While Microsoft's permanent workers enjoy some of the best corporate treatment, a large of Microsoft's labour pool exists outside this privileged class. This includes the use of perma temp employees (employees employed f

While Microsoft's permanent workers enjoy some of the best corporate treatment, a large of Microsoft's labour pool exists outside this privileged class. This includes the use of perma temp employees (employees employed for years as "temporary" and therefore, without medical benefits), use of forced retention tactics, where departing employees would be sued to prevent departure, as well as more traditional cost-saving measures, ranging from cutting medical benefits, to not providing towels in company locker rooms. Historically, Microsoft has also been accused of overworking from employees, in many cases, leading to burnout within just a few years of joining the company. The company is often referred to as a "Velvet Sweatshop", a term which originated in a 1989 Seattle Times article and later became used to describe the company by some of Microsoft's own employees. This characterization is derived from the perception that Microsoft provides nearly everything for its employees in a convenient place, but in turn takes overworks from them to a point where it would be bad for their (possibly long-term) health. For example, the kitchenettes have free beverages and many buildings include exercise rooms and showers. However, the company has been accused of attempting to keep employees at the company for unreasonably long hours and working them too much. A US state lawsuit was brought against Microsoft in 1992 representing 8,558 current and former employees that had been classified as "temporary" and "freelance", and became known as Vizcaino v. Microsoft . The Final Settlement came in 2005. The case was decided that such "permatemps" had their jobs defined by Microsoft, worked alongside regular employees doing the same work, and worked for long terms. After a series of court setbacks including three reversals on appeal, Microsoft settled the suit for US $93 million. Taking the above facts into consideration, analyse the responsibility of Microsoft as a moral obligation arising out of business ethics and why was it an unethical business practice?