The Case Study, Reporting Welfare Cheaters, involves analysis of the increasing number of dishonesty and fraud in the Supermarket. It gives various decisions that relevant stakeholders need to weigh and come up with the best and fairest both to the company and the person involved.
For six months, I have noticed an unusual pattern among some of our well-known customers who pay for their groceries using state credit card. They normally buy their items, exit the store, and again, return to the different cashier with some items, then ask for a refund. After refund, they use the money to purchase anything, including toys, liquor, hardware, and flowers that the state ban when using state credit cards, (Tyson, 2014).
First, the supermarket profits from the support of the state, thus, it is the responsibility of all employees to uphold state laws and protect state resources. Secondly, the ongoing abuses are in the knowledge of other employees, and the store's reputation may tarnish if connivance with fraud is known. Again, my position as an Assistant Manager and a law-abiding citizen is to strive to maintain sanity and uphold the law in the Supermarket. The state policies' improvement depends on every individual to take bold steps in reporting the abuses. Otherwise, by assuming the clear offenses, I may trigger the crime that may grow beyond control.
However, I have other reasons not to report the ongoing corruption. The fraud is none of my business since there are state bureaucrats responsible for dealing with such issues and they may have considered the likelihood of fraud as well as its verification. Moreover, my store is not mandated to file any report or do anything special, to have the business with the customers. Additionally, reporting may trigger inquiries and eventually discussions with law enforcement officers. I might be asked to provide individual names which I want to avoid, (Kohler-Hausmann, 2015).
I have two options that to choose from; first, I could report the ongoing fraud practiced by my customers. Secondly, I may choose not to report the matter at all.
If I choose to report the matter, I have more options that include becoming a patriot by upholding the state law, the reputation of the store is restored, the policies of the state are also improved, and finally, I may minimize the fraud.
If I report the matter, victims practicing the fraud might face the full force of the law and get jailed or fined for malpractice. Also, cheaters may be pardoned and consequently change their character. However, the victims may launch an appeal against their case since state laws do not require anyone to report cheaters. The case, hence, may turn against me for reporting cheaters. But it might be the fairest decision to make.
Likely Impact 1
Following my decision to report the matter of fraudulence, customers may get angry or fearful and turn away from shopping in the Supermarket. The action may subsequently lead to lose realization in the business that could also affect other employees negatively. The burden, thus, may be laid upon me. Moreover, the law enforcement authority may require that I disclose the identity of each, thus may create enmity between customers and me. As a result, I may be seen as a traitor and enemy of the cheaters and their cohorts.
It is also possible for the cheaters to get corrected by law enforcement agencies and improve sanity by positively change their attitude and action. My co-workers may love my action of taking a bold and risky decision.
My decision to report cheaters to the law enforcement authority upholds fidelity to the state and the Supermarket. I am a law-abiding citizen, and my action is a step towards addressing customer problem and restore efficiency as well as integrity.
The first solution, however, violates some of the freedom of the cheaters. The state laws do not require anyone to report cheaters; thus, by reporting the incident, I violate their autonomy. The cheaters may be demoralized by action, get traumatized and eventual mental torture. Although I may be happy when the cheaters are held accountable for their action, their shopping choice on the supermarket is directly affected. The cheaters may also be infringed of the right of privacy by disclosing their identities.
I again breach the principles of fidelity and honesty toward cheaters by not correcting them instantly, instead, take several months watching their illicit activities. This solution is imbalanced since it harms cheaters who are customers and minimize the productivity regarding profit making.
I may also assume and choose not to report cheaters to the law enforcement authority. In this case, my integrity is at the question as well as the blame by co-workers in case of the nasty outcome. The situation will be a total to my side and equally to the cheaters.
Likely impact 2
By ignoring fraud, I am like a manager encouraging dishonesty. The cheaters may not take any precaution and desist from their action. They eventually influence their friends to fall into the same trap. Consequently, my performance review as assistant manager may be poor due to the poor performance of the stores.
Additionally, any co-worker may report due to suspicion, lack of patients, and not following the chain of command with the report. In such a scenario, I may suffer together with cheaters in the hands of law enforcement authority. However, my assumption regarding fraud might equally maintain customers shopping in the supermarket. It may again be considered as mercy and room for change to customers. The co-worker may also see me as a lenient senior and attract love among them to me. Finally, I may choose to advise the cheaters on their illegal action thus give them room for change.
