CVS Caremark
What is Really Going On

Before we get to the major concept presented by Chapter 2, we must define one of the main contributors to the concept, whistleblowers. Whistleblowers are people who decide to report unethical or illegal activities, usually activities under the control of their employers. According to Halbert and Ingulli, “What unites all whistleblowing is the urge to bring a disturbing situation to light, the urge to bring about some corrective change” (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012, p. 46). This brings us to the concept highlighted in Chapter 2, loyalty to the company, and their views on employment-at-will and their rules for and against whistleblowing. Looking at CVS’ policies and Caremark’s Code of Conduct, and I quote, “A provision of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 requires CVS Caremark to provide its colleagues, and certain contractors and agents, with information regarding the federal and state false claims acts, whistleblower protections and CVS Caremark’s process for detecting and preventing fraud, waste, and abuse.” The protections that are said above include “protecting the employee involved in whistleblowing from being laid off or fired by the company, demoting from their current position, denying any overtime or promotion, disciplining in any way, failure to hire or rehire, intimidation and threat-making, delaying any chance for promotion, and reducing pay or hours,” (OSHA, 2013). This code of conduct in the policy itself shows that CVS takes any retaliation against whistleblowers as an insult to Caremark itself. They would like to advocate employees to properly voice concerns if and when they witness something that goes against CVS policy. Based on this policy itself, it can be seen that CVS Caremark is indeed ethical in the way they do things.
In 2008, CVS Caremark had a lawsuit filed against it for overbilling on Medicaid prescriptions by one of its own night time pharmacists who noticed a discrepancy in the bills that CVS Caremark had received. Patients were being billed more than the minimum required payment for the prescriptions made by the federal third-party insurances. Noticing the discrepancy, the pharmacist alerted the proper authorities and thus a lawsuit formed. In 2011, the case was finally settled and CVS was called to pay the federal government the money lost, as well as additional charges towards the pharmacist who would receive $2.7 million dollars. Now was indeed a whistleblower case, because the reports came from someone who was employed within the CVS Caremark system and thus was under their payroll and thus was protected under their policy. The employee’s future with the company was not discussed and revealed, so there is no proof that CVS indeed followed their own company policy in regards to whistleblowing. Recently, CVS has been accused of another defrauding federal healthcare programs by Anthony Spay, whose firm was hired several years ago to review internal records. Now this is indeed a whistleblower suit because Spay was a former employee. Maybe not a direct employee who worked behind the counter, but indeed an employee nonetheless who had access to financial documents and thus had the ability to report any misdemeanors by the company. Now the case was very recent, made at the end of 2012, and because so there has not been a final statement by the courts. However, the United States Department of Justice declined to intervene, causing the issue to not be a national matter. Despite this, they have given their two cents on the case. They believe that Spay has sufficient evidence to indict Caremark and indeed has agreed that this is a whistleblower case, despite CVS Caremark saying it isn’t one because PDE is already publicly disclosed. Because this case has not officially been closed and resolved, there is no more information out currently. CVS Caremark has had many whistleblower accounts in the past. Mainly all of these lawsuits have been about fraud and misuse of federal third party claims. The multitude of people coming out and indicting their employers shows that CVS Caremark does indeed follow its policy and does not punish those who decide to out the company. Because of CVS Caremark’s loyalty to its employees, this allows the employees to be loyal to the mission statement of the company, which is to do right by its customers. When the company shows that it does not punish people for doing the right thing, it allows management to potentially weed out the employees responsible for causing potential harm to the company in the future. This is why whistleblowing is actually beneficial. In the short run, the company will lose money paying for mistakes of a few, but in the long run they will continue to be ethical and maintain a loyal following.
