Sleep Easy Motel Essay Example

Sleep Easy Motel Paper Tonia Simatos 045-262-078 Case # 6- SleepEasy Motel 1. Problem Statement a. Current State: * SleepEasy motel is losing money. Occupancy of the hotel is around 55 percent of capacity which according to industry figures is 13 percent below the average of 68 percent for similar motels in the area. * Large number of customers driving around the parking lot of motel and leaving. * A lot of competition In the area, other hotels offer better facilities. b. Desired state * Have the occupancy of hotel go up to and stabilize to at least 68 percent capacity to generate more profit. Better facilities to attract more customers and have them choose SleepEasy Motel instead of other competitors. 2. Analysis c. Why did this problem arise? SleepEasy’s facilities are lacking. Facilities are most important to approximately 78% of the visitors in the area when choosing accommodation (no restaurant or pool). Huang is relying on customers coming to the resort by just finding it when they drive towar d the area however, 40 percent of the visitors plan and reserve their rooms more than 60 days in advance. There are no signs advertising the motel. d. What is important from a 5C or SWOT or PEST perspective 3. SWOT- Strengths- located in a rapidly expanding resort area. – Only 22km away from a tourist area. Weaknesses- No recreational facilities. – No advertising or signage to attract customers. Opportunities- Join a franchise to attract more customers. Threats- a lot of current competition of bigger hotel chains. – More motels opening in the area. 4. Alternatives e. Make changes to SleepEasy Motel to accommodate and attract more customers, create a loyalty program and launch advertising initiatives. Pro- Huang will keep the revenue from sales and can manage the hotel’s maintenance and improvements on his own. Con- Since the hotel is not doing well Huang may have to take out a loan to renovate the hotel and he may not be able to afford it. f. Join the Days Inn franchise to target more customers. Pros- no major capital investment. – Recognized national chain, use of central reservation system and website will attract more customers. Offers- InnCentives loyalty club for frequent travelers and corporate rate programs for business travelers. September Days Club for travelers to receive discounts and quarterly travel magazine. -Past promotion sold an additional 10, 000 rooms. Cons- Huang must pay 8 percent of gross room revenues to the franchise. Huang must agree to maintain, repair and improve the facility in accordance to Days Inn’s franchise standards. g. Join the Holiday Inn Franchise to target more customers. Pros- Huang will probably be required to build a pool, can charge $75 per day as opposed to $45. – Recognized national chain, use of central reservation system an d website will attract more customers. – Offers loyalty program, Priority Club Worldwide. – Advertises on TV and in print. Cons- must pay 8 percent of gross room revenues to the franchise. – Huang must contribute a capital investment of between $300,000 to $500,000. Huang must agree to maintain, repair and improve the facility in accordance to Days Inn’s franchise standards. 5. Recommendation h. Considering that 78 percent of the visitors to this area indicated that recreational facilities were important in their choice of accommodation, Huang should join the Holiday Inn franchise. 6. Implementation i. If Huang does not have the money for the capital investment he must take out a loan to renovate the hotel. He must then implement maintenance of the hotel, repairs and improvements in compliance with Holiday Inn. 7. Theory / Jargon / Concepts I USED in analyzing this case. S. W. O. T analysis We will write a custom essay sample on Sleep Easy Motel specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Sleep Easy Motel specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Sleep Easy Motel specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer

Fairness and Objectivity in Journalism

Fairness and Objectivity in Journalism You hear it all the time- reporters should be objective and fair. Some news organizations even use these terms in their slogans, claiming that they are more â€Å"fair and balanced† than their competitors. But what is objectivity? Objectivity Objectivity means that when covering hard news, reporters don’t convey their own feelings, biases or prejudices in their stories. They accomplish this by writing stories using language that is neutral and avoids characterizing people or institutions in ways good or bad. But for the beginning reporter accustomed to writing personal essays or journal entries, it can be hard to do this. One trap beginning reporters fall into is the frequent use of adjectives. Adjectives can easily convey one’s feelings about a subject. Example The intrepid protesters demonstrated against the unjust government policies. Just by using the words â€Å"intrepid† and â€Å"unjust† the writer has quickly conveyed his feelings on the story- the