Assuming fraudulence is going on in the supermarket is a violation of the fidelity principle toward my state and company that I am one of the managers. It is upon me to maintain the good reputation of the shopping store and its growth. In case of any mess, I am solely responsible as a manager. Failure to report might thus lower my performance review and consequently give the company no option but to fire me.
On the other hand, assuming cheaters upholds the principle of the state of not to report them to law enforcement authority. It also upholds the right to privacy of the cheaters hence the cheaters will have a chance to reform from their action as well as preserve their rights. They may also choose to continue with their illegal activity since any action is yet to be taken.
After careful consideration of words from Fredericks, 2013, my decision to report the cheaters may endanger their lives since they may face prosecution and jail. It is not an important violation of individual or customer rights and the principle of fidelity. Rather, it is within my mandate to take action whenever I notice unusual happenings. However, not reporting the fraud may not bring sanity in the company. It means I may violate the first solution anyway that encourages reporting to a law enforcement agency. Given my personality and cheaters' failure to reform after several months of their unwanted action, is not wise to keep quiet and watch in my knowledge. It leads me to careful analysis of the two solutions.
The first solution- my decision to report cheaters- has merits like the cheaters may be fined or jailed hence learn a lesson and make corrections. Sanity and reputation of the store are also maintained. Furthermore, by taking action, state laws are upheld. However, it is very risky since I may cause harm to cheaters and create enmity with many people, therefore, risk my life.
The first solution may require me to treat cheaters in a devious, considerate and dishonest way, denying them a chance of warning and their right to privacy by disclosing their identities. Again, it may create more trouble as customers may be scared away. However, this solution will restore order in the store even if it may bring trouble to the cheaters.
In the second solution, my career is threatened for being unethical. First, it is unethical to discover the wrong and hide it. The wrong of using state credit cards by cheaters and another one of failing to report the incidences cannot make a right. It is, therefore, wrong to solve the problem the wrong way. Secondly, my profession is at risk since I may lack ethics and integrity in duty performance. If I follow not to report the cheaters, I may choose to solve the problem creatively and ethically of discussing the matter with victims and its side effects, since I interact with them regularly. By doing so, I may minimize cheaters' chances of suffering as a result of breaking the law.
Once the cheaters realize the consequences of breaking the law, they may concede and have room for positive change. This step may have some chances of success in that I may not create enmity, and the supermarket may not face the high cost of losses and boycott.
I decide to manage the situation is by not reporting. For the success of my decision, I first need co-operation and a heart-to-heart conversation with cheaters, explaining to them the disadvantages of their action in a non-offensive way. I may then elaborate on the legal measures that I may take in case I do not realize change. I words may stress on harmless actions against cheaters and the importance of their reform.
The first objection to my proposal is that it may be hard for me to be trusted in a senior position. I may set myself to a hard task in case there is no success given the duration that I kept quiet with the case. Eventually, I may be held responsible for the failure.
Secondly, the state legal authority may follow up on the issue hence I may face legal action for entertaining fraud in the supermarket. Moreover, my action my reduce my performance review and minimize my opportunities for progress, (Gholipour and Sanahmadi, 2013).
Fredericks, S. E. (2013). Measuring and evaluating sustainability: Ethics in sustainability indexes. Routledge.
Gholipour, A. M., & Sanahmadi, B. M. (2013). A Psychoanalytic Attitude to The Great Gatsby. International Journal of Humanities and Management Sciences (IJHMS), 1(1), 51-53.
Kohler-Hausmann, J. (2015). Welfare crises, penal solutions, and the origins of the "welfare queen." Journal of Urban History, 41(5), 756-771.
Tyson, L. (2014). Critical theory today: A user-friendly guide. Routledge.
Cite this page
Reporting Welfare Cheaters - Case Study Paper Sample. (2022, Sep 14). Retrieved from https://speedypaper.com/essays/reporting-welfare-cheaters-case-study-paper-sample
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the SpeedyPaper website, please click below to request its removal: