Case 8: The Scaffold Plank Incident

Teaching Notes
Copyright Stewart C. Malone and Brad Brown, 1994. Used with permission.
Synopsis
A young trader, Bob Hopkins, quotes a price on a fairly large order of 3 x 12
rough-sawn planks to one
of his wholesale lumber companys best retail customers, Quality Lumber. Later, in
an offhand
conversation with a fellow trader, Bob becomes concerned that the rough-sawn
lumber might be intended
to be used as scaffold plank. Scaffold plank while 3 x 12 and rough-sawn, is
inspected and certified to
stringent standards to ensure its strength. It is also much more expensive than the
lumber Bob gave the
quote on.
Bobs first dilemma is whether or not he should call back his customer, Stan, and
make sure he
understands that his quote was not for scaffold plank. Bob is advised against calling
because it is none of
his business what his customer is ordering: Bobs company has the lumber for sale
and somebody wants
to buy it.
Bob calls Stan back anyway, and finds that the lumber order is intended to be used
as scaffold plank, but
the end customer wants to save some money. Besides, there is no scaffold plank in
stock in the city. Now
Bobs dilemma is whether or not he should sell the lumber, knowing it is going to be
used for a purpose
for which it is not certified.
Bobs boss, John White, has made this a test of Bobs loyalty to the company by
writing up a sales order
for the lumber and putting Bobs name on it. Bob has to decide whether he should
listen to John White, a
well-respected businessman, or follow his own conscience.

Teaching Objectives

The Scaffold Plank Incident is appropriate for a stimulating lively discussion about
ethical behavior and
corporate social responsibility. It is a short case, but the discussion is sometimes
quite intense and can
easily fill a regular 50- to 75-minute class period. It is best used after Chapter 2.
This case illustrates well the different styles of thinking associated with the
Utilitarian, Moral Rights, and
Justice models of ethics. Draw upon Table 2.2 in the book in order to bring this point
out. Students will
have different perspectives on the case depending upon which model they use to
view and frame the
issues.

Pop Quiz Questions

1. What is scaffold plank used for?

Answer: It is a higher-grade lumber generally used by construction workers or

window washers that
stand on the planks high above the ground.
2. What position did John White, the owner of the company, have regarding whether
or not to sell the
lumber?
Answer: He was in favor of selling it.

Issues and Discussion Questions

210

We generally follow the seven step moral reasoning model that was used as the
discussion framework
for ethical vignettes at the Arthur Andersen & Co. series of Conferences on Teaching
Business Ethics1.
This Teaching Note will follow that format because it provides an organized vehicle
for bringing out all
of the relevant aspects of the case.
1. What are the relevant facts in the case?
Bob Hopkins has a straightforward order for lumber that his company regularly
sells
without question.
The order represents a substantial, but not incredible, sum of money, $13,536.
(Board
feet are calculated as the product of the thickness in inches, the width in feet, and
the
length in feet. Thus, this order is calculated as:
Price = [3x 1x 16x 600 pc.] x $470/1000 Bd Ft = $13,536.
Bobs customer, Quality Lumber, is going to sell the lumber to a contractor who
will use
the lumber as scaffold plank.
If White Lumber does not sell the 3 x 12 planking, the end customer may end up
using 2
x 12 plankingan even worse scaffolding solutionbecause there is no scaffold
plank
readily available.
The economy is slow and White Lumber Company needs this sale as well as future
sales that might be
foregone if Quality Lumber is lost as a customer.

2. What are the ethical issues?

First, should Bob even try to confirm his suspicion that this perfectly legal order o
f lumber will be used for a purpose it is not legally certified for?
Should the lumber be sold once its intended use is determined?
What should Bob do if he decides not to participate in this lumber sale?

3. Who are the primary players?

Bob Hopkins

John Whiteowner of White Lumber Company

Stan Parrishthe buyer at Quality Lumber Co.
Employees of White Lumber Companymany of whom are far less employable
than
Bob Hopkins if White Lumber has to have a lay-off.

 The foreman at the end-purchasers firm

The workers who will be standing on the scaffolding

4. What are the possible alternatives?

Bob could sign the order, as is, and sell the lumber.
Bob could agree to sell the lumber, but ensure that the invoice is clearly marked
not
certified for use as scaffold plank. (This option would not please Mr. White, Quality
Lumber, or the contractor foreman. And it would not really do anything for the endThis model is based on an extension of Gerald F. Cavanagh, Dennis J. Moberg, and Manual
Velasquez, The
ethics of organizational politics, Academy of Management Review 6 (1981) 363-78.
1

211
users, the workers on the planks, because they are not likely to see the invoice.
However,
this will be a popular suggestion from the students in your class.)
Bob could refuse to sign the order. If he does this, he may be firedor he may not
be
fired, at least not immediately.
Bob could be a whistle-blower, attempting to expose the whole situation to
protect the
lives of unknown workers.

