Are Corporate Ethics Training Programs Truly Effective?

[Astronuc]

Mine doesnt.. I think the only country as rutheless in dismissal as that is the US. The UK isn't far behind. In benalux (maybe most of Europe) once you get you life contract an employer will have to have a very good reason to fire you, and even if they have a very good reason (the scenario in the OP is NOT a very good reason) they will pay for it dearly...

I think some European companies have adopted an employment practice more like those in the US, and certainly some big Japanese corporations have done the same.

 

[Anttech]

I think some European companies have adopted an employment practice more like those in the US

Legally they cant, there are strong employment laws in most EU countries

 

[Astronuc]

Well, I have worked with colleagues in some of the largest European companies, and some of them were told, if they wanted to keep their jobs, they would have to move, otherwise they would have to retire, or take a lesser job elsewhere in the company. The colleagues essentially stated that the European companies were becoming more like US companies.

Also, the previous company where I worked had to close down a European office, and it was difficult to deal with the national laws, but people were terminated.

 

[Evo]

Legally they cant, there are strong employment laws in most EU countries

True, my friend in Italy was explaining this to me, incredible. Once you're hired it doesn't matter how much of a loser you are, the company is stuck with you. It frustrates him to no end, people are holding jobs and not working. When he tries to get something done, no one cares.

 

[Anttech]

Well, I have worked with colleagues in some of the largest European companies, and some of them were told, if they wanted to keep their jobs, they would have to move, otherwise they would have to retire, or take a lesser job elsewhere in the company. The colleagues essentially stated that the European companies were becoming more like US companies.

This is exactly the scenario I was in, and the reason I moved from Amsterdam to Belgium.

The company could NOT offer less pay unless the emp signed a new legally binding contract. If they didnt they were made redundant and got a BIG payout, ie at least 1 months at current rate * years working at company, this could be a lot more if the emp went to court which some did and were given even more money... A company can not force you to move to a different country. On top of this, it is not unheard of that the company ahs to continue to pay the emp a sallary each month for up to a year even tho they are not working for the company. And if that person went on "stress" leave you can't get rid of him until his doctor said he was fit to work...

 

[Evo]

Also, the previous comany where I worked had to close down a European office, and it was difficult to deal with the national laws, but people were terminated.

Closing is probably one of the few ways to terminate people there.

 

[Anttech]

True, my friend in Italy was explaining this to me, incredible. Once you're hired it doesn't matter how much of a loser you are, the company is stuck with you. It frustrates him to no end, people are holding jobs and not working. When he tries to get something done, no one cares.

And on the flip side, the comapany must have had bad management to allow someone to get his life contract that was such a bad worker. You don't have to give a life contract till the 3rd contract you offer someone. Usually it works that you get a year contract then another year contract then a life contract. I think this may have been changed recently however

 

[arildno]

I think it stinks that companies do this, but they are acting in their own interest. This is how life is out in the cold, cruel world, this is reality in corporate America.

Well, a nation gets the business life it deserves.

 

[Evo]

And on the flip side, the comapany must have had bad management to allow someone to get his life contract that was such a bad worker. You don't have to give a life contract till the 3rd contract you offer someone. Usually it works that you get a year contract then another year contract then a life contract. I think this may have been changed recently however

I'm sure they were productive until their job was guaranteed. Obviously the majority of workers don't fall into this category, but from listening to him, it sounds like it's just about everyone he encounters. Also, it is Sicily, attitude there is a bit different.

 

[Anttech]

Ahh explains a lot :-)

Costra nostra.. you do your business I do mine ;-)

 

[russ_watters]

I don't watch soap operas and never have, and that is why I am probably confused with the second part of this scenario...

I pretty much ignored it since it is a little over-the-top. There's plenty to think about with all the what-if's of the first part.

Probably not quite as unethical as...

Oh, I don't consider it (Merck's actions) at all unethical - corporate restructuring is such a huge project on it's own that you can't keep it secret while planning it.

the concessions on pension benefits United Airlines made to the unions years ago. Always nice to push problems into an undefined future just hoping the company can meet the promises you made.

I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to, but there are so many bad accounting loopholes there that the pension situation in a number of businesses has become untenable. Quite a bit of that rises to the level of unethical.

Mine doesnt.. [say I can be terminated for any reason] I think the only country as rutheless in dismissal as that is the US.

Ahh, but the other side of the coin exists in the US as well - many union contracts make it extrodinarily difficult to fire workers that it's a real problem. It's one of the reasons our car companies are in so much financial trouble - their workers are far less productive than those in non-union companies because they have absolute job security and they know it. It's a big problem with our schools as well (teachers who don't care because they don't have to).

Job security is a two-way street and companies are finding that the freedom that goes with being an at-will makes people both happier and more productive. And it pays just as well too!

 

[Moonbear]

Some expansion on this: A lot of people are making assumptions about how things could go right with this scenario, but that defeats the purpose of ethics (or just plain decision making) training. The entire point is to think about all the ways this scenario might bite you in the ass - regardless of how likely such possibilities are. Because unlikely as it may be, your supposed "friend" in this scenario might use the opportunity to steal from the company and you have to consider that before making the decision to tell him/her.
Or she might come to work tomorrow with a gun.
Or she might tell everyone she knows and cause half the company to quit rather than risk being fired.
Or the boss might reconsider firing her - right before she shows up in his office and flips him off.
Yes I probably would act as Moonbear indicated and yes, it probably would work out ok, but it is prudent to at least consider all that might go wrong before making the decision.
I was in a scenario like this and it really could have bitten me in the ass (there was a nepotism situation and I called my boss out on it, publicly)...but I'll save the explanation for tonight when not at my desk at work...

I'm just getting back to this thread after being away while it grew by leaps and bounds, so I hope this hasn't already been addressed, but...I would hope people know their friends well enough to know how they would react to such news and if it's prudent to tell them you know anything. I've certainly had friends who it didn't surprise me to hear they were being fired from jobs, and if I was their co-worker, I might have to face the reality that they are just not competent employees and not put my own job on the line trying to defend them. At the same time, I wouldn't let them go ahead and make a huge financial mistake like buying a new house knowing they were about to get fired (but then, no job is ever guaranteed, so if you really need both incomes to pay for a house, you probably shouldn't be buying that house, and I might phrase it that way if I had doubts about how that particular friend would handle the news). It certainly is a different scenario if someone is being laid off because a company is downsizing or restructuring than if they are being fired because they're incompetent. If you're really friends with this person, you probably have a clue already about what type of employee they are and if it's worth putting your own neck on the line for them.

 

[Anttech]

hh, but the other side of the coin exists in the US as well - many union contracts make it extrodinarily difficult to fire workers that it's a real problem. It's one of the reasons our car companies are in so much financial trouble - their workers are far less productive than those in non-union companies because they have absolute job security and they know it. It's a big problem with our schools as well (teachers who don't care because they don't have to).

So why is BMW or Porsche such successful companies? They have very strong employment laws forced on them, yet it doesn't drive the quality or the profitability of these companies down at all.

I think the reason you are stating why these companies are such drop outs is a cop out :-)

also to add to that, having strong employment laws DOES NOT equal unions

 

[Astronuc]

I don't watch soap operas and never have, and that is why I am probably confused with the second part of this scenario...

I should have put - I wasn't being serious - except there seemed at first to be some contradictory information.

I tend to take things less seriously if the presentation or information contains aggregious errors, and I get the impression that the authors couldn't care less.

 

[Moonbear]

Ahh, but the other side of the coin exists in the US as well - many union contracts make it extrodinarily difficult to fire workers that it's a real problem. It's one of the reasons our car companies are in so much financial trouble - their workers are far less productive than those in non-union companies because they have absolute job security and they know it. It's a big problem with our schools as well (teachers who don't care because they don't have to).

It sounds like the EU has the better approach from that side of the coin, based on Anttech's explanation a few posts up that you pretty much work for a place for 2 years before they offer the lifetime contract. If unions gave employers two years before they got stuck with them, I wouldn't mind the idea so much. In two years, you should have some idea of whether someone will work out long term. You should know this within the first year even. As it is, at least when I was in Cincinnati, there was only about a 2 month probation period during which you could fire someone for any reason. It's hard to really know how someone will work out in only 2 months since they are both still training and on their best behavior with a new job. It takes a bit longer than that to see what their real habits are, and to have them encounter enough situations to see if they handle them well.