In the United States, billions of emails are sent from any business regarding the business done, and sometimes things that aren’t business at all. I’m talking about things such as company sports, company games, or even company free time. Because of this, many companies’ these days monitor their employees’ emails in order to discourage the use of company time for leisure work. These seemingly random checks can tell the company when and/or how an employee has misused their time and misused the companies’ resources for their own gain. According to Halbert and Ingulli, employers have had a long history of interest in scrutinizing their workforces (Halbert & Ingulli, 2006, p. 87). Today, “spying” on their employees has been made many times easier due to technology. Monitoring emails is but a simple way employees can monitor their employers and making sure they are doing their job. Many employees believe that this is a violation of privacy, and would like to know that whatever they are doing in a company has some degree of privacy. However, according to Halbert and Ingulli, the Supreme Court has ruled that the violation of the amendments can only be by the government, and last time I checked, individual companies are not the government. This also applies to phone line tapping by the companies. Millions of phone calls are made inside a company to make deals, follow up on replies, and in terms of CVS, checking up on patients and customers. However, many times, these employees will again use the company’s resources and time and money for their own purposes. Calling their spouse, calling their children, or calling their secret lover are but some examples of what people could be doing with the company’s phone. In the past, many companies tapped their phone calls, but ever since the introduction of the private cellular phone, this has become more and more unpopular. This goes back to the email controversy on invasion of privacy for the employees. Employers are a private company separate from the government, and so spying on the employees in order to better the company seems to be a valid argument against lawsuits. In regards to the company I chose, CVS the pharmaceutical company, there has been no documentation on whether or not CVS monitors its employees through neither email nor tapping the phone lines. I have not been able to find any sort of federal cases either on disgruntled employees or customers in regards to an invasion of privacy. This does not mean, however, that there has never been one. According to a blogspot I found made by DrugMonkey, a blogger who had insight from an actual CVS pharmacist, “…no one at any level at CVS can talk to the press (DrugMonkey, 2012). This means that there’s not much ability to see whether or not CVS invades the privacy of their employees, but it is obvious to see that CVS takes great measure to make sure their privacy remains private. This does not mean, however, that CVS takes no way of monitoring their employee’s usage. As a former CVS employee behind the counter, I can give some factual insight on what they do. It is true that CVS does not monitor the conversations that employees make on their phones per say, but they do have a way of monitoring which patients get called weekly in order to expedite sales. In regards to email and web surfing, the company’s computers does not have any method of accessing the internet. Only certain cites are accessible, one of which is the pharmacist’s letter that all pharmacists’ are required to have. In doing things this way, the company makes sure that its employees stay on task and does their work appropriately. Also, this gets rid of the discussion on whether or not the company invades the employees privacy. Now this may be a reason why there is no documentation on any lawsuits the company has to have endured, but maybe not as well. It is also my experience that most companies do not really advertise whether or not they monitor the employees’ emails and phone calls. In doing so, they can make sure the integrity of the employee as well as the work ethic before they are supposedly caught during the act. Judging an employees’ character is one of the major functions of an interview, but sometimes an interview does not tell the whole story. According to the textbook, the “Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution requires government to treat groups of people in the same situation similarly” (Halbert & Ingulli, 2006, p. 130). In the past, discrimination has been a problem in most hiring situations in several of the bigger companies. Beliefs that women can’t do such a good job as men hindered their hiring in bigger managerial positions. Beliefs that African Americans were less competent than their white or Asian counterparts caused companies to discriminate against them and hindered their ability to be hired at mid or high level positions. Discrimination, however, does not stop at simply what gender and what race you are. Many people have disabilities or something that separates them from others, and treating them differently could be a sign of discrimination. These days, most companies agree that discrimination based on one’s appearance can be detrimental to the company, as discrimination in the work force has not been as big a factor in the past. However, there are still some cases of discrimination these days. During research, I found that CVS has been allegedly accused of discrimination of its employees. A CVS pharmacist has filed a lawsuit against CVS for apparently discriminating against a disability the pharmacist has. According to the article, the pharmacist does not reveal what disability he has. The plaintiff argues that the store manager and team interfered with his employment and made defamatory comments to him which caused him to have a loss of enjoyment of life and therefore made his work suffer. This was all due to his alleged disability and discrimination against for it. This case has not been finished, and there is no outcome for this trial as of yet. Again, his disability was not mentioned beforehand. Before this incident in 2009, I have not found any more cases in which CVS was sued for discrimination by its employees. In fact, I found that in the policy handbook of CVS, affirmative action is one of the main points of hiring. On their website, they have a page specifically devoted to diversity, and I quote from the website “We celebrate differences in age, gender, family status, race, ethnicity, religion, disability, sexual