Pico PC Manufacturing Company Essay


Discuss about the Pico PC Manufacturing Company.



The CEO intends to exploit the lack of health and safety laws and availability of cheap labor in the Island for the benefit of Pico PC’s Manufacturing Company. This is despite the glaring evidence from the production trials and the doctors’ recommendation that use of humans in soldering the processors can result in total blindness within 18 months.

From the CEO’s point of view and interest, the company stands to benefit a lot from cutting the cost of production and production of flawless processors when humans, instead of robots, are used. This is common in the business world as companies strategize on how to save on costs and increase revenues. However, the CEO and Kushlani’s decision also has to consider workers’ interests and lifetime health hazard that workers will be exposed to. This case touches on ACS values like the primacy of the public interest (prioroities), enhancement of quality of life for those affected by our work and honesty. In reference to the primacy of the public interest, the CEO and Kushlani have to identify and place the interest of the workers, in this case, a safe and healthy working environment, above their personal and business interests. This is captured in National Regulation (NR) 1.2.1 clause a) that requires IT professionals to identify and consider the interests of those affected by their work (ACS, 2011; ACS Code of Professional Conduct, 2014).

Secondly, in accordance with NR1.2.2 clause a) on social implications, the ACS requires all professionals in the IT industry to enhance the quality of life for those affected by considering the social implications of their work. Besides, clause b) under 1.2.2 regulation further demands of the IT professionals to ensure protection and promotion of the safety and health of those affected by their work or decisions. It will, therefore, be against this value to go on with the establishment of the production unit in the Island with full knowledge that instead of enhancing the lives of the workers, the technicians’ health will be adversely affected. Furthermore, according to NR1.2.3 clause e) Kushlani is expected to exercise honesty in qualifying and distinguishing professional and personal opinions on a subject based on the knowledge and experience. The NR1.2.6 clause a) on professionalism further demands of professionals to take a calm, objective, knowledgeable, and informed stance on their work. As the technicians have already expressed headache complaints during soldering trials with a further medical advice of permanent blindness for workers, these are sufficient information for Kushlani to take a stance against the CEO and advise him against proceeding with the production in the Pacific Island. Moreover, clause f) under the National Regulation 1.2.6 recommends professionals to abstain from such acts that can damage the reputation of the profession.

Besides, the Fair Work Act (FWAct) regulates Australian companies and their employees whether working within Australia or abroad (Munro, 2014). Pico PC’s company is therefore bound by the FWAct to provide fair and safe working environment for employees. The exception is applied only when the employees are recruited based on local terms and conditions outside Australia. Therefore, employees at Pacific Islands will not be protected by the FWAct and Work Health and Safety Act if they are employed based on the Island employment regulations. Regardless, it will be unethical for the Pico PC’s Manufacturing Company to exploit the regulation weakness in the Island for their financial gain at the expense of the workers’ health.


In consideration of the moral importance and ethical practices, as a recommendation, Kushlani should advise the CEO against such move as it will put the health of workers at risks from a poor working environment. Besides, this would ruin their business reputation as the case will eventually become public. This is seen from the case with some Australian mining companies in Africa who have been accused of exploiting the regulatory weakness in safety work environment for their advantage (Fitzgibbon, 2015).


ACS Code of Professional Conduct. (2014). 1st ed. [ebook] Australian Computer Society, pp.1-8. Available at: [Accessed 16 Mar. 2017].

ACS. (2011). ACS National Regulations. [online] Available at: [Accessed 16 Mar. 2017].

Fitzgibbon, W. (2015). Companies Accused of ‘Taking Advantage of Regulatory Weakness’. [online] International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. Available at: [Accessed 16 Mar. 2017].

Munro, P. (2014). Overseas employment – does Australian law apply? | Workplace Info. [online] Workplaceinfo.com.au. Available at: [Accessed 16 Mar. 2017].

How to cite this essay: