Unethical Issue In HR

What, if anything, is wrong with high executive compensation? Is the common “lay reaction” of indignation and moral outrage justified? In this blog, my main goal is to show in a more systematic and philosophical manner the honest or fair responses to these questions. In order to do so, I suggest that we take some insights from recent debates on two versions of egalitarianism: a distributive one, according to which no one should be worse off than others because of unfair distributions of goods and resources, especially ones based on matters of luck or arbitrary factors, and a relational one, which maintains that egalitarian justice requires members of a society to relate to one another as equals. Drawing on recent attempts to highlight the tricky nature of managerial authority, I say that high inequalities in pay are not simply an unequal matter but should also be analyzed through a relational eye. Also had tried to show that relational egalitarians are well-equipped to question the now dominant “incentives” view of CEO compensation.

Now take an examples of “  government DOCTORS  in India who are chief doctors holding the same degree with much work in hand are paid same as the doctors working under the chief doctors with same degree but with less responsibilities and work to do on paper.