The issue on ethics is one that is on a slippery edge and with the various human rights that are present, it becomes hard to regulate what one can do or cannot do. Ethics in this context refers to societal issues that can be done without offending the people around you. It has a connotation of one living in good conduct and ethics is the judge of whether a deed is good or not. This case of ethics does not get easier when we venture into the work place; it is often harder and trickier. It is easier to be crucified by your colleagues for issues that seem to be manageable.
To begin with, the Swastika image symbolizes a dreadful incident in humanity. That incident shakes most humans to the core on seeing it. It was widely spread by Hitler during his reign of terror and that alone socially demands that we refrain from using it. However, its history is not as negative as its recent past. A Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism symbol that symbolized good luck and good fortune is said to be the exact replica. However, the response from Newton shows that his endeavor to have it was one of defiance. So when it comes to taking action, I could only consider that the Swastika was for good fortune though the presence of the naked woman would contradict that consideration. It is with this in mind that we can consider the image that this may have on those who are around him like his fellow workers. I would suggest that he wear a covering for the tattoos over summer and that he does not expose them.
I believe that I have a right to regulate employee behavior because my chief interest is to ensure that the public trust that we are sober and can offer the right services and part of this trust is not just earned by word of mouth but also the appearance that one has (Waddington, 2013). This would then necessitate the importance of the kind of appearance that portrayed. However, there is not much that I would be able to do because of the right to express oneself and their liberty. However, for the sake of the reputation and the consumer relation, it would be important that I suggest to him that it should not be seen. It could still prove difficult due to discrimination but for the sake of the reputation, he would have to adjust and fit into the depicted requirements. That would be because the offence that he has on the other employees has resulted to their choice to ignore his command (Fahs, 2015). That would result to a lot of conflict and the workplace would be in chaos, on the other hand.
It could be a possibility to call a counselor to come and guide Newton through the various effects of behavior on others. That could apply because such an image infringes on the other person’s right to a contusive environment. If he pretests against this, I would then suggest that he make sure that the tattoos are not seen in the work place and with that, I would move him to a place of minimal exposure like the office where he would be required to be in the right uniform. That would minimize public interaction as it allows still allows him to be part of the team.
All the ramifications I have stated above are doable but they would highly depend on Newton’s response to it. If Newton felt that his rights have been violated, then that would result to a fight, which would be unhealthy as well as undesired. That would lead me to take my time with him to talk things through. It would also be wise to call all the workers and speak to them about this. That would show or send a message that their interests have not been ignored and that all things would be sorted. It would assure the task force that their voice mattered and it would show that one person’s decisions and behavior could potentially affect others (Heins, 2001). With that in mind, the rest would be cautious in the future. I also think that that move would allow me to pardon Newton once we have come to an agreement with the rest. That could be because the matter would have been discussed and agreed upon hence everything would be clear from then. Such a response would clarify many underlying issues but it is a very sensitive matter.
Heins, M. (2001). Not in front of the children: “indecency,” censorship and the innocence of
youth. New York: Hill and Wang.
Fahs, B., & Swank, E. (January 01, 2015). Unpacking Sexual Embodiment and Embodied
In Waddington, P. A. J., In Kleinig, J., & In Wright, M. (2013). Professional police practice:
Scenarios and dilemmas.