orientation, appearance, thought and mannerisms. But our commitment to diversity is never relegated to the fine print. We display it proudly, and believe a better, more innovative company is only possible when the power of our differences is unleashed and lived, day in and day out.” However, this does not mean that CVS does not ever discriminate. Through research I have found several accounts of employees discriminating against customers. Some such discrimination is ridiculous to the point where I take great offense because of my own nationality. One such case that I will share is the story of a New Jersey Korean woman who is suing CVS because one of the employees had written on our receipt while she was picking up her photos, the phrase “Ching Chong Lee” was written in bold letters. Once contacting CVS customer relations, apparently no apology was given out, neither by the employee nor CVS. Because of this lack of concern, the defendant Hyun Lee has filed a lawsuit against CVS for $1 million dollars. The employee that dealt with this matter was not terminated immediately and would be “counseled and trained”. Other companies have a zero policy in matters of discrimination and the defendant and her attorney believes that CVS should have one as well, as well have an adequate response to this case. As this case is fairly new, the lawsuit was only filed in April of 2013, there has been no outcome to the case, as it is still in litigation processes. However, seeing this, one cannot only be inquire about a company’s policy of affirmative action in terms of hiring, but discrimination in general must be accounted for, whether it be in the work force, or to its customers. This is even more true when thinking about the fact that customers essentially make up a company, and without customers, the company is on a downhill trend. Discrimination is something that should be effectively gone through the United States, given its history and more colorful diversity. Discrimination is something that should be frowned on and that companies as big as CVS should not only frown on, but have strict consequences for, just like the cases in Papa Johns and Chik-fil-a. It’s not only how a company treats its employees, but how a company treats its customers. Injuries in a workplace cannot be completely avoidable. However, even so, it is up to the employer to make sure they do whatever they can to prevent potential injuries. Work is unavoidable. That does not mean injuries are completely unavoidable as well. Luckily for CVS, the work that techs and pharmacists do isn’t exactly labor intensive. During my research, there seems to not be many noted injuries in the workplace. The biggest fear working at CVS though, and the biggest potential injury occurrence, is for the store to get robbed. Now this cannot be completely unavoidable, but CVS has taken good measurements and discouraging anybody from robbing the store. There are numerous video cameras in the store monitoring the situation. Also, there are multiple entry points and escape points that the work force can use to dodge thieves and avoid being at potential gun point. During training, employees are also given potential escape routes and a lesson on what to do if there is someone robbing the store with a weapon. CVS does a good job of attempting to protect its employees. Like I said earlier, beyond potential robberies, there is not much in the pharmacy that could cause potential harm to the employees. The shelves are stacked with medications; most of the employees operate with the registry and computers, so that they are rarely exposed to anything even remotely dangerous. The floors are all carpeted, and so slips and falls do not ever happen. One thing that I did find in my research though, was that there was a particular CVS in New York that, after many inspections, CVS still had not developed an emergency action plan in case of fires or some other cause of distress. Because of this, OSHA has issues CVS a one repeat citation due to CVS being issued a previous citation. It should be stressed that the previous citations were not of the same store, but for stores located all over the country. This means that it wasn’t just the one store having issues, but it was in fact CVS’s lack of initiative to take preemptive measures to protect its employees. According to the article, “CVS has 15 business days from receipt of the citations to comply…” (OSHA). It is very critical that a company takes proper measures to protect its employees, especially if they were already cited by the officials for lacking security and safety of the employees. Now, if they originally didn’t have it, that’d be a different matter, but because they were cited before in the past and did not take appropriate actions in the rest of the stores, this could be noted as a severe issue. This may potentially point out a flaw in CVS security as well as the whole system. If CVS does not show initiative after being cited once already, who knows what else they have been ignoring in order to save money. As Nancy Lessin has said in the textbook, “The guiding principle regarding OSHA penalties must be this: it should cost an employer more to break the law than to observeit.” (Halbert & Ingulli, 2006, p. 173). OSHA creates a general duty on the part of every employer to maintain a work environment free from “recognized hazards causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees” (Halbert &INgulli, 2006, p. 173). It is important for employers to realize that in order to provide a proper workplace, they must take proper precautions and spend the money to fix certain issues, before the OSHA comes and charges them even more for not following the law. At CVS, it is also the responsibility of the managers to ensure the safety of the employees. In fact there is even a position known as the safety manager of cvs caremark. Now, I have never heard of this position before, having worked at cvs, but I imagine the job details entail making sure the employees are safe and working in a safe environment. One of the reviews I found at working at CVS, was that, and I quote, “. I felt safe at work especially with my paranoid manager that would follow every customer when it was near closing time to constantly remind them that the store will be closing soon”. This shows that with a good manager, the employees can feel more safe in their environment, especially making sure they go home at the appropriate times and having no one near just in case of some bizarre incident.