 

[arildno]

It sounds like the EU has the better approach from that side of the coin, based on Anttech's explanation a few posts up that you pretty much work for a place for 2 years before they offer the lifetime contract. If unions gave employers two years before they got stuck with them, I wouldn't mind the idea so much. In two years, you should have some idea of whether someone will work out long term. You should know this within the first year even. As it is, at least when I was in Cincinnati, there was only about a 2 month probation period during which you could fire someone for any reason. It's hard to really know how someone will work out in only 2 months since they are both still training and on their best behavior with a new job. It takes a bit longer than that to see what their real habits are, and to have them encounter enough situations to see if they handle them well.

Only 2 months?
I have NEVER, EVER heard of such a short probation period for secure jobs in Norway.
For those types of jobs, that would be totally irresponsible, IMO.

 

[russ_watters]

So why is BMW or Porsche such successful companies? They have very strong employment laws forced on them, yet it doesn't drive the quality or the profitability of these companies down at all.

I don't know - I'm talking about foreign vs domestic companies, both using American labor.

I think the reason you are stating why these companies are such drop outs is a cop out :-)

There are other reasons (I started a thread about it in Politics several weeks ago...), but labor problems (cost vs productivity) is by far the biggest. They are also hurt by the fact that they make crappy cars (but helped by people who only buy American cars, no matter what), but when an American car costs $1500 more in labor than an equivalent Japanese car made in the same town, there is no hope for the American company to turn a profit.

also to add to that, having strong employment laws DOES NOT equal unions

Again, I'm talking about the US, specifically. However, by default, a union is going to make things tougher on an employer - otherwise it doesn't have a purpose for existing. The entire point of a union is to make the employers go further than labor laws require. Now perhaps in Europe labor laws are so tough unions are irrelevant (I seem to remember seeing that unions are less common in Europe), but laws and market conditions in the US have gotten good enough that when unions force companies to go a step further, they often end up hurting the company without helping the employees.

 

[russ_watters]

...I would hope people know their friends well enough to know how they would react to such news and if it's prudent to tell them you know anything.

I would hope so too and I think I would know, but I've also met gullible people. And as they say, you can only be betrayed by someone you trust.

It sounds like the EU has the better approach from that side of the coin, based on Anttech's explanation a few posts up that you pretty much work for a place for 2 years before they offer the lifetime contract. If unions gave employers two years before they got stuck with them, I wouldn't mind the idea so much.

Agreed - that would make a big difference. Still, I wouldn't want to be on either end of a lifetime contract. How am I going to start my own business if I can't quit my job? And I knew plenty of teachers in high school who were probably quite good when they were young and they cared, but ended up old, bitter, and useless -- and tenured. My drunken physics teacher was entertaining, but not all that helpful.

 

[Anttech]

How am I going to start my own business if I can't quit my job?

Thats the beauty :-)

Its a sinch for you to quit. Just give them your statutory notice and leave! Considering we usually get about 30 days holiday if you have holidays banked up you can be out of the door fairly quickly if needs be...

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Gah... I wrote a long response and lost it.

