Raising the Ante
CASE 11.3 Raising the Ante
Having spearheaded the women’s cause on behalf of equal pay for jobs of equal value, Phyllis Warren was
elated when the board decided to readjust salaries. Its decision meant Phyllis and the other women
employed by the manufacturing firm would receive pay equivalent to men doing work of comparable
worth. But in a larger sense it con-stituted an admission of guilt by the board, acknowledgment of a
history blemished by implicit sexual discrimination. In the euphoria that followed the board’s decision,
neither Phyllis nor any of the other activists thought much about the implied admission of female
exploitation. But some weeks later, Herm Leggett, a sales dispatcher, half- jokingly sug-gested to Phyllis
over lunch that she shouldn’t stop with equal pay now. Phyllis asked Herm what he meant. “ Back pay,”
Herm said without hesitation. “ If they’re readjusting salaries for women,” he explained, “ they
obviously know that salaries are out of line and have been for some time.” Then he asked her pointedly, “
How long you been here, Phyl?” Eleven years, she told him. “ If those statistics you folks were passing
around last month are accurate,” Herm said, “ then I’d say you’ve been losing about $ 2,000 a year, or $
22,000 over eleven years.” Then he added with a laugh, “ Not counting interest, of course.” “ Why not?”
Phyllis thought. Why shouldn’t she and other women who’d suffered past inequities be reimbursed? That
night Phyllis called a few of the other women and suggested that they press the board for back pay.
Some said they were satisfied and didn’t think they should force the issue. Others thought the firm had
been fair in readjusting the salary schedule, and they were willing to let bygones be bygones. Still
others thought that any further efforts might, in fact, roll back the board’s favorable decision. Yet a
nucleus agreed that workers who had been unfairly treated in the past ought to receive compensation.
They decided, however, that because their ranks were divided, they shouldn’t wage as intense an in-
house campaign as previously but instead take the issue directly to the board, while it might still be
inhaling deeply the fresh air of social responsibility. The following Wednesday, Phyllis and four other
women presented their case to the board, intentionally giving the impression that they enjoyed as much
support from other workers as they had the last time they appeared before it. Although this wasn’t
true, Phyllis suggested it as an effective strategic ploy. Phyllis’s presentation had hardly ended when
board mem-bers began making their feelings known. One called her proposal “ industrial blackmail.” “ No
sooner do we try to right an injustice,” he said testily, “ than you take our good faith and threaten to
beat us over the head with it unless we comply with your request.” Another member just as vigorously
argued that the cur-rent board couldn’t be held accountable for the actions, poli-cies, and decisions of
previous boards. “ Sure,” he said, “ we’re empowered to alter policies as we see fit and as conditions
change to chart new directions. And we’ve done that. But to expect us to bear the full financial liability
of decisions we never made is totally unrealistic— and unfair.” Still another member wondered where it
would all end. “ If we agree,” he asked, “ will you then suggest we should track down all those women
who ever worked for us and provide them compensation?” Phyllis said no, but the board should readjust
retirement benefits for those affected. At this point the board asked Phyllis if she had any idea what her
proposal would cost the firm. “ Whatever it is, it’s a small price to pay for righting wrong,” she said
firmly. “ But is it a small price to pay for severely damaging our profit picture?” one of the members
asked. Then he added, “ I needn’t remind you that our profit outlook directly affects what we can offer
our current employees in terms of salary and fringe benefits. It directly affects our ability to revise our
salary schedule.” Finally, he asked Phyllis whether she’d accept the board’s reducing everyone’s current
compensa-tion to meet what Phyllis termed the board’s “ obligation to the past.” Despite its decided
opposition to Phyllis’s proposal, the board agreed to consider it and render a decision at its next
meeting. As a final broadside, Phyllis hinted that, if the board didn’t comply with the committee’s
request, the committee was prepared to pursue legal action.
1. If you were a board member, how would you vote? Why?
2. What moral principles are involved in this case?
3. Do you think Phyllis Warren was unfair in taking advantage of the board’s implied admission of salary
discrimination on the basis of sex? Why or why not?
4. Do you think Phyllis was wrong in giving the board the impression that her proposal enjoyed broad
support? Why or why not?
5. If the board rejects the committee’s request, do you think the committee ought to sue? Give
PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT ?
Our Service Charter
Excellent Quality / 100% Plagiarism-FreeWe employ a number of measures to ensure top quality essays. The papers go through a system of quality control prior to delivery. We run plagiarism checks on each paper to ensure that they will be 100% plagiarism-free. So, only clean copies hit customers’ emails. We also never resell the papers completed by our writers. So, once it is checked using a plagiarism checker, the paper will be unique. Speaking of the academic writing standards, we will stick to the assignment brief given by the customer and assign the perfect writer. By saying “the perfect writer” we mean the one having an academic degree in the customer’s study field and positive feedback from other customers.
Free RevisionsWe keep the quality bar of all papers high. But in case you need some extra brilliance to the paper, here’s what to do. First of all, you can choose a top writer. It means that we will assign an expert with a degree in your subject. And secondly, you can rely on our editing services. Our editors will revise your papers, checking whether or not they comply with high standards of academic writing. In addition, editing entails adjusting content if it’s off the topic, adding more sources, refining the language style, and making sure the referencing style is followed.
Confidentiality / 100% No DisclosureWe make sure that clients’ personal data remains confidential and is not exploited for any purposes beyond those related to our services. We only ask you to provide us with the information that is required to produce the paper according to your writing needs. Please note that the payment info is protected as well. Feel free to refer to the support team for more information about our payment methods. The fact that you used our service is kept secret due to the advanced security standards. So, you can be sure that no one will find out that you got a paper from our writing service.
Money Back GuaranteeIf the writer doesn’t address all the questions on your assignment brief or the delivered paper appears to be off the topic, you can ask for a refund. Or, if it is applicable, you can opt in for free revision within 14-30 days, depending on your paper’s length. The revision or refund request should be sent within 14 days after delivery. The customer gets 100% money-back in case they haven't downloaded the paper. All approved refunds will be returned to the customer’s credit card or Bonus Balance in a form of store credit. Take a note that we will send an extra compensation if the customers goes with a store credit.
24/7 Customer SupportWe have a support team working 24/7 ready to give your issue concerning the order their immediate attention. If you have any questions about the ordering process, communication with the writer, payment options, feel free to join live chat. Be sure to get a fast response. They can also give you the exact price quote, taking into account the timing, desired academic level of the paper, and the number of pages.