As the people of the world continuously uses the world’s natural resources, people need to ask the question: Will this last? Will our planet continue to provide for us when we don’t provide for the Earth? I am by no means an environmentalist, and am for sure not someone who will tell someone else that they are killing the earth, for I believe that simply by existing the humans are killing the planet. However, I believe in people doing whatever they can to take care of the planet that is home to billions. CVS is a huge company that is located all over the north west hemisphere. And from the research that I have conducted, they are indeed taking the initiative to “go green”. Everyone knows that CVS has two parts in the market, one of which is the pharmacy, and the other is its own little “convenience” store located in every location. They have been coming out with their own brand name of products, as well as stocking up on the brand name products that everyone normally buys at large chain grocery stores. Recently, CVS has recognized how natural and environmentally friendly products have been appealing to customers, and so they have been making sure to stock up on products that meet the demands of those who respect the planet. This of course, includes “natural beauty products that meet European Union standards for reduced environmental risk and impact” (CVS). CVS has also brought out a product line of their own known as Earth Essentials, which “offers natural and environmentally preferred products that are made with 100-percent recycled fibers and includes plates and bowls made entirely from natural and renewable sugarcane” (CVS). Greenpeace has awarded CVS’ Earth Essentials product line its “Green Tree” stamp of approval in 2009 that is still standing today. Another big thing that CVS is doing is promoting shoppers to going green. Not many companies are willing to give out money for making a good cause, but CVS has started a “GreenBagTag” program. This program is an effort made by CVS in order to promote it’s shoppers from going away from the plastic bags that shoppers are used to, and using reusable bags offered by CVS or simply carrying things out by hand. If customers are taking part of the program, they are issues a little card, and if they buy something without using plastic bags, they are awarded 1 swipe, and every 4th swipe, they are awarded one dollar of store credit. Now, even environmentalist would jump on this deal, especially for those that are frequent shoppers of CVS. You are receiving 25 cents essentially every time you shop at CVS. This is a good way of getting more people to participate in eco friendly practices that could potentially make way to save the world bit by bit. I’ve talked about what the front store has done to attempt to be more eco-friendly to the world that we live in, what about the leading money maker of CVS, the pharmacy? Well the pharmacy has taken many steps to be eco-friendly. One of the biggest issues that could damage the environment is the improper disposal of medications. Now CVS has taken steps to attempt to lower the levels of improper medication disposal. They have a “medication disposal” program that patients can take part in in case they do not how to properly throw away their medicine. The medication disposal program isn’t the only thing that CVS is doing. They also have special recycling bins for certain medication bottles and plastic bags for other non-environmental friendly containers. CVS has taken great measures to be more green for its customers and for the planet that has been providing everything for its inhabitants. Now, through all the research, I have not found anything to indicate that CVS has been accused of fraudulent acts. It appears that they have never been found to disrespect the planet in any way. While they have not always been green, at least they have never taken measure to harm the planet in any extraordinary way. Now this does not absolve them from the crime to the planet, but at least they are trying to be green now.
Freedom of speech is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, but for much of the history of the United States, the “public expression of offensive or unpopular opinion could be lawfully silenced” (Halbert & Ingulli, 2006, p. 243). In the past, there have been many instances that did not do the first amendment justice. Today, however, unless the speech is defamatory, obscene, or downright violence-inducing, the public’s speech is protected in marketplaces and companies. Now this benefits companies in that wish to expand their ideas of marketing to the public. Marketing is a huge part of a company’s success because it is their way of getting their products known to the public. CVS is just one company that has used advertising to their advantage. According to Robert Price, CVS Caremark’s senior vice president of marketing and advertising,
“Right now, our momentum and projected growth demand a more powerful and integrated media and creative strategy. The industry has evolved over the past eight years with new and innovative advertising tools and techniques. The consumer is more informed and involved in their health-care decisions than ever before and, as a result, media consumption has changed. Also, the retail landscape has changed significantly with the consolidation of competitors within our class of trade and the expansion of competition outside of our class of trade” (PBN, paragraph 4). Now this shows that CVS is very involved in social media and are looking to improve the quality of consumption by CVS Caremark’s customers. And because of the changes to the way retail is being viewed, as well as the number of competitors in the market today, then marketing is a must in order to attempt to gain the upper hand in the retail community. According to the providence business news website, CVS spent $143 million on measured media in 2008 and $92 million during the first three quarters of 2009. This shows that CVS Caremark has been very involved in the marketing avenue in order to get their names out there. Also, CVS is very involved in acquiring agencies to support its creative and media business, including Hill Holliday, Standard Time, and Conill. CVS has also admitted that they target the correct demographics. They are “not only advertising for awareness, but for activation.” (Zmuda, 2009, p. 4). CVS’ main demographics are a person who require healthcare and really anyone who wishes to find a good way to take better care of themselves. In regards to whether or not CVS has been sued for false advertisement, there appears to be one lawsuit that has indicated that they have indeed been filed for a lawsuit against their advertisement. According to the original lawsuit, CVS was sued because of false advertisement claims. A customer had been charged a higher price, then the advertised price, and because of this they filed a lawsuit in the false advertisement claims. Now this is a pretty big issue in the fact that most people go to retail stores to buy their items for a cheaper price. So if CVS did indeed charge for a higher price than their alleged prices, then this would be a huge deal in terms of whether customers would come back and shop there or not. So even though CVS is spending millions of dollars on advertisements, if they in fact are lying about their reduced costs and then being sued for false advertising, they could be potentially having a negative total net gain and be losing a lot more money than they would like. In this case, the company agreed to pay 2 million dollars in fines and other costs. The outcome of this case also seems to benefit the store some as well, simply because due to this problem, the company has agreed to have weekly inspections in order to make sure CVS is pricing its merchandise properly. Because of this, this may be able to extinguish any fears for future customers that CVS is falsely advertising and are actually paying more than what they expected. CVS has also guaranteed a “scan-right” program that will give customers up to two dollars off if an item has been scanned for a higher price than was advertised. This shows that CVS has taken their consumers in a high manner and are making sure they get the right treatment. Because CVS is a pharmacy retail store, then every single medication that they sale has the potential to be misused. Also, because it is also a retail store, then many of its cosmetic items, not only its pharmacy, can have potential to becoming disruptive, if not downright lethal. One potential consumer went through a CVS store and found several disturbing facts. Razor blades were out in the aisles for anyone to buy, chemical compounds were out in the aisle that could dissolve hair and potentially layers of the skin, bottles and bottles of nail polish remover is never exactly safe, either, and all this is found on the aisles of CVS. Toxins and torch fuels are found right next to each other, so if a fire started somehow, then the whole store would be a burning fiasco. Also, diet pills not for use under age 18 are found in the middle of the store, allowing virtually anyone to buy or potentially steal it. Now, whether or not this is a health violation or not, CVS should do whatever it can to make sure it’s customers are safe. If customers are not safe, then they will most likely not want to shop there where potentially their lives, and their family’s life, are at stake. And if the customers are fearful of their lives, the company will not be very successful. This is even more true when thinking about the fact that customers essentially make up a company, and without customers, the company is on a downhill trend. The biggest and most preventable mess up that any retail store can have though, is selling a product that is expired. Now, expired medication can be a huge problem. Their active ingredients could have reduced effectiveness, they could