In the case of Domino’s Delivery, Bill Fobbs called Domino’s to deliver a pizza to their house for one night. The corporation declined to distribute the medication, arguing that the neighborhoods in which Fobbs lived were incredibly precarious. On the other hand, Fobbs considered that such a failure to serve pizza was tied to bigotry. As a result, there is a legal challenge as certain philosophical questions arise. In this way, the corporation is considering the welfare and protection of its workers, while Fobbs is worried about the question of segregation on the grounds of race. Whether or Not Domino’s Policy is Morally Justified
From a legal perspective, Domino’s policy is justified. The company has come up with the delivery policy based on the issue of employee safety. Reportedly, several delivery people had been robbed, beaten up, and murdered (Domino’s Delivery). To prevent more of such cases from happening, the company utilizes computerized systems, which designate neighbourhoods as red, yellow, or green. The neighbourhoods designated as red are those regarded to be extremely dangerous for home delivery and the customers in those regions have to visit the restaurant to collect their pizzas. The customers living in the yellow neighbourhoods have to come out to the street to collect their pizza from the delivery people. Finally, customers living in the green neighbourhoods are said to be living in secure areas, and their pizzas are delivered in their homes (Domino’s Delivery). Legally, such a policy seeks to protect people and their lives because everyone has a right to operate in a safe environment (OSHA). Indeed, it would be unacceptable for a company to expose their workers to dangerous situations. Fundamentally, any company has a legal objection to ensure all employees are safe (OSHA).
From an ethical and moral perspective, Domino’s delivery policy is not justified. Although the company claims that it should not risk the lives of their drivers, some people, especially the minorities may feel that they are being discriminated against. In this sense, it is even more unethical for the company to tell Bill Fobbs to go and collect the pizza at the restaurant during the night since this is to endanger his life. The company is in a better position of employing more security officers who can protect the drivers as they deliver pizzas.
What is best for Domino’s, in the long run, is to ensure they serve all their customers in all neighbourhoods equally and at the same time ensuring their delivery people are safe at all times. Notably, this will help the company to stop appearing to be racially biased or to be discriminating against the minority groups, especially the African Americans (“Anti-discrimination Law”). Moreover, ensuring the delivery people are always safe indicates that the company is following the rule of law and protecting their employees’ rights and privileges.
Undeniably, taking an initiative to serve all customers equally will enable the company to gain positive publicity or image, and this will subsequently boost it sales (Ciambriello). Moreover, ensuring that the employees are working within a safe environment will contribute to the organizational growth to a considerable level. Fundamentally, this is in the sense that the employees will be motivated because they will feel that the company cares for them. As a result, they will perform their work to the maximum level possible. Hence, the company’s output will increase.
Domino’s, Little Caesar’s, and Pizza Hut should adopt a different type of policy to protect their delivery people or drivers. Instead of designating particular neighborhoods as being too dangerous or being safe, the company should hire more security officers to protect drivers whenever they go to deliver pizzas to the neighbourhoods considered to be dangerous. The security officers should accompany the drivers and be well armed. Moreover, they should also encourage the customers to make their orders, mostly during the day when it is safer for the drivers to deliver the products. Indeed, having such policies in place, customers in all regions will be served without any bias, and this will help ensure the issue of racial discrimination will not come up again regarding pizza delivery.
San Francisco Law
San Francisco ratified a law that prohibited the policy of not accepting to deliver pizzas to particular neighbourhoods based on the issue that such policy discriminates against the minorities. I agree with such a move taken in Francisco in the sense that the city should provide enough security for their people and allow companies to carry out their business activities within a safe environment. Serving some customers in a better way than others is not the right way to operate a business. It is the responsibility of the people or officials who manage a city to ensure there is enough security, and on the other hand, the companies should take initiatives to ensure their delivery people are safe by giving them enough security. Such measures will help to reduce insecurity in areas deemed to be dangerous.
“Anti-discrimination Law and Service Providers.” Anti-Discrimination Board of NSW. 7 Apr. 2017. http://www.antidiscrimination.justice.nsw.gov.au/service-providers/anti-discrimination-law-and-service-providers. Accessed 27 Sep. 2017.
Ciambriello, Roo. “How Ads That Empower Women Are Boosting Sales and Bettering the Industry.” AD Week, 3 Oct. 2014. http://www.adweek.com/brand-marketing/how-ads-empower-women-are-boosting-sales-and-bettering-industry-160539/. Accessed 27 Sep. 2017.
Domino’s Delivery (Attached Case Study)
OSHA. “Workers’ Rights.” United States Department of Labor. https://www.osha.gov/workers/. Accessed 27 Sep. 2017.