Why are we rejecting this 2 topics?
For the “case 4.4 - A New Work Ethic?” and “case 7.1 - Hazardous Homes in Herculaneum” that we have rejected, it is mainly because we think that “case 10.4 – Ethically Dubious Conduct” has more issues to be compiled which are more significant comparing to the case 4.4 and case 7.1. Case 4.4 – “A New Work Ethic?” mainly talk about the attitudes of young employees working in USA. Bad manners, irresponsible, stealing, slow service which are commonly seen in the author’s working environment. We reject this case 4.4 because the same situation doesn’t happen in Malaysia yet, which are quite theoretical for us to talk about it. I wouldn’t say it is not happening in Malaysia, just that this kind of situation is not commonly seen in most of our working places. Bad services will usually lead customers to complain to the Consumer Right Assosiation Malaysia. Reading through case 7.1 – “Hazardous Homes in Herculaneum”, we find out that what is happening in this case is quite similar to what Malaysians worrying about – the LYNAS project which is currently setting up in Kuantan. In this case 7.1, it shows quite a lot of technical words of environmentalist which we don’t really understand although we have gone through the passage a few times. We reject this case because, if we choose this case, we may miss out some important points in the passage because we don’t understand it.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document