have a different effect as age goes on, and worst case scenario, they could become toxic to the consumer. Now, most likely than not, the pharmacy will do a very good job with making sure their products are up to date, so the main concerns would be the items on the shelves. There has been evidence that CVS has been sued in the past based on their lack of knowledge on the date some items expired, and because of this, they unwittingly sold expired items to customers. Actually, the people filing the lawsuit weren’t even consumers, they were merely a Department of Consumer Protection in the state of Connecticut where the expired products were found. So remember, even if you are buying from a very reputable source, make sure to watch out for expiration dates, for everyone could miss out on some things. Every product has the potential to be dangerous in a store like CVS. So because of this, I believe there is no true way to discuss what is truly dangerous and what is not. I believe David Owen in the textbook says it right. “Virtually every product is dangerous in some manner and to some extent, at least when put to certain uses. But most such dangers are simple facts of physics, chemistry, or biology. There is no reasonable way to avoid them. For such natural risks of life, product users, rather than product suppliers, properly bear responsibility for avoiding and insuring against any injuries that may result,” (Halbert & Ingulli, 2006, p. 282). Now this is perfectly applicable to CVS pharmacy, and really any other retail pharmacy. Whether or not the things listed above in the list provided are dangerous on their own is a different matter simply because they would not be handled properly. Now, this does not mean that items cannot be mishandled, so caution must not be thrown away when handling things such as nail polish remover. Bottom line is, when you are at CVS Caremark retail stores, it is best to use your brain and think of whether or not this will be dangerous. In regards to children, who do not really think of things that way, they must be watched both by the employees of the store, as well as their own guardian. Now, putting more dangerous items on the top shelf would be a way to help solve this. In order to talk about copyright, first we must talk about what copyrights are. In its simplest terms, copyright is the U.S. government’s way of protecting the rights and property of anyone creating an original work, which may include movies, books, or even a brand new flavor of potato chip. With the copyright, only the original maker can possibly make copies, companies, and use the original creation or even the idea of the creation. They are also given the ability to sell their idea whether or not they choose to. However, what cannot happen, is another party coming in and posing as the original idea to be their own. Copyrights were made so confusion between whose idea it was originally could never happen. One of the biggest issues with copyright infringement though, is that sometimes when one copyright infringement, it is on an idea, an idea that is not really that uncommon. The book has an excellent quote about this:
“No man writes exclusively from his own thoughts, unaided and uninstructed by the thoughts of others. The thoughts of every man are, more or less, a combination of what other men have thought and expressed, although they may be modified, exalted, or improved be his own genius or reflection. (Halbert & Ingulli, 2006, p. 323). In regards to CVS Caremark, the main thing that they seem to care about copyright infringement is their website. On their website, they have a very stern notice to people who have visited stating that all of the content on the website is copyrighted and trademarked. I’d like to provide a quote from the website to show exactly how strict they seem to be:
“CVS Caremark owns all the content on this Web site, including text, graphics, legends, customized graphics, original photographs, data, images, music, audio and video clips, typefaces, titles, button icons, logos, designs, words or phrases, page headers, and software as well as the design, coordination, arrangement, enhancement, and presentation of this material. CVS Caremark grants you a license that is non exclusive, non-transferable, with a limited right to access, use and display this Site and the informational materials (Materials) contained in the Site. You agree not to interrupt or attempt to interrupt the operation of the Site in any way.” (CVS, n.d) . One of the nuances that CVS has put on their website, which seems a bit different than others, is that they are freely giving the usage of several of their pictures, ideas, images, music, audio, and everything really listed in the above quote as long as the usage is personal and noncommercial. The main point of this particular part of the website is to make sure that anyone can use it, but no one can steal their images, data, music, audio, titles, button icons, and specifically logos, for all of these things are under CVS Caremark’s name. In doing so, CVS Caremark will guarantee that whatever they think of and create, they will be given credit for. If any perpetrators are caught in the misuse of any data created by CVS, according to the website, they can be properly sued and “You (the perpetrator) agree to defend, indemnify, and hold Accordant and CVS Caremark, its officers, directors, employees, agents, licensors, affiliates, service providers and suppliers, not at fault or responsible for any claims, actions or demands, liabilities and settlements including without limitation, reasonable legal and accounting fees, resulting from, or alleged to result from, your violation of these Terms of Use to which you have agreed by use of this website” (Accordant, 2012). From the websites, I have gathered that CVS is very protective of its copyrights and trademarks. Though