Sure it's a case of innocent or guilty, it's just in a civil case the burden of proof is a different requirement. Just making a choice doesn't make it a moral or ethical dilemma.
- MJL

I can assure you, in civil cases there is no guilt or innocence. The jury (or court) finds for the plaintiff or defendant based on a preponderance of evidence.

It's literally the definition of ethical dilemma. You can just say it isn't but that doesn't change the definition of ethical dilemma.

I've not said moral dilemma. Morals are personal values and we're not speaking about a specific person.
- atibus

Definition:

Ethical dilemmas are situations in which there is a difficult choice to be made between two or more options, neither of which resolves the situation in a manner that is consistent with accepted ethical guidelines.

Tell me, in this situation, what are the accepted ethical guidelines?

I can assure you, in civil cases there is no guilt or innocence. The jury (or court) finds for the plaintiff or defendant based on a preponderance of evidence.
- atibus

Semantics.

I think I'm done with this. I pray for the well being of all parties and the best thing I think I can do now, is contribute to the Gofund me.

Already is
- bmeltzer

16 points in 55 games, some things to improve on

Definition:

Ethical dilemmas are situations in which there is a difficult choice to be made between two or more options, neither of which resolves the situation in a manner that is consistent with accepted ethical guidelines.

Tell me, in this situation, what are the accepted ethical guidelines?
- MJL

Who would you like to see the Flyers interview for the head coaching positon?

Then who would you like to see become the next head coach.

Definition:

Ethical dilemmas are situations in which there is a difficult choice to be made between two or more options, neither of which resolves the situation in a manner that is consistent with accepted ethical guidelines.

Tell me, in this situation, what are the accepted ethical guidelines?
- MJL

Glad you caught up here with the definition. Workplaces are not supposed to make their employees sick. This is an accepted ethical guideline that has been established for more than 100 years in the US.

So the ethical dilemma when faced with the possibility (yes, possibility) is to take the litigious route or to take care of your people. I'm not saying which is right, or even which is moral, but this is an ethical decision that the organization has made. As shown by the opinions here, many believe that the path the organization has taken is wrong. That doesn't make it wrong and you may say it's irrelevant. But it's surely relevant to how people perceive the organization and will influence how they think about the Flyers in the future. You may not think so, but others will. That is what makes it an ethical dilemma - there is no clear-cut decision that makes everyone happy. I'm sure the organization knew this and weighed that against the alternative.

Happy we could walk through this together.

Semantics.


- MJL

This is A level irony.

Should the flyers build around Sean Hannity?
- hello it's me 2050

Yeah if Couts getting worse. Hannity's neck look humongous

Glad you caught up here with the definition. Workplaces are not supposed to make their employees sick. This is an accepted ethical guideline that has been established for more than 100 years in the US..


- atibus

We don't know for a fact that the workplace made them sick. That's what you're overlooking. So therefore, the dilemma your claiming here is not valid,

So the ethical dilemma when faced with the possibility (yes, possibility) is to take the litigious route or to take care of your people. I'm not saying which is right, or even which is moral, but this is an ethical decision that the organization has made. As shown by the opinions here, many believe that the path the organization has taken is wrong. That doesn't make it wrong and you may say it's irrelevant. But it's surely relevant to how people perceive the organization and will influence how they think about the Flyers in the future. You may not think so, but others will. That is what makes it an ethical dilemma - there is no clear-cut decision that makes everyone happy. I'm sure the organization knew this and weighed that against the alternative.

Happy we could walk through this together.
- atibus

You've got it wrong in my opinion. The key is an accepted ethical standard. Not varied opinions or perceptions. In terms of the argument of if the Flyers should pay their medical bills. The ethical standard of an employer is to provide a health insurance plan to employees. The Flyers have met that standard.
Until this is litigated or more facts come into view, that's all there is and there is no dilemma.

Not to mention that you didn't even attempt to describe the accepted ethical standards.

This is A level irony.
- atibus

Nah, nothing ironic and you know it.

