Should the companies proclaim policy for protect the worker's family Essay

Should the companies proclaim policy for protect the worker's family and what's the effect - Essay Example Failing to protect the worker and the worker’s family could be very disadvantageous to the company in terms of image and brand because the general public will be appalled with a company’s labor practice that disregard the welfare and protection of its employees and its immediate dependents. When the general public will perceive the company as uncaring, they will be turned off with the company and will cease patronizing its products. When customers no longer patronize or buy a company’s product or service, its sales will decline and it follows that when sales decline, the profitability of the company will also decline and it will not be long before the company will go bankrupt. In addition to customers who would be put off with a company that does not proclaim the protection of its employee and their families, investors and the general public will begin to have a negative perception of its shares of stock and it will follow that its stock price will decline due to the negative perception of the market. When that happens, returns to the shareholders will also decline. When the returns of the shareholders investment will decline, they will withdraw their money from the company and will look for other companies to invest it in where it could be more profitable. Thus, the evil cycle will begin with shareholders leaving the company aggravating the already negative perception on the company. In the end, the company may even go bankrupt just because of the market’s negative perception of the company with its uncaring labor practice with its employees and their families. The refusal or failure of the company to protect the worker and their families come in many ways. For the worker’s family’s refusal or inability to protect them by the company, this could come in the form of non recognition of health insurance coverage and in today’s case refusal to implement Obamacare. In effect, this law mandates that companies are all required to protect all their workers and their families from rising medical cost despite their medical condition. Failure to cover its employees would tantamount to paying fines which the law will impose on the company. This is important to mention because this is the new context that businesses will be operating in terms of providing health insurance to their employees and their employees. It meant that companies will have to cover all of its employees including those who were previously uninsurable and those who have pre-exisitng conditions and that includes their families. This may mean an added cost in terms of paying premiums as employees who were not uninsurable has to be insured now that companies may be tempted to renege it to save on cost. The consequence proved to be more expensive because companies who refused to provide medical insurance protection to their employees and their families were fined heavily such as the case of big companies such as AT&T and Caterpillar who decided to stop providing health coverage for their employers because of its additional cost. As a result, it was slapped with penalty and mandated to pay heavy fines that were very costly (Colvin 125). Big companies are considering this option because the forced coverage of the new law on health insurance on all of its employees including those who were previously uninsurable would mean huge addition of cost due to the scale of its employees. Such, they deemed it more