of the criteria on the rubric is that the case study is “Clear and well-formatted”. This means that your case study should be formatted roughly like a paper, and should include all the parts I’ve listed here.
- Another important, notable aspect of the criteria is “Depth”. In order to do well on this metric, you should discuss your chosen topic in enough depth to properly support your position. Among other things, this means you should avoid the following:
- Trying to fill space with extra-long words without adding to the depth of your discussion
- Off-topic discussion (here’s a rule of thumb: If it doesn’t help to directly support or explain one of your points, it’s probably best to leave it out)
- Misunderstanding the concepts you’re using (especially with regard to the ethical theories)
- On the positive side, to do well on the “Depth” portion of the assignment, you should include:
- A basic, quick explanation of the moral theory you’ve chosen
- Explicit explanations of how your chosen moral theory applies to the case (that is, explain what facts about the case are those that are important according to your moral theory, and why they are important).
- A consideration of a potential solution to the moral problem that is a realist alternative to the one you choose.