Question

Wilton Petroleum Company was a wholesale distributor of a major brand of gasoline. Gasoline was shipped on barges from the refinery to the company. The company then delivered the gasoline to retail gas stations for sale to motorists. Each gasoline tanker truck was a huge, 18-wheel vehicle that held 9,000 gallons of gasoline. The gasoline that was pumped out of the truck into underground holding tanks at the gas stations was monitored precisely. The company knew exactly how many gallons of gasoline were pumped into the holding tanks at each gas station, and it knew exactly how many gallons were pumped out of each tanker truck. A meter on the tanker truck recorded the amount of gasoline that left the truck. A 20-foot hose extending from the truck permitted the driver to fill the tanks at each gas station. Every day each driver recorded the total volume of gasoline delivered. The total volume pumped out of the truck had to equal the total volume of gasoline deposited in the holding tanks. Any discrepancy was regarded as evidence of theft of the gasoline by the drivers. Based on years of experience the company knew there was a slight flaw in the system used to monitor the flow of gasoline out of the tanker. The meter recorded the flow of gasoline out of the tanker; however, about three gallons of gasoline in the 20-foot hose was always unrecorded. That was the gasoline that had flowed out of the truck but did not enter the holding tanks. One truck driver, Lew Taylor, believed he knew a way to “beat the system” and steal gasoline for his personal use. After making all his scheduled deliveries for the day, he extended the full length of the hose on the ground and let gravity drain out the 3 gallons of gasoline in the hose. The pump and the meter were not turned on, so there was no record of any gasoline leaving the tank. Company officials knew that Taylor was siphoning the gasoline based on the very small but repeated shortage in his records compared with those of other drivers. The value of the stolen gasoline each day was only about $9, but the cumulative value of the losses was considerable. Michael Morris, operations manager of the company, knew Taylor was stealing the gasoline but couldn’t prove it. Taylor had found a loophole in the monitoring system and had found a way to steal gasoline. Morris decided to lay a trap for Taylor. Morris “planted” a company hand tool (a hammer) on a chair at the entrance to the room where the drivers changed their clothes after work. Morris had a small hole drilled in the wall to observe the chair. He thought that if Taylor stole the gasoline, he might be tempted to steal the hammer. The trap worked: Taylor was spied placing the company tool under his jacket as he walked out the door. On a signal from Morris, security officers approached Taylor and asked about the hammer. Taylor produced the hammer, was led by the security officers to Morris’s office, and was immediately fired. Although Taylor had stolen hundreds of dollars worth of gasoline from his employer, he was terminated for the theft of a hammer worth about $10.

Questions:

1. If Taylor had a perfect attendance record, made all his deliveries on time, had effective interpersonal skills, and in all other ways was a conscientious employee, would you still have fired Taylor for committing theft if you had been Morris? Why or why not?

2. Do you think Taylor “got what was coming to him” in this case, or was he “set up” by Morris and thus was a victim of entrapment?

3. What do you think of the ethics of companies that spy on their employees with peepholes and cameras to detect theft? Why do you feel as you do?

4. What effect might Taylor’s dismissal by Wilton Petroleum have on other employees of the company?

5. Have you ever “taken” a paperclip, pencil, or sheet of paper home with you from your place of work? If so, do you consider it to be a case of theft on your part? Why or why not, and what’s the difference between “theft” of a paperclip versus a hammer?

Answer 1

Ans 1) I would have caught him red hand. Would have given warning to him. Just like operant conditioning, would have given him punishment based on the stealing. But I would not have fired him if he all the qualities mentioned as everybody deserves the second chance. I would have discussed the reasons with him in a stern way as in why did he felt need to steal, is he not getting enough salary to provide his family.

ans 2) Taylor got what was coming to him, he got punishment of his own actions. Moris didn't entrapped Taylor. If he wouldn't have stolen, he would never have been fired.

ans 3) There should be CCTV cameras but loopholes etc, they are too much mistrusting. Employees should be warned that there are hidden CCTV cameras so that no theft can take place. A company should win hearts of employees by teaching them importance of honesty. Such employees should be awarded.

Ans 4) They would have serious impact, they would come to know that stealing is been caught and immediately a person is fired. Some may have thoughts that Taylor was not bad employee, he has worked hard before and hence he should be given a second chance.

Ans 5) When I was working, I have taken some pencils or sheets of paper in my own thoughts at home. But that was not considered as stealing. We all had good rapport with seniors, we were free to discuss with them that we took these things by mistake. Or some used to take them at home very jokingly. There are many incidents in manufacturing company wherein nuts, etc are stolen and are being sold. Hammer stealing was the confidence of Taylor that stealing is not been caught, whereas paperclip stealing is very casual.