Already is
- bmeltzer

He’s not a shoe in scoring line nhl player yet IMO

Glad you caught up here with the definition. Workplaces are not supposed to make their employees sick. This is an accepted ethical guideline that has been established for more than 100 years in the US.

So the ethical dilemma when faced with the possibility (yes, possibility) is to take the litigious route or to take care of your people. I'm not saying which is right, or even which is moral, but this is an ethical decision that the organization has made. As shown by the opinions here, many believe that the path the organization has taken is wrong. That doesn't make it wrong and you may say it's irrelevant. But it's surely relevant to how people perceive the organization and will influence how they think about the Flyers in the future. You may not think so, but others will. That is what makes it an ethical dilemma - there is no clear-cut decision that makes everyone happy. I'm sure the organization knew this and weighed that against the alternative.

Happy we could walk through this together.
- atibus

You’ve made some outstanding analysis here breaking it down to make salient points. Don’t often see this on HB.

It would help if you spelled the late owner's name correctly.
- KGBflyers10

Yep that should fix things alright!

Glad you caught up here with the definition. Workplaces are not supposed to make their employees sick. This is an accepted ethical guideline that has been established for more than 100 years in the US.

So the ethical dilemma when faced with the possibility (yes, possibility) is to take the litigious route or to take care of your people. I'm not saying which is right, or even which is moral, but this is an ethical decision that the organization has made. As shown by the opinions here, many believe that the path the organization has taken is wrong. That doesn't make it wrong and you may say it's irrelevant. But it's surely relevant to how people perceive the organization and will influence how they think about the Flyers in the future. You may not think so, but others will. That is what makes it an ethical dilemma - there is no clear-cut decision that makes everyone happy. I'm sure the organization knew this and weighed that against the alternative.

Happy we could walk through this together.
- atibus

Of course, you neglect entirely that the Flyers believe that they have taken care of their people and adequately protected them from all workplace risks. It appears that they agree that their workplace should not make people sick and have looked at the science and the claims and made a judgment.

Evidently, these two employees have contracted an awful disease and believe that it came from their exposure to fumes from the combustion of gasoline. The "ethical dilemma" that you posit comes from a plaintiff's expert who has a theory about this exposure and its relationship to these awful diseases. If management has looked at the science and facts and disagreed, that is not an "ethical dilemma." It is a scientific and legal dispute. The notion that management made a decision between "protecting their workers" and being litigous is a sensationalized fallacy. What they are defending is the adequacy of their protections for their employees.

You say a lot of other things that are pretty vague ("organization knew
this" without saying what that is). So it is hard to answer them. But, like your other moralizing (I did enjoy the protestations that you are not "saying what is right" - LOL), we would mostly all prefer to talk hockey.

We don't know for a fact that the workplace made them sick. That's what you're overlooking. So therefore, the dilemma your claiming here is not valid,



You've got it wrong in my opinion. The key is an accepted ethical standard. Not varied opinions or perceptions. In terms of the argument of if the Flyers should pay their medical bills. The ethical standard of an employer is to provide a health insurance plan to employees. The Flyers have met that standard.
Until this is litigated or more facts come into view, that's all there is and there is no dilemma.

Not to mention that you didn't even attempt to describe the accepted ethical standards.
- MJL

You're debating that it's not an ethical concern until something is adjudicated by a court and that simply isn't how ethics work. Again ethics does not equal law. You're hyper focused on the legal aspect of it and I went out of my way to try to elucidate they are not linked in any way.

If there was a chance my team was harmed by my workplace and my position was "Prove it in a court", I'd widely be panned as an bumhole or, in semantics, an unethical employer.

You're obviously welcomed to your own opinion on what is right or wrong. Or if the Flyers handled this properly or improperly. But you're not arguing in good faith on what is an ethical dilemma. There was an ethical dilemma here related to the health of their employees and they made a decision. I has zero to do with the outcome of a court case.