Lets see. Clarifications...
The main character, we'll call her Sally, is on the same hierarchical level as her friend, we'll call him Bill. The manager, we'll call her Jane, spoke to Sally about Bill. Jane asked Sally to keep a secret then told her that she wanted her to start taking on some of Bill's duties and familiarize herself with his work because he would be laid off soon. The video focuses on the "promise" made by Sally to keep this a secret and advises that since she wants to help Bill she should take a third option (as opposed to simply saying something or not saying something) and speak with the manager to let her know that Bill may be making a financial obligation that he can not keep not knowing that he will be laid off soon and unable to keep it. This way (hopefully) managment will say something to Bill sooner so that this does not happen. They stress though that Sally should not tell Bill what is going on "under any circumstances" because she has made a promise.
My problem here is that I am a very honest person and I do not keep secrets like this. If it has to do with someone's welfare and livelihood I am not going to keep information from them especially if they ask me (which happened in the video, Sally was asked by Bill if she had heard anything about the lay offs). I also don't like being two faced and doing things behind a person's back. This is what the video advocates and I think that companies that do things like this tend not to think much of the sort of mentality and attitude they are cultivating in their employees. Though they do have, later in the video, scenarios regarding employees going behind their boss's back and keeping things from them and how this is UNethical of them. So they're promoting inconsistent and hypocritical "ethics" on top of it all.
In the second part of the scenario they presume that Sally knows Jane is being vengeful towards Bill by letting him go, they don't explain how Sally knows this just that she has reason to believe it. They say that she should go to Jane's superiors regarding the matter and still definitely not tell Bill what is going on no matter what happens because she made a "promise". Zoob's contention that they are advocating sitting back and watching terrible things happen to your fellow employees is really just a logical extention of this if you consider the possibility that they may not do anything to correct this and Sally is not supposed to tell Bill under any circumstances what she has been told.
Aside from the objections I already raised with the situation in general this new twist raises one more objection. I think that Bill has the right to information that may help him defend himself against the unethical actions of Jane the manager. Yet another hypocracy. The video later goes on to say that employees should let their employers know when other employees are doing things that may hurt the company but here we are told that employees should not tell other employees when the boss may be doing something to hurt them.


By the way BobG yes there are online courses for the managers though I couldn't tell you what the content is.

Arildno, they did have a scenario where in the company was doing something illegal and the employee was supposed to do something about it not just keep it a secret. They did go into far more detail about how one should assess ethical quandries than I am expressing here. Their "first step" is to assess the legality of the particular situation and whether or not their is a breech of company policy. The "second step" was to determine how your decisions will effect others, their perception of you, their perception of the company, ect regaqrdless of whether or not your decisions are legal and do not breech policy. "Third step" was to decide what your "gut feeling" on the matter is, a notion that is a bit vague really.

 

[Evo]

The main character, we'll call her Sally, is on the same hierarchical level as her friend, we'll call him Bill. The manager, we'll call her Jane, spoke to Sally about Bill. Jane asked Sally to keep a secret then told her that she wanted her to start taking on some of Bill's duties and familiarize herself with his work because he would be laid off soon.

This sounds like more of a "personal" request than a business directive. The two are not even close. Which is it? If it's a personal request, then it's ok to do what she believes is right, if it is a business directive, then unless she decides to quit and inform Bill, she would be violating her company's trust.

The video focuses on the "promise" made by Sally to keep this a secret and advises that since she wants to help Bill she should take a third option (as opposed to simply saying something or not saying something) and speak with the manager to let her know that Bill may be making a financial obligation that he can not keep not knowing that he will be laid off soon and unable to keep it. This way (hopefully) managment will say something to Bill sooner so that this does not happen.

Who the heck made this video? They seem to have no understanding of business. Unless, as I previously mentioned, it is apparent that it is a "personal", not business request. I explained in a previous post the reasons a business does NOT advise an employee in advance of a layoff. They could care less what "Bill" is doing in his private life, it's not their concern. It's a BUSINESS, not a charity.

They stress though that Sally should not tell Bill what is going on "under any circumstances" because she has made a promise.

Then this is not a "business" scenario. This is a personal ethics issue, business practices don't apply here, they just put a personal ethical dilema in a "workplace" environment.

My problem here is that I am a very honest person and I do not keep secrets like this. If it has to do with someone's welfare and livelihood I am not going to keep information from them especially if they ask me (which happened in the video, Sally was asked by Bill if she had heard anything about the lay offs). I also don't like being two faced and doing things behind a person's back. This is what the video advocates and I think that companies that do things like this tend not to think much of the sort of mentality and attitude they are cultivating in their employees.

Well, the scenario does not appear to be business ethics, it's personal ethics within a business setting. Which means there is no question of if she's liable to the company, she's not. She's free to tell her friend in this scenario.

Though they do have, later in the video, scenarios regarding employees going behind their boss's back and keeping things from them and how this is UNethical of them. So they're promoting inconsistent and hypocritical "ethics" on top of it all.

