What is the Federal Trade Commission’s merger test pursuant to the Clayton Act? Why have most mergers passed this test? Can you think of any mergers that were disapproved by the government? Why? (based on Legal Challenges text Chapter 20 and Business Ethics text Chapter 16, Part III; tied to course competencies 1 and 2)

The Federal Trade Commission’s merger test pursuant to the Clayton Act requires a showing of reasonable probability of a substantial lessening of competition. Therefor the mergers must not practice price discrimination, which is the sale of the same product to comparably situated buyers at different prices; tying and exclusive dealing contracts, which are the sale of products on condition that the buyer stop dealing with the seller's competitors; corporate mergers, the acquisition of competing companies by one company; and interlocking directorates, the members of which are common members on the boards of directors of competing companies. Most mergers have passed this test because there has been very little government enforcement of the law in the past decade, and because most mergers have been vertical mergers as opposed to horizontal mergers which are subject to government challenge. One major merger that was disapproved by the government is the United Air and US Air merger, the merger was called off by the companies because the government said that they would block it and sue because the government wanted to protect the people. The government believe that if the merger was allowed to proceed, millions of consumers would have little choice but to pay higher fares and accept lower quality air service.

What is the employment at-will doctrine in the United States, and what are some of the major exceptions to the doctrine? How might the employment at-will doctrine engender a legal but immoral discharge? (based on Legal Challenges text Chapter 21 and Business Ethics text Chapter 16, Parts I and II; tied to course competencies 1, 2, 3, and 4)

The employee at will doctrine holds that the employer may terminate an employee or an employee may quit at any time and for any reason without being liable for any wrong. Some of the major exceptions to the doctrine include an act under the US National Labor Act. Another exception is Title VII of the US Civil Rights Act which prohibits discriminatory discharge of employees. Another major exception is the common law public policy exception. The at-will doctrine might engender a legal but immoral discharge by allowing an employer to fire an employee for protesting unsafe working conditions. At one of my jobs, an employee who seemed to be good at his job, however the employee was fired for taking too many cigarette breaks and constantly being negative. We were told that he did not fit into our corporate culture and was let go.

How has the U.S. Supreme Court made it much more difficult to have legal race and gender based affirmative action plans? Are the recent Supreme Court affirmative action decisions moral ones? (based on Legal Challenges text Chapter 21 and Business Ethics text Chapter 17; tied to course competencies 1, 2, 3, and 4)

The US Supreme Court has made it much more difficult to have legal race and gender based affirmative action plans by several of its rulings. Rulings such as the June 2003 decision that said that colleges must adopt race neutral policies. I do believe that the recent Supreme Court affirmative action decisions are moral ones, however I believe that the consideration of race or gender as one of many deciding factors in admissions processes is an attempt to create the optimal educational experience for everyone. The implementation of affirmative action programs on college campuses is said to enhance the learning environment for all students by allowing for an atmosphere of diversity, in terms of background and point of view.