protesters are brave and just in their cause, the government policies are wrong. For this reason, hard-news reporters usually avoid using adjectives in their stories. Fairness Fairness means that reporters covering a story must remember there are usually two sides- and often more- to most issues and that those differing viewpoints should be given roughly equal space in any news story. Let’s say the local school board is debating whether to ban certain books from the school libraries. Many residents representing both sides of the issue are there. The reporter may have strong feelings about the subject. Nevertheless, he should interview citizens who support the ban, and those who oppose it. And when he writes his story, he should convey both arguments in a neutral language, giving both sides roughly equal space. A Reporter’s Conduct Objectivity and fairness apply not only to how a reporter writes about an issue but to how he conducts himself in public. A reporter must not only be objective and fair but also convey an image of being objective and fair. At the school board forum, the reporter may do his best to interview people from both sides of the argument. But if in the middle of the meeting, he stands up and starts spouting his own opinions on the book ban then his credibility is shattered. No one will believe he can be fair and objective once they know where he stands. The moral of the story? Keep your opinions to yourself.   A Few Caveats There are a few caveats to remember when considering objectivity and fairness. First, such rules apply to reporters covering hard news, not to the columnist writing for the op-ed page, or the movie critic working for the arts section. Second, remember that ultimately, reporters are in search of the truth. While objectivity and fairness are important, a reporter shouldn’t let them get in the way of finding the truth. Let’s say you’re a reporter covering the final days of World War II and are following the Allied forces as they liberate the concentration camps. You enter one such camp and witness hundreds of gaunt, emaciated people and piles of dead bodies. Do you, in an effort to be objective, interview an American soldier to talk about how horrific this is, then interview a Nazi official to get the other side of the story? Of course not. Clearly, this is a place where evil acts have been committed, and it’s your job as a reporter to convey that truth. In other words, use objectivity and fairness as tools to find the truth.

Terrorism and Illegal Immigration

Terrorism and Illegal Immigration Not all illegal aliens crossing our borders are looking to take advantage of the American way of life; some are looking to destroy it. The uproar over Arizonas new immigration law leaves the impression that all immigrants illegally entering the state are Mexicans. But according to a 2006 report from the House Committee on Homeland Security, an increasing number of illegal immigrants from nations known to produce, train and harbor Islamic terrorists are using the Southwest border as a gateway to the United States.While the Committees report, A Line in the Sand: Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border, focuses on criminal activity and violence taking place along the Southwest border of the United States between Texas and Mexico, it also brings to light the increasing frequency with which Other than Mexican (OTM) persons from 35 special interest countries known by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to harbor Islamic terrorists are illegally entering the United States. Based on U.S. Border Patrol statistics there were 30,147 OTMs apprehended in FY2003, 44,614 in FY2004, 165,178 in FY2005, and 108,025 in FY2006. Most of them were apprehended along the U.S. Southwest border.The sheer increase of OTMs coming across the border makes it more difficult for Border Patrol agents to readily identify and process each, thereby increasing the chances that a potential terrorist could slip through the system. Moreover, there is no concrete mechanism for determining how many OTMs evade apprehensions and successfully enter the country illegally. Where Do the OTMs Enter the United States? While most illegal immigrants of all nationalities are apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol in the Tucson sector of Arizona, the vast majority of OTM and Special Interest Alien apprehensions take place along the Texas border - specifically in the McAllen sector. Since September 11, 2001, DHS has reported a 41percent increase in arrests along the Texas/Mexico border of Special Interest Aliens, states the report. From FY2001 to March 2005, 88 percent of Special Interest Alien apprehensions for both the Southwest and Northern borders occurred in Texas.   