5. What are the ethics of the alternatives?

Three philosophical approaches can be introduced to students as a way of analyzing

the ethics of the
alternatives.
Utilitarian Approach: The utilitarian approach to ethical decision-making holds that
moral decisions
should produce the greatest good for the greatest number in society as a whole.
While appealing
conceptually, especially to quantitatively oriented students who understand
cost/benefit analysis, the
actual calculations can be complex when the costs and benefits to all of society
must be considered. For
that reason, simplifying assumptions are generally made to limit the calculations to
only those directly
impacted. (These simplifying assumptions often give rise to criticisms that this
model is simplistic, often
self-serving, and unable to appropriately consider impacts that are not easily
reduced to dollars and
cents.)
In this Scaffold Plank Incident, the benefits are fairly easily measured once the
societal dimension is
reduced to the primary stakeholders. But the costs can be complicated. One might
want to calculate the
cost to the contractor of having to wait for certified scaffold plank to be delivered
(an alternative almost
never suggested in class). The probability of this lumber causing an accident and
the severity of that
accident should be assessed. These probabilities can then be multiplied times the
cost of the accident to

develop the probabilistic cost of using uncertified lumber as scaffold planks. How
do you place a dollar
value on a life (or limbs)? Students have trouble wrestling with this issue even
though we do it all the
time in society. For instance, the installation of seat belts and air bags in
automobiles can be projected to
save a certain number of lives, but we generally delay implementation for several
years because of costs.
The classic case concerning the exploding gas tanks in Ford Pintos can be brought
up at this part of the
discussion as an example of a utilitarian decision that was viewed as unacceptable
in retrospect.
Moral-Rights Approach: The moral-rights approach asserts that people have
fundamental rights as human
beings that cannot be taken away by anothers decisions. Those rights include:
The right of free consent. In this case the workers have the right to know they are
risking
their lives on substandard planking material.
The right of freedom of conscience. Individuals may refrain from carrying out any
order
that violates their moral or religious norms. In the Scaffold Plank Incident, Bob
Hopkins
has the moral right to not be forced to sign the purchase order.
The right to life and safety. In this case the characters seem to think that OSHA
regulations are overcautious; but are they? How can they justify this belief?
Justice Approach: The justice approach holds that moral decisions must be made on
the
basis of equity, fairness, and impartiality. And a decision must not make the least
advantaged portions of society worse off. In this case, the justice model would lead
us to
conclude that the incomes of the lumber yard owners, brokers, and buyers is being
traded
off against the safety of the poor worker on the plank.

6. What are the practical constraints?

212

a. It is very difficult for Bob Hopkins to find out who the end-user is in order to
protect the workers
interests. If he cannot do that, then just remaining uninvolved does not really
solve any problems,
because someone else in his company will sell the lumber to Stan and the
dangerous scaffolding will be
put up anyway.
b. John White has turned this incident into a loyalty test. Bob Hopkinss job may be
jeopardized if he
does not cooperate.

7. What actions should be taken?

Here the discussion must be managed sensitively to ensure that attacks on other
peoples positions do not
become personal attacks on their character.

We want the students to be developing an ethical reasoning framework for decisionmaking, rather than
just stating their feelings without some grounding model.
If the discussion lags or the class seems overwhelmingly committed to one course
of action, the
instructor may need to play the role of devils advocate. If the class seems to
want to sign the purchase
order because its legal; whats the problem? ask a question such as What if your
brother worked on
scaffolding? This might be his company. Would that make a difference? Or, How
would you feel if
you read in the paper that someone was killed in an accident because of uncertified
scaffold plank? (A
former student mailed us just such an article from the Johnstown, Pennsylvania,
Tribune Democrat dated
October 1991.) The article recounts how in 1991, a Pittsburgh jury awarded $1.15
million dollars to
Schree Toth, the widow of construction worker, Joseph Toth, who fell to his death
when a rotten plank
snapped on a construction project managed by Mellon-Stuart. It was discovered that
Mellon-Stuart had
used common planking instead of higher quality scaffold planking in the project.
On the other hand, if the whole class seems too willing to refuse to sign the
purchase order without
facing the seriousness of the consequences, keep pressing them to see how far they
could follow up on
ensuring worker safety. Are we responsible for righting all the wrongs in the world,
or only those we are
directly in contact with?
You could also introduce the concept of risk. Is there a point where the risk of
danger is so small that we
dont have an ethical dilemma? After all, accidents will happen, wont they? This
tends to be a lively
discussion.
Our students always want to know what should be done. We avoid a direct answer
and state that when
they are in a situation where they have to make a difficult ethical decision, we want
them to identify the
issue and alternatives, have an ethical framework in their minds to give them
guidance, and to agonize
over their decision. If they do that, we can accept the decision. (We hope.)

213