they are not exactly the most sensitive about some aspects of their company, they do not wish their website to be copied by other competitors. Their logos and data is theirs and only theirs. There also does not appear to be any issues with their actual products, for I did not see any sort of copyright claims in that regard. This is probably due to people’s lack of ability to copy certain aspects that go around in their store. However their website is a whole other story where it is very easy to copy, and just change around certain details that others can present as their own. Now this to CVS Caremark is unacceptable and people who do this will face certain consequences that will be up to CVS Caremark to execute and decide. As a final evaluation, I must review all of the information I have looked up during the course. From all the research that I have done, and after careful deliberation, I have concluded that CVS Caremark is not such a terrible company after all. I will proceed to reflect on each of the topics I have listed above. In regards to whistleblowing, CVS Caremark is indeed another company that has whistleblowers for the deeds that the company itself does, and the employees do not agree with. Now this does not mean that CVS Caremark is a terrible company, because they try to make as much money as possible, however it does mean that employees that are unsatisfied by some of the actions taken by the company. With this, CVS Caremark has ensured that whistleblowers, or those that come forth to talk out against the company, will not be persecuted in any way. They will not be fired due to their speaking out, nor will they be discriminated against by the company due to their negative comments toward the company. Now, I have not found any research to detail this, but I have found that CVS Caremark is very into following the Whistleblower Act, which states everything above. In regards to privacy and technology, CVS Caremark is pretty good when it comes to not spying on their employees via calls and emails. For one, there isn’t really much ability to send emails in the workplace, especially with the introduction of smartphones. Phone calls also aren’t really able to spy on, simply because they use a simple wired phone. Having worked at CVS, you really are not able to make any phone calls or emails using CVS Caremark property. You are constantly working and really have no down time in between customers. So even though CVS has not had any past instances of privacy issues, I don’t believe that CVS has the ability or need to spy on phone conversations or emails made by their employees. In regards to diversity and stereotyping, CVS Caremark does not stereotype in who they hire. Now in the past, there has been instances where people who CVS have hired have stereotyped and have had lawsuits towards CVS in how they handled the actions. This does not really bode well with CVS and their customer relations. I do believe, however, that CVS truly does not tolerate any stereotyping by its employees, and having worked there, I have seen just how diverse the pharmacy can be. It is true that CVS Caremark only wants to hire the able and the well-rounded mind, and anything like race and disability did not matter so long as they could do their job well. In regards to health concerns in the workplace, CVS has done a good job of making sure customers are not in any significant danger, as long as they are not completely idiotic. In the workplace, employees are not exposed to anything very dangerous. Against most of the potential dangers are only dangerous if there is reckless behavior and relative lack of regard towards one’s own personal safety. Now, this does not mean accidents are completely avoidable inside a CVS, but it appears that being in a CVS is relatively safe, as there hasn’t been any reported accidents or lawsuits indicating that there was negligent safety precautions. In regards to environmental responsibility, CVS has begun a program that would allow them to be more environmentally responsible and help the planet Earth more. The green program where they produce and sell their own line of green products is a breakthrough for CVS. Also, the advertisement of not using plastic bags, giving the customer money, really is a unique idea and method of doing whatever they can to increase awareness of protecting the planet and the detrimental material that people put into the environment. In regards to advertising, CVS Caremark wants to advertise towards the general community. To children all the way to the elderly, everyone needs medicines as well as certain groceries that would be convenient for those picking up their medicine. Because there has been false advertisement claims in the past, I think that making sure that customers are getting the right price as advertised should be CVS’s main concern while checking out the customer. It is unethical for customers to be lied to, and it is important to satisfy the customers. In regards to product safety, CVS has taken good measure to make sure that their products are non-hazardous. But like all products, if they are misused, they could potentially be very dangerous. Now this is important to remember, especially for drugs, that they need to be used as appropriately described. That of course, is at the customer’s discretion, but it must be known that customers must be given the appropriate use when coming in the pharmacy. In regards to copy right issues, I don’t think CVS is very stringent on whatever come up with. They are very unique in the sense that they do not use much of their own ingenuity, so trademarking and copyrighting something doesn’t seem to benefit them as much as it could. Now, this doesn’t mean stealing from them is worthy, but I don’t think that CVS would want to spend the time and money copyrighting things that they don’t really care about.