Where Do The OTMs Come From? According to the report, hundreds of OTM illegal aliens from special interest countries from countries including Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan, Cuba, Brazil, Ecuador, China, Russia, Yemen, Albania, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan have been apprehended in the South Texas region alone since September 11, 2001. Just recently, U.S. intelligence officials report that seven Iraqis were found in Brownsville, Texas in June 2006. In August 2006, an Afghani man was found swimming across the Rio Grande River in Hidalgo, Texas; as recently as October 2006, seven Chinese were apprehended in the Rio Grande Valley area of Texas. Evidence of Terrorist Ties Far from basing their ties to terrorism on the OTMs nation of origin alone, Border Patrol agents have, in many cases, found frightening physical evidence, according to the Committees report. A jacket with patches from countries where al Qaida is known to operate was found in Jim Hogg County, Texas by the Border Patrol. The patches on the jacket show an Arabic military badge with one depicting an airplane flying over a building and heading towards a tower, and another showing an image of a lions head with wings and a parachute emanating from the animal. The bottom of one patch read martyr, way to eternal life or way to immortality. Confirmed Terrorists Apprehended A few of the apprehended OTM illegal immigrants with confirmed ties to terrorist groups listed in the congressional report include: Neeran Zaia - arrested on September 8, 2004 - headed an organization responsible for smuggling more than 200 Iraqi, Jordanian, and Syrian nationals into the United States. When he was arrested, U.S. Customs agents discovered that Zaia had a prior conviction for human smuggling.Mahmoud Youssef Kourani pleaded guilty on March 1, 2005 to providing material support to Hezbollah. Kourani is an illegal alien who had been smuggled across the U.S.-Mexico border after bribing a Mexican consular official in Beirut for a visa to travel to Mexico.Salim Boughader Mucharrafille - was arrested in December 2002 for illegally smuggling more than two hundred Lebanese, many believed to have ties to Hezbollah into the United States. The Problem of Getting OTMs Out of the US Prior to the Secure Border Initiative, the Office of Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) within Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had a real problem getting Other Than Mexican illegal immigrants out of the United States. Even though most OTMs enter the U.S. from Mexico, Mexico will not accept them. Instead, they may only be sent to their native country, or any third country that will accept them.According to the 2005 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, Border Security: Apprehensions of Other Than Mexican Aliens, the DRO lacks adequate bedding space to house every OTM apprehended by ICE. As a result of this, states the CRS report, the majority of OTMs apprehended by the USBP are released into the interior of the United States with notices to appear before an immigration judge. Most of these released OTMs fail to show up for their hearings and are not ultimately removed.Since going in to effect in November 2005, the Department of Homeland Securitys Secure Border Ini tiative (SBI) has employed an expedited removal process that enables ICE to remove OTM aliens to their home countries in from 15 to 30 days. When the Secure Border Initiative was first initiated, ICE inherited close to 4,000 OTM aliens awaiting removal from the United States. According to ICE, close to 3,000 of those OTMs have been removed from the country so far.

Fallacies exercise Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Fallacies exercise - Assignment Example proverbial cat is already out of the bag, the codification of such a thing as â€Å"animal rights† could potentially lead to consequences that all but the most careless rat-lover would find dire. Certainly if merely gouging a nickel-sized hole in an elephant’s shoulder is the act of a criminal, then hunters should be charged with murder, road kill is manslaughter, and owning a dog an act of involuntary servitude. Scott McPherson This statement commits the slippery slope fallacy, which means that the speaker interprets a simple statement in very general terms and exaggerating it in the process. The definition of animal rights here is exaggerated and its exceptions are not considered by the speaker in that even benevolent acts like owning a dog, unintentional acts like road kill, and purposeful acts for the benefit of mankind like hunting are all considered violations of animal rights. Although this statement also commits the other fallacies of begging the question, non sequitur and false analogy, it is clearly a hasty generalization. The claim of the speaker that the particular university is not recommended is obviously not valid for it is based on but two people. There must be a considerable number of students in a sample plus backing of research before one can make a valid claim that one university cannot be recommended. This statement is a sweeping generalization. Such a fallacy is committed in this statement because the speaker had already labeled all churchgoers as mindless and old even before the actual disadvantages of going to mass or going to church (if ever there are any) were underlined. As far as I know, this statement commits the Red herring fallacy. Instead of the speaker explaining the disadvantages of President Obama’s reversal of President Bush’s ruling on stem cell research, the speaker befogs the issue by tossing out the red herring of his support for President Bush. 8. â€Å"Ugandas controversial ethics and integrity minister†¦ said

History of Kiribati Culture Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

History of Kiribati Culture - Research Paper Example The essay "History of Kiribati Culture" analyzes the culture of the country Kiribati, the factors that influenced on eating habits and choice of food. The country was originally called the Gilbert Islands when it was still under British rule. The local natives, later on, joined Kiribati from the name â€Å"Gilbert†. Today, the country has a population of slightly over 100,000 (U.S Department of State, 2012). The majority of the island’s inhabitants are of the Kiribati descent, and they practice Micronesian culture. It is believed that the first inhabitants of the islands arrived there more than three thousand years ago. Later on Samoans, Togoans and Fijians invaded the islands and brought with them elements of Polynesian and Melanesian culture into the area through intermarriages. British explorers, however, discovered the island much later during the 18th century. The islands were named after one of the two British explorers, Gilbert. More islands were later found to the north, and these took the name ‘Marshalls’ after the second explorer. One resoundingly unique element in the Kiribati culture is the free-spirited nature of daily activities unconstrained by time pressures. In Kiribati, life takes on a pace that is natural and unperturbed about the future. Most economic practices aim to sustain the daily livelihood of families and the community in general. Communal, social events also take on a prominent role in the people’s lives. Some of these communal, social events are dances and martial arts contests.

Incarceration Rates of Minorities in the US

Incarceration Rates of Minorities in the US With law enforcement poised to eliminate crime and the people who commit it, the building of new jails and prison seem to be the likeliest answer to the problem. Throughout American history, minorities have always been portrayed as dark and evil to name a couple of stereotypes. With the help of television and other means of media the focus has been set to create a mental consciousness to presume every black, Hispanic, and anyone closely related as armed and extremely dangerous. This has cause an unfair disadvantage for people of color, but has left the perception of the white race crystal clean. Just as there are bad people everywhere, there are bad cops, judges, and politicians in every police department, court house, and legislative branch that forge evidence to meet arrest quotas that the system needs to have in place; setup by the elitist to fund their need to have slave labor for their manufacturing companies. Some minorities have been falsely accused and persuaded by police bru tality in order to coerce false confessions, and the judges fall in their place to announce the sentencing. Throughout years of focusing on media events that always place blacks and other minorities in a position of being the bad guy. Today the jail and prison population is primarily made up of blacks. Although there are Hispanics, as well whites, the main overcrowding comes from blacks being locked up on frivolous charges. But there’s a deeper reason behind why this injustice is happening to blacks, and it all stems from the system’s need of the incarceration of minorities. To test the influence of local county politics on minority incarceration rates, data are collected at the county level in most states to create a pooled cross-sectional data set. OLS regression models predicting black, Hispanic, and white incarceration rates in state prison are used in the analysis. Counties ideological orientations and racial and ethnic contextual characteristics significantly impact minority incarceration rates. Greater ideological conservatism within counties is associated with higher rates as a proportion of their population of both black and Hispanic incarceration. Consistent with racial threat theory, results show counties with greater racial and ethnic diversity are more likely to incarcerate blacks and Hispanics. Tests for interaction effects indicate that greater county diversity decreases the punitive effects of ideological conservatism on minority incarceration. Political forces nested within states systematically shape how state government incarceration p ower is distributed across different racial and ethnic groups. (Bridges and Crutchfield, 1988; Greenberg and West, 2001; Western, 2006; Yates, 1997), The punitive paradigm that has characterized U.S. crime policy over the past three decades has led to important concerns about the distribution of one of government’s most intrusive powers; the ability to deprive citizen of their liberty through imprisonment across different racial and ethnic groups. It has been well documented that blacks are six to eight times more likely to be incarcerated relative to whites. (Western, 2006). Hispanics are over three and one-half times more likely to be incarcerated than whites. Blacks and Hispanics, together, account for nearly two-thirds of the state prison population. Disparities such as these within the criminal justice system have long engendered heated debate about principles of equality and civil rights. Imprisonment rates between the states are shown to be a function of a variety of state-level political and legal factors. From this research, there is clear evidence that political forces cause states to incarcerate at widely different rates, with minorities living in a particular state either more or less likely to be imprisoned, depending in part, on the politics within. Yet, while these studies have significantly advanced our understanding of the politics of incarceration, state-level studies often mask the fact that a state’s ‘‘use’’ of incarceration is largely a byproduct of political processes found at the local (county) level of government. When analyzing the politics of incarceration from the bottom up, top-dow n political forces like the partisan control of state-level institutions or state sentencing laws effectively become standardized, suggesting that local politics retains significant leverage over how a state’s imprisonment powers are allocated Given this, however, we know little about the extent to which incarceration rates are systematically tied to local environments and whether local politics systematically shape the imprisonment ratesof racial and ethnic minority groups. Two primary questions motivate this research: Do political forces shaped by the local ideological and racial and ethnic environment affect incarceration rates in ways that are disproportionately detrimental to racial and ethnic minorities? Second, to what extent does the racial and ethnic context interact with localized Ideological orientations to affect minority incarceration rates? Or, put another way, can diversity levels in a given jurisdiction work to strengthen or weaken the propensity of those who might, because of their ideological beliefs, be already more inclined to incarcerate minorities? Conservatives tend to view criminal activity as a matter of personal choice and focus on deterrence and incapacitation based policy responses. Beckett and Western (2001). Conservatives have been more likely to use incapacitation as a means to control a marginalized ‘‘underclass’’ of citizens that threatens the economic and political interests of elites. (Scheingold,1984), In contrast, ideological liberals tend to view crime as a function of structural impediments to success and place more emphasis on crime prevention policies rather than punishment after the fact. Beckett, and Sasson (2004). If ideological conservatives are more inclined to incarcerate, these orientations might also be expected to influence the target of those policies with racial minorities more likely to be targeted relative to whites. (Edsall and Edsall, 1992; Weaver, 2007), Republicans used crime and punishment as an effective tool to realign the political electorate by pursuing law and order policies that linked financially secure fiscal conservatives and middle to lower class conservatives who had little else in common, while blaming street crime and other social ills on a racial (black) underclass, conservative. Republicans made veiled appeals to anti minority hostilities among some lower income conservative whites by enacting punitive crime policies that were implemented in ways that put more blacks in prison, but invoked greater support at the ballot box. Insofar as these political pressures retain their influence on criminal justice policy making at the local level of government, as well as to minorities other  than blacks (i.e., Hispanics), it can be predicted that more conser vative counties will be more likely to incarcerate blacks and Hispanics (as a proportion of their respective population) in state prisons than are more liberal counties. Racial politics shaped by the local racial and ethnic contextual environment are also expected to influence minority incarceration rates. In racial politics literature, significant attention has been paid to social conflict or ‘‘racial threat’’ theory, which offers a ‘‘contextual’’ explanation for minority imprisonment. Dating back to the work of Key (1949), the main idea behind the theory is that when a minority population is small, it represents a relatively minor threat to the interests of the majority. However, as the number of minorities grows, they begin to threaten the economic and political interests of the majority population, increasing hostile attitudes toward minority populations among majority group members. Blalock (1967) argued that a majority groupà ¢â‚¬â„¢s repression of a minority group’s interests was based on two types of perceived threats those motivated by economic competition and those driven by competition over political power. A growing body of research has found evidence of a racial threat effect across a variety of institutional settings. (Hurwitz and Peffley, 1997). If racial hostilities increase in more diverse environments, there are more reasons to predict that these hostilities will spill over to influence criminal justice policy making. ‘‘Old-fashioned’’ white racism often concentrated on a perceived genetic inferiority of blacks to whites. Today, more common white stereotypes involve the perception of blacks as a violent, criminal underclass. These stereotypes, along with the assumption that objective demographic data which show blacks to be disproportionately linked to the U.S. penal system permeates the public’s consciousness to believe that most blacks are violent tha n whites. To a meaningful degree, likely increase the probability that whites associate crime and the criminal justice system with race. In conclusion; this research provides convincing evidence of ‘‘racialized’’ crime policy in the United States. The tendency among some whites to connect race with crime has important implications for state punitiveness and imprisonment of blacks more specifically. Whites who view blacks as violent have been shown to be more supportive of punitive policies like the death penalty and longer prison sentences. Following arguments associated with the racial threat idea, a more racially diverse environment is likely to trigger more negative stereotypes among whites living there, who, as a result, may be more apt to support punitive crime policies, particularly if there is the perception that the target population is black. However, existing tests of the racial threat hypothesis on black incarceration rates have brought mixed results. In so me state-level studies, once black arrest rates and other socioeconomic conditions are controlled, the racial threat hypothesis provides little predictive power (Bridges and Crutchfield, 1988; Yates, 1997). Others have found the proportion of blacks in a state does matter, but in the opposite direction predicted by the racial threat idea black imprisonment rates decreased in states with a greater black population (Yates and Fording, 2005). This mixed set of findings brings the possibility that a more appropriate test of a racial threat effect on imprisonment should be conducted at the local level. Measuring the influence of state racial composition on imprisonment has proven useful because it allows comparisons across jurisdictions; however, these efforts often gloss over the fact that state imprisonment rates are a function of decisions made by county law enforcement officials. If, indeed, incarceration rates are influenced by racial politics, it might be expected that county prose cutors, judges, or public defenders those with authority over prosecuting, sentencing, or defending offenders to/from state prison are most likely to be subject to racial ‘‘effects.’’ Assessing the influence of a racial threat on minority incarceration can also be advanced by considering whether political forces resulting from whites’ exposure to a variety of ethnic and racial minorities, rather than simply their exposure to larger black populations, affects minority imprisonment rates. References Percival, G. L. (2010).Ideology, Diversity, and Imprisonment: Considering the Influence of Local Politics on Racial and Ethnic Minority Incarceration Rates. Social Science Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell), 91(4), 1063-1082. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2010.00749.x Bridges, George S., and Robert Crutchfield. 1988. ‘‘Law, Social Standing and Racial Disparities cin Imprisonment.’’ Social Forces 66(3):699–724. Western, Bruce. 2006. Punishment and Inequality in America. New York: Russell Sage  Foundation. Beckett, Katherine, and Theodore Sasson. 2004. The Politics of Injustice: Crime and Punishment  in America. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Edsall, Thomas B., and Mary D. Edsall. 1992. Chain Reaction: The Impact of Race, Rights,  and Taxes on American Politics. New York: W.W. Nortan Company. Scheingold, Stuart A. 1984. The Politics of Law and Order: Street Crime and Public Policy.  New York: Longman. Blalock, Hubert M. 1967. Toward a Theory of Minority Group Relations. New York: Wiley. Key, V. O. 1949. Southern Politics in State and Nation. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Hurwitz, Jon, and Mark Peffley. 1997. ‘‘Public Perceptions of Race and Crime: The Role of  Racial Stereotypes.’’ American Journal of Political Science 41(2):375–401. Yates, Jeff. 1997. ‘‘Racial Incarceration Disparity Among the States.’’ Social Science Quarterly  78(4):1001–11. Yates, Jeff, and Richard Fording. 2005. ‘‘Politics and State Punitiveness in Black and White.’’  Journal of Politics 67(4):1099–1121.

Malden Mills

The case of the Malden Mills fire poses many important questions related to ethics. At first look, a CEO paying his employees continually after his mill burned down seems to be the model for ethical behavior. However, when one looks deeper into the case and asks questions it is not so obvious. The first question that needs to be answered is what the factual circumstances of the case are. Malden Mills was a factory located in Lawrence, Massachusetts that specialized in making a high tech fleece called Polartec.The company was relatively successful in its industry until the factory was destroyed by a fire in 1995. After the fire, the company’s CEO Aaron Feuerstein declared that he would continue to pay his employees their normal wages for at least one month.In the end he paid the employees for longer than that and spent around 15 million dollars paying the employees while the new mill was being built. Feuerstein built the new mill for a cost of 400 million. He gambled that the m oney from the insurance company and expanded Polartec business would cover this cost.However, Malden Mills only received 300 million from the insurance company and the Polartec sales did not rise as Feuerstein had projected. The company was forced to claim bankruptcy in 2001 and Feuerstein lost control of the company to GE Capital in 2003. A second important issue related to this case is what the ethical issues are. In the case of Malden Mills, the main ethical dilemma was whether to keep paying the company’s employees or have a massive layoff. This dilemma was a mix of personal and business problems.Part of the problem was personal because the company was located in a small town where a majority of the residents worked at the mill. Because most of the people in the town worked there, the company had the feeling of a family business and the workers truly felt like family to Feuerstein.The family atmosphere made it a tough decision for Feuerstein when it came to making a decis ion after the fire. He knew that keeping his employees on the payroll could lead to a bad outcome for the business, but he felt like he owed it to his workers to keep them employed. The other part of the problem for Feuerstein was business related.Rebuilding the company after the fire was going to be a difficult proposition and that would only be made more difficult if Malden Mills had to keep paying its workers. In the end, Feuerstein had to decide if it was worth risking the future of his company to make sure that the workers he saw as family were paid as he tried to rebuild Malden Mills.In order to see why the case developed as it is, it is important to take a look at who the primary stakeholders and decisions makers were in the case. Once these people have been identified, one must look at their ethical perspective and see why they would make the decision that they did.In this case, there are three main stakeholders. They are Feuerstein, The Board of Directors and the Employees. Of these stakeholders, Feuerstein is the only one who is faced with an ethical dilemma in the case that affects the other stakeholders.Feuerstein was a devout Orthodox jew, and this helped form his ethical perspective. He believed that people would be judged on more than just how successful they were. He believed that people would be judged on how well they treated others and that he personally would be judged on the good that he brought to the world and not the money that his company made.One can see how his beliefs could lead him to make a decision that would be best for the good of his employees and not necessarily as good for the other stakeholders. Throughout the case, there are a couple of ethical standards being applied.The two standards are virtue ethics and Utilitarianism. Feuerstein applies virtue ethics when he decides that he wants to do what is good and right for his employees. This fits in with the virtuous idea of character traits that represent a good and meaningful life, which is what Feuerstein is trying to accomplish.Feuerstein is not only trying to be good to his employees, he is trying to do what could end up being best for all of the stakeholders. Feuerstein was applying the idea of Utilitarianism by trying to accomplish the best outcome for all parties when he gambled that a larger plant would be good for the company.Of these two ethical standards, Feuerstein’s first priority was virtue ethics and second priority was Utilitarianism. The final ethical choice that was decided on by Feuerstein was to keep paying his workers while the mill was closed and to try and build a bigger factory so his workers might have a better future.Feuerstein made this decision because he truly believed that his first responsibility as CEO was to go good by his workers even if that meant a possibility of failure. This approach was very popular with the workers and in the community, which relied on money from the mill to thrive.The author of this case ha s a couple questions of her own. One of the questions was whether or not is was bad luck that the Polartec business went downhill because of a warm winter or if it was a mistake to build such a larger plant in the first place. The answer to this question is both.In retrospect it was a mistake to build a large factory that could not survive a drop and business, but without that warm winter it is possible that the Polartec business could continue to grow and that the larger factory would have been a good idea.Another question that the author poses is whether or not Feuerstein’s generosity to his employees after the fire ultimately led to the bankruptcy of the company. In this case, the answer seems to be no. The 15 million dollars that was paid to the employees is small compared to the 100 million dollar gap between the cost of the new factory and the insurance payment received.The gamble to build a larger factory is what really caused problems for the company because it was ne ver able to cover the cost of the plant when the Polartec business went downhill. In the end, Feuerstein will be remembered by most people as a virtuous man who put his employees before making a profit.The question still remains if he really made the best choices for his employees. Other choices may have kept the plant from bankruptcy and given the employees more secure future. Feuerstein did what he believed was right and ultimately it did not work out for Malden Mills.