Please read and answer this. Thank you very much!

A small, private, nonprofit organization built a new wellness/ fitness center for its clients, employees, staff, and their family members, all of whom the organization collectively called its family. The fundraising program included the attempt to raise $1 million for an endowment fund that the employees came to believe, rightly or wrongly, would be used to cover the expenses of operating the new facilities. During the fundraising and construction phases, employees were encouraged to donate their personal funds toward the cost of construction and the endowment.

After constructing the new facility the organizations leaders announced that there had been cost overruns of approximately $1 million during the construction. Partly because of this, the endowment fund was not developed. A few weeks before the opening of the new facility administrators announced that it would charge an annual membership fee to employees and their family members to use the new facility. At about the same time the leaders announced that because of the downturn in the economy there would be no cost-of-living pay raises for employees for the coming year. To encourage employee use of the organizations food services, administration announced that employees would receive a 25 percent discount on all food purchased. During the annual fall festival weekend, leaders proudly showed the new fitness facilities to the community. New client recruitment began highlighting the organizations unique advantages by showcasing the new fitness facilities.

In spite of protests by some employees over the fitness facility membership fees that were assessed, the organization started charging employees a fee for using the old swimming pool and the old racquetball courts. Prior to this, all fitness-related facilities were free to employees. However, at the end of the year after these decisions had been made, the organizations financial officer announced that the organization had achieved a better than expected positive net gain after expenses.

The succession of events triggered a flurry of discussions and some emails among employees. Employees began to ask each other sarcastically what would be next on the administrations revenue enhancement checklistrevenue that the employees would have to carry: use of the softball fields, parking lots, and sidewalks? They asked the administration for an explanation of why they would now have to pay to use the old pool. Some voiced a decline in trust of the administration.

Two perspectives emerged from the informal debates that occurred among employees: those who favored the administrations decision and those opposed it. A summary of some of the arguments put forward follows.

Those in favor of the administrations decision argued that if employees and their families wanted to obtain access to fitness and swimming facilities elsewhere, they would have to pay membership or use fees. Having these facilities right at the organization makes it very convenient for employees and their family members. There should be a fair price for this. An employer should not be expected to give everything away for free to employees. It is not the employers responsibility to provide welfare to employees and their families. One reason people work for pay is so they have the financial resources to enjoy leisure time activities such as what can be found at a fitness club. If clients pay their fair share, then employees should pay their fair share, too.

The Bible does not define specifically how much or to what extent an employer must provide for the needs of employees. The employees desires for more benefits are not a valid biblical standard of justice because employees will naturally be self-interested. Organizational administrators, however, are interested in the common good of the entire organization. Net positive gains after expenses are vital if the organization expects to be able to replace aging facilities or expand in the future to support continued growth in economies of scale. If employees do not like the benefits and if employees do not like their workloads, then they should look for employment somewhere that their specific needs can be met. The biblical principle here is that the organizations administration should continue to fulfill its duties as good stewards of the organizations assets with a look to the long-term financial health of the institution. See Proverbs 27:2327. Also consider that the organization is doing an inherently good thing by offering employment in a faith community that supports the institution. See Galatians 6:10.

Those opposed to the administrations decision argued that because of the convenient location, an employer should not take advantage of a lower than normal price sensitivity of employees for using the organizations fitness facilities. Further, when the fitness facility project was announced before construction began, nothing was said to employees regarding the charging of fees. Employees gave voluntarily toward the construction costs. Now they are required to pay to use the facilities that the endowment pays for. This is unjust and simply a modern form of oppression and subtle robbery under the false guise of caring for the needs of the organizationthe endowment fund was believed to be established to pay for the operation of the new facilities. See Leviticus 19:3, 19:11, 25:43; Deuteronomy 23:2425, 24:14; Psalm 62:10; Proverbs 22:2223; Isaiah 61:8; and Malachi 3:5. Instead of trying to find ways to take from employees the organization should be looking for ways to do good to employees where they can. See Deuteronomy 15:711; Proverbs 3:27, 19:17; Isaiah 1:1719; and Galatians 6:10. The biblical principle is that employers should allow employees to benefit from organizational assets as long as the employee does not take advantage of the employer by attempting to extend this benefit to other people outside the organization. Employees should not have to pay for mistakes in the construction decisions that led to cost overruns. Further, because the organization actually made a positive gain in net income in spite of the weakened economy, and given that employees would not receive cost-of-living pay raises for the coming year, employees should not be burdened with paying fees for using the organizations facilities. Employees at small, private, religious-affiliated nonprofit organizations already sacrifice a large disparity in salary compared with what they could earn in for-profit organizations. In addition, employees of such institutions typically have heavier workloads than their counterparts in for-profits. To require employees to pay for the use of fitness facilities that they believe the endowment pays for is like asking the ancient Hebrew workers to continue making the same quota of bricks only now they have to gather their own straw. The administrators desire to improve the bottom line (and thereby make themselves look good to the board of trustees) also is based in part on their own self-interests. Because of this the administrators desires are not the biblical standard of justice. If this organization continues to take from employees, employees will start to leave for better jobs elsewhere. This will place a huge burden on the organization to recruit replacements that are willing to work under such conditions.

What do you think? Is the action of the organizations administration with respect to employees and their family members a valid expression of biblical justice in the employer employee relationship?

If we can assume that there will be a difference of opinion on how much or to what extent the organization should provide for the needs of its employees (employees desiring to receive more; employers choosing to give less), on what basis can we say that an employer is doing less (or more) than what the Bible expects?

Please Answer this question. I really need help with this operational management class. Thank you for the help!