In reality, unless you have documented evidence against any co-worker, reporting your "suspicions" will likely backfire on you. The company can't take legal actions based on your feelings. How do they know you aren't the one with the grudge trying to cause trouble for the person you are "reporting"?

In the second part of the scenario they presume that Sally knows Jane is being vengeful towards Bill by letting him go, they don't explain how Sally knows this just that she has reason to believe it. They say that she should go to Jane's superiors regarding the matter and still definitely not tell Bill what is going on no matter what happens because she made a "promise". Zoob's contention that they are advocating sitting back and watching terrible things happen to your fellow employees is really just a logical extention of this if you consider the possibility that they may not do anything to correct this and Sally is not supposed to tell Bill under any circumstances what she has been told.

Like I said, businesses don't tell you something and ask you to "promise" not to tell. If you are informed as part of your normal job responsibilities, there is no "promising" anything, you are held to your normal obligation to not disclose proprietary information to unauthorized personnel.

Anytime someone in a work environment takes you aside and "confides" in you and makes you "promise" not to tell, it is no longer business and you can go with your feelings. Of course, be ready to suffer repercussions if they have the ability to fire you, but at least you'll know you didn't violate any business ethics.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Anytime someone in a work environment takes you aside and "confides" in you and makes you "promise" not to tell, it is no longer business and you can go with your feelings. Of course, be ready to suffer repercussions if they have the ability to fire you, but at least you'll know you didn't violate any business ethics.

How "ethics" take part in the work environment is the whole point of the video. They, supposedly, would like their employees to make the company run well and look good by acting in an "ethical" fashion when dealing with customers, other employees, vendors, ect.. I'm not in any high level or sensitive position, they don't really care whether I understand "business ethics" or not. They just want me to act in accordance with what they think is "right" when I am at work.
They've had us do similar courses on sexual harassment in the work place and what not. They're really a joke. We take tests after watching the videos. They took me all of three minutes to complete with a 100%.

 

[Evo]

How "ethics" take part in the work environment is the whole point of the video. They, supposedly, would like their employees to make the company run well and look good by acting in an "ethical" fashion when dealing with customers, other employees, vendors, ect.. I'm not in any high level or sensitive position, they don't really care whether I understand "business ethics" or not. They just want me to act in accordance with what they think is "right" when I am at work.
They've had us do similar courses on sexual harassment in the work place and what not. They're really a joke. We take tests after watching the videos. They took me all of three minutes to complete with a 100%.

What they're portraying has nothing to do with business ethics, I guess it's more recognizing what is not appropriate in a business environment.

My current company has this "Not here, Not ever" campaign on sexual harrassment which is so strict that you are afraid to compliment anyone on their appearance. A simple, "I like that sweater, where did you get it?" can be misconstrued as sexual harrassmant and get you fired.

We go around telling each other we look like crap.

We had to go through videos to determine appropriate behavior. One scene is where you come into the office on a Saturday and as you walk by Joe's cubicle, you notice he's downloading porn. There are three possible answers:

1)Hey, I have that video on my home computer!

2)You probably shouldn't be doing that here.

3)Tell Joe this is unacceptable in the workplace and report him to corporate security.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Hmmmm... A? Maybe?

I once gave an interviewer a start when I was interviewing for a department store and was completely honest with him and on that silly test that asks you what you would do in certain situations. Things like "If you know an employee that shows up to work stoned you would tell you supervisor." with a one through five scale where one is "No I would definitely not say anything" and five is "I would absolutely say something". I didn't answer with an absolute yes and he asked me why. I told him because I would likely talk to the person about it first and if it continued I would likely report it. Maybe he liked my honesty because they did hire me though I picked up another job before they called me back.

 

[Astronuc]

It sounds like the EU has the better approach from that side of the coin, based on Anttech's explanation a few posts up that you pretty much work for a place for 2 years before they offer the lifetime contract. If unions gave employers two years before they got stuck with them, I wouldn't mind the idea so much. In two years, you should have some idea of whether someone will work out long term. You should know this within the first year even. As it is, at least when I was in Cincinnati, there was only about a 2 month probation period during which you could fire someone for any reason. It's hard to really know how someone will work out in only 2 months since they are both still training and on their best behavior with a new job. It takes a bit longer than that to see what their real habits are, and to have them encounter enough situations to see if they handle them well.

IIRC, I was under a 6 mo or 1 year probation period in my first job out of grad school. The company could terminate me for whatever reason, which I accepted as it was uniform policy applied to everyone. At the time, I was one a handful of people who could run a particular code. I did quite well the first year with a 10% bonus and 10% raise.

As it turned out, I stayed on for almost 10 years, and left over an ethical impropriety on the part of a senior manager. The other part was that our division got bought by a larger company, which had a rather obnoxious and overbearing management structure. It helped that two other organizations (one a competitor, the other a major client) wanted to hire me, and I worked out a deal with which they were both comfortable.

 

[Evo]

As it turned out, I stayed on for almost 10 years, and left over an ethical impropriety on the part of a senior manager. The other part was that our division got bought by a larger company, which had a rather obnoxious and overbearing management structure. It helped that two other organizations (one a competitor, the other a major client) wanted to hire me, and I worked out a deal with which they were both comfortable.

At my current and former job I had to sign a non-compete and an "intellectual property" agreement. Basically I had to agree that any ideas I have that aren't previously patented by me or otherwise documented can be claimed by them if I leave the company.

 

[Astronuc]

At my current and former job I had to sign a non-compete and an "intellectual property" agreement. Basically I had to agree that any ideas I have that aren't previously patented or otherwise documented can be claimed by them if I leave the company.

Yep, I had to do the same thing, with my current and previous jobs. Actually, I have told the president of the company where I now work that I will exercise an option to take equity in the company. I work with a great group of people, including several from the same department from my old university.

At my previous job, I had the clause modified limiting it to the technical fields in which the company was working. In other areas, I was free to do my own R&D and retain all rights, title, interest, etc. I have a lot of stuff on the back burner, so to speak.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Just out of high school when I got a job at a Blockbuster Video they actually made me sign a contract stating that I would not work at another video rental store for at least a year after leaving employment with them. I thought that was rather extreme for just being a rewinder jocky. I often wondered how they could even enforce that.

 

[Astronuc]

Just out of high school when I got a job at a Blockbuster Video they actually made me sign a contract stating that I would not work at another video rental store for at least a year after leaving employment with them. I thought that was rather extreme for just being a rewinder jocky. I often wondered how they could even enforce that.

That is standard business practice. They have to apply uniformly or face a charge of discrimination. You could easily have been exposed to their proprietary business practices (assuming they had anything unique - and I am sure most practices are universal). Basically, companies want to maintain any competitive edge over the competition. It is enforcable, but probably expensive, but the company retains that right at their discretion.

 

[Cyrus]

wow, after reading these posts, I'm very fortunate to work at a great company. They are very family oriented, and a good group of people. (and brilliant)

 

[Evo]

Just out of high school when I got a job at a Blockbuster Video they actually made me sign a contract stating that I would not work at another video rental store for at least a year after leaving employment with them. I thought that was rather extreme for just being a rewinder jocky. I often wondered how they could even enforce that.

What exactly was it they were afraid you would do?

Like in my job, I'm not exactly privy to trade secrets, it's ridiculous. Although my client base was of primary interest at both companies.

Astronuc, you would have much more to lose/gain than me. Cool that you were able to negotiate that, I don't think companies have a right to your mind. Of course if you take something of theirs and expand upon it, it's theirs, by rights.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

What exactly was it they were afraid you would do?

I don't know if you have them out there but a chain called Hollywood Video was started up by a group of disgruntled ex Blockbuster employees. Apparently they used the knowledge they gained working at Blockbuster to start it up and there are several similarities between the two.

 

[Moonbear]

This sounds like more of a "personal" request than a business directive. The two are not even close. Which is it? If it's a personal request, then it's ok to do what she believes is right, if it is a business directive, then unless she decides to quit and inform Bill, she would be violating her company's trust.

They forgot the obvious way to handle the situation. If someone comes to you and asks if you can keep something a secret before they've told you, don't agree to keep the secret "no matter what." Put a condition on it. Say something like, "As long as it doesn't involve hurting yourself or others or anything illