IN THE RED AT OZ COMMUNICATIONS {TD John Kolkas, managing director of Oz Communications Lid, fixed his gaze on the numbers on the screen, They were exciting. If correct, the innovation would be highly lucrative. The profits of their ‘mobile phone subsidiary would tral explode. John sighed with relief. Oz Communications had been struggling forthe last two years and ‘ts share price had plummeted by 40 per cent. A major restructuring was already underway, with costs and staff numbers to be slashed. Keith Barnes, financial controle, switched off the PowerPoint presentation. “Very impressive, Keith’, said John. "Well what do the rest of you think?" Vijay Mehta, Oz Communications divisional manager, smiled. think it terfic. You know | have been arguing for this for months, Tiss exactly wnat we need — it isa hcence to print money. " agree’ chipped in Robin Antonti, marketing manager. John lacked at the group of senior manages. ‘Allright, | take it the consensus is that we doi 40 Santini, HR director, leant forward to speak. ‘Financially the project steric. I's the moral issue that worries me, ‘What do you mean?’ asked Viay. "Come on Viay, stoning soft porn for our mobile phone subscribers to download isnt something ‘that I think our company should do. Many of our subscribers are families. I cant believe that they wall approve. Also, what does it say about our attitudes toward women?” “Jo, you've seen Keiths projections. f they are even half correct, the move into soft porn cculd save four company from financial collapse ‘know, but | think ts ethically wrong. Is not the sort of business | believe Oz Communications should be associated with, It sends all the wrong messages about us as an employer and as a corporate citizen" “Tope you feel ust as mol, Jo, when you have to hand out the termination notices’, interjected Keith "What we are proposing is perfectly legal. ts just that you haven't caught up with current communi standards. You are being too prudish. This sa business, nota religious organisation! Why do we always have to be so politically corect”, snapped Viay. “Look, just because something is commonly accepted ori legal doesn't rrean that its ight, Jo fred back. ‘presume you are aware that Telstra has bowed to pressure from ant-pomagraphy campaigners and removed adult oriented content from its Bigpond vernce. I think they have done the right thing ‘They see it as being inconsistent with their values." ‘Jo, take your point, but Telstra is not facing bankruptcy. There is aso the question of freedom of speech, Just because some interest group s offended by what we do does rot make it yong. We are doing what is best for this company and its employees. I must agree with Vijay. Keith figures ae al too clear. We do this or we reduce headcount’ sid John, “What iit to be Jo — porn or people losing their jobs? Answer me — which isthe most socially Undesirable? What do you think the workers who are going to lose their jobs and the trade unions who represent them will say? Its okay for you to take the moral high ground — you are not the one who is going to be out of work DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1. Who do you agree with? Why? 2, Should companies be concerned with ethical sues or only profits? Explain your answer 3. Which stakeholders have an interest inthis decision? Explain how you think they may react an how ‘the company should respond. Source: Stone, R. J. (2014). Human Resource Management (8th ed.) John Wiley and Sons Australia, Ltd. pp. 49-50.