Commonly accepted workplace ethical standards:

Value for human life – The belief that preservation and protection of human life supersedes other goods.
Integrity – That the commitment to telling the truth and keeping promises, plus applying the best of one’s abilities, promise worker loyalty and commitment.
Justice – That a strong sense of fair dealing with employees establishes trust between leaders and their reports.
The good of the many – That excellence stems from a concern for the achievement of the common good (as opposed to what is good just for the individual person or company).
Excellence – The belief that whatever degree of safety or integrity we have achieved, we always have the opportunity to improve.

Of course, you neglect entirely that the Flyers believe that they have taken care of their people and adequately protected them from all workplace risks. It appears that they agree that their workplace should not make people sick and have looked at the science and the claims and made a judgment.

Evidently, these two employees have contracted an awful disease and believe that it came from their exposure to fumes from the combustion of gasoline. The "ethical dilemma" that you posit comes from a plaintiff's expert who has a theory about this exposure and its relationship to these awful diseases. If management has looked at the science and facts and disagreed, that is not an "ethical dilemma." It is a scientific and legal dispute. The notion that management made a decision between "protecting their workers" and being litigous is a sensationalized fallacy. What they are defending is the adequacy of their protections for their employees.

You say a lot of other things that are pretty vague ("organization knew
this" without saying what that is). So it is hard to answer them. But, like your other moralizing (I did enjoy the protestations that you are not "saying what is right" - LOL), we would mostly all prefer to talk hockey.
- iamscore2day

You're too far down the line on deciding who is right. That's not what a dilemma is. It's not about right or wrong or what you can prove. It's when presented with this - two employees saying the workplace made them sick - what do you do? That's the dliemma. Flyers made a choice; to litigate. There were other potential choices.

When I said "the organization knew" I mean that the decision makers knew what they were doing when they made their choice. Not that they knew the environment made them sick. My opinion is that it's really hard to prove conclusively but will probably force a settlement.

Of course, you neglect entirely that the Flyers believe that they have taken care of their people and adequately protected them from all workplace risks. It appears that they agree that their workplace should not make people sick and have looked at the science and the claims and made a judgment.

Evidently, these two employees have contracted an awful disease and believe that it came from their exposure to fumes from the combustion of gasoline. The "ethical dilemma" that you posit comes from a plaintiff's expert who has a theory about this exposure and its relationship to these awful diseases. If management has looked at the science and facts and disagreed, that is not an "ethical dilemma." It is a scientific and legal dispute. The notion that management made a decision between "protecting their workers" and being litigous is a sensationalized fallacy. What they are defending is the adequacy of their protections for their employees.

You say a lot of other things that are pretty vague ("organization knew
this" without saying what that is). So it is hard to answer them. But, like your other moralizing (I did enjoy the protestations that you are not "saying what is right" - LOL), we would mostly all prefer to talk hockey.
- iamscore2day

Exactly. Eloquently said.

You're debating that it's not an ethical concern until something is adjudicated by a court and that simply isn't how ethics work. Again ethics does not equal law. You're hyper focused on the legal aspect of it and I went out of my way to try to elucidate they are not linked in any way.

If there was a chance my team was harmed by my workplace and my position was "Prove it in a court", I'd widely be panned as an bumhole or, in semantics, an unethical employer.

You're obviously welcomed to your own opinion on what is right or wrong. Or if the Flyers handled this properly or improperly. But you're not arguing in good faith on what is an ethical dilemma. There was an ethical dilemma here related to the health of their employees and they made a decision. I has zero to do with the outcome of a court case.

Commonly accepted workplace ethical standards:

Value for human life – The belief that preservation and protection of human life supersedes other goods.
Integrity – That the commitment to telling the truth and keeping promises, plus applying the best of one’s abilities, promise worker loyalty and commitment.
Justice – That a strong sense of fair dealing with employees establishes trust between leaders and their reports.
The good of the many – That excellence stems from a concern for the achievement of the common good (as opposed to what is good just for the individual person or company).
Excellence – The belief that whatever degree of safety or integrity we have achieved, we always have the opportunity to improve.
- atibus

This "ethical dilemma" arises from an expert opinion that underlies legal allegations that were presented in a judicial proceeding arising from a filing made on these folks' behalf. It has everything to do with a legal proceeding that these folks initiated to challenge the adequacy of the workplace safeguards where they worked.