References

Accordant. (September 10, 2012). Terms of Use. Retrieved from http://www.accordant.net/terms.shtml. Bjorhus, J. (2011, April 18). St. Paul whistleblower gets $2.6M in CVS case. Retrieved from http://www.startribune.com/business/120075119.html. Caremark, CVS. (2013). Diversity. Retrieved from http://info.cvscaremark.com/our company/our-culture/diversity. Chang, A. (August 20, 2011). CVS to pay $2 Million in Overcharging, Misleading-ads settlement. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/20/business/la-fi-cvs fine-20110820. CVS. (n.d.) Terms of Use. Retrieved from http://www.cvs.com/help/terms_of_use.jsp.
CVS Caremark. (2013). Code of Conduct. Retrieved from http://info.cvscaremark.com/sites/cvscaremark.com/files/CVS%20Caremark%20Code%20of%20 Conduct.pdf
CVS Cited for Lack of Emergency Action Plan (April 11, 2013). Retrieved from http://www.workplace-weekly.com/2013/04/11/cvs-cited-for-lack-of-emergency-action plan/.
Dulmaine, R. (Apr 2, 2009). CVS goes green with Earth Essentials. Retrieved from http://www.alternativeconsumer.com/2009/04/02/cvs-goes-green-with-earth-essentials/. Halbert, T. Ingulli, E. (2006). Law & Ethics in the Business Environment.
Justinian. (December 1, 2009). CVS Sued for Selling Expired Products. Retrieved from http://www.dangerousdrugs.us/2009/12/cvs-sued-for-selling-expired-products.html. Massey, M. (March 11, 2010). Pharmacist Seeks $3.5M from CVS Over Alleged Discrimination.
Retrieved from http://setexasrecord.com/news/225304-pharmacist-seeks-3-5m-from-cvs over-alleged-discrimination. Monkey, D. (May 17, 2012). Your Pharmacist May Hate You. Retrieved from http://drugmonkey.blogspot.com/2012/05/one-this-ive-learned-about-cvs.html. Occupational Safety & Health Administration. (2013) The Whistleblower Protection Program. Retrieved from http://www.whistleblowers.gov/.
PBN Staff. (January 14, 2010). CVS Begins Review of Marketing Strategy. Retrieved from http://www.pbn.com/CVS-begins-review-of-marketing-strategy,47273. Silverman, E. (2012, October 1). A Whistleblower Suit, CVS Caremark & The Feds. Retrieved from http://www.pharmalive.com/whistleblower-suit-cvs-caremark-feds. Straczynski, S. (Oct 28, 2009). CVS Shoppers Get Green for Going Green. Retrieved from http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/cvs-shoppers-get-green-going-green 106593.
Sustainable Products (n.d.) Retrieved from http://info.cvscaremark.com/our-company/corporate responsibility/environment/sustainable-products. US Labor Department’s OSHA Cites CVS Pharmacy, Proposes $40,000 Fine for Lack of
Emergency Action Plan at Dutchess County, NY, location. (April 8, 2013). Retrieved
From https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document? p_table=NEWS_RLEASES&p_d=23892. Valiente, A. (April 8, 2013). New Jersey Woman Sues CVS for $1M for Racist Receipt. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/04/new-jersey-woman-sues-cvs-for
1m-for-racist-receipt/.
Working at CVS – Reviews by Employees. (May 26, 2010). Retrieved from http://www.jobitorial.com/cvs-job-reviews-C438. Yglesias, M. (May 2, 2013). America’s Pharmacies are Death Traps Full of Products that May
Injure our Vulnerable Teens. Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/05/02/cvs_death_trap_danger_lurks_at_every_aisle.html.
Zmuda, N. (February 23, 2009). Taking Stock of Successes and Stumbles. Retrieved from
http://adage.com/article/news/retail-marketing-spend-target-emphasize/134742/