The ethical issue identified questions if it is right for BB to implement the 8-minute rule and surveillance system to limit employees’ personal break time in order to reduce customer waiting time, when doing so infringes upon the employees’ rights to fairness and privacy?

Kantian ethics is the most relevant here as the tension results from conflicting rights and duties. This 8 minutes policy promotes the rights of BB, its shareholders and customers. However, even though employees have a duty to adhere to this policy, doing so would be incongruent with their moral rights to fairness and privacy. The employees are not being respected as equal and autonomous persons capable of making decisions in their own life, and physical privacy is violated when they are no longer able to have private personal time as and when required, without being monitored.

This perspective identifies which rights and duties are in conflict, to be be addressed in the recommendations. Rawlsian ethics is also relevant as it helps to prioritize the conflicting rights and duties. Under the veil of ignorance, no rational and self-interested employer who could now be at the receiving end of the policy would want to risk having his privacy infringed upon. Hence, this perspective helps to decide which rights cannot be sacrificed for others. Lastly, the Utilitarian perspective here helps to analyze and weigh the consequences of each decision made. The analysis shows that short term benefits of a policy, even to the majority, is not substantial to justify a potential long term harm to the majority, even if not implementing the policy does not in itself result in much pleasure for any stakeholder in the present. Although both virtue ethics and ethics of care are applicable in evaluating this case, we have not focused on them as they do not offer as much direction for deriving practical recommendations. Nonetheless, our recommendations should strive to serve community better and emphasize on the importance of social relationships where possible. Recommendations
1) Taking into consideration both the rights and duties of employee and employer, we feel that a reasonable break time limit policy is required, with the time duration decided upon as a fair compromise between both parties. While employees have a right to privacy, the limit would ensure that they abide by their duty to loyalty to company. Employers are able to exercise their contractual rights, but in a fair manner to the employees. This would better align the conflicting rights and duties of both parties. In Kantian perspective, the policy would then be universalizable, and also be humane in not using employees as mere means to profit the company. This is further supported by Rawlsian perspective that employees’ basic liberties should have priority over the company’s profitability interest. 2) Special concessions to this rule should be allowed consideration, to give due respect and dignity for employees’ different needs. This prevents the policy from being too harsh. Department heads should be granted the authority to grant concessions, to show the trust given to employees, but should have to justify their decisions to higher management to ensure transparency. Again, this is supported by Rawlsian ethics that the basic liberties of employees should have priority over the strategic goals of the company. Furthermore, this approach embraces humanity as emphasized by virtue ethics and ethics of care. 3) As employees currently derive no pleasure from this policy, incentives can be given to those who adhere to the break-time policy to serve as a motivation. This would increase the overall net pleasure for all stakeholders involved, thereby achieving the utilitarian goal of maximizing utility.