You're debating that it's not an ethical concern until something is adjudicated by a court and that simply isn't how ethics work. Again ethics does not equal law. You're hyper focused on the legal aspect of it and I went out of my way to try to elucidate they are not linked in any way.



- atibus

Incorrect. I'm debating in a debate about whether the Flyers should pay the medical expenses of the two parties that the Flyers have met their responsibility of the accepted ethical standard in that context of providing their employees with a medical coverage plan and are not obligated further. Not ethically, morally or legally at this point in time.

I stopped reading at that point.

You're too far down the line on deciding who is right. That's not what a dilemma is. It's not about right or wrong or what you can prove. It's when presented with this - two employees saying the workplace made them sick - what do you do? That's the dliemma. Flyers made a choice; to litigate. There were other potential choices.

When I said "the organization knew" I mean that the decision makers knew what they were doing when they made their choice. Not that they knew the environment made them sick. My opinion is that it's really hard to prove conclusively but will probably force a settlement.
- atibus

As the other poster said, you have supplied no standards. An ethical dilemma is not present based on a few random opinions of a few posters on the internet. Again, you've ignored the part of accepted ethical standards in the definition of an ethical dilemma.

As the other poster said, you have supplied no standards. An ethical dilemma is not present based on a few random opinions of a few posters on the internet. Again, you've ignored the part of accepted ethical standards in the definition of an ethical dilemma.
- MJL

should the flyers try to bring back one clode giroux?

You're too far down the line on deciding who is right. That's not what a dilemma is. It's not about right or wrong or what you can prove. It's when presented with this - two employees saying the workplace made them sick - what do you do? That's the dliemma. Flyers made a choice; to litigate. There were other potential choices.

When I said "the organization knew" I mean that the decision makers knew what they were doing when they made their choice. Not that they knew the environment made them sick. My opinion is that it's really hard to prove conclusively but will probably force a settlement.
- atibus

This is rich. You accept all of these claims against the team as true and then moralize about the team's failure to take immediate action to rectify this situation and someone who says that these are claims for now and nothing more is "too far down the line." If you think that your workplace is safe and that you have adequately protected your employees, don't you think that you should defend your actions? It seems that your position is posited on the contradiction that it is "unethical" to defend that you have acted "ethically."

This is rich. You accept all of these claims against the team as true and then moralize about the team's failure to take immediate action to rectify this situation and someone who says that these are claims for now and nothing more is "too far down the line." If you think that your workplace is safe and that you have adequately protected your employees, don't you think that you should defend your actions? It seems that your position is posited on the contradiction that it is "unethical" to defend that you have acted "ethically."
- iamscore2day

Until it is proven otherwise.

should the flyers try to bring back one clode giroux?
- hello it's me 2050

He’s moved on. That chapter is closed.

Happy Cinco de Cuatro, folks

You want me to explain what I'm not sure about?

I understand your point of view. I dont think anything I say is going to appease you. All I can say is if he were my employee and he got a disease that might have been caused by conditions at my workplace I'd feel morally obligated to help. I know it still has to be proved that conditions at the rink caused the disease and that's going to be tough to prove. I also know that longterm exposure to certain chemicals, like benzene, have been determined to cause cancer. To not get rid of the propane burning zamboni or at least move the guys office away from the is perplexing to me. Even if they prove that the fumes are harmless why wouldnt you move your employees office if he was concerned about breathing them in all day?
- Dkos

If they DONT think the environment caused or contributed bto the cancer they most definitely would NOT want to contribute to the bills.

That could be seen as tacit admission to guilt and would open themselves up to scrutiny in the future for any employee with similar diagnoses.

I think they already know exactly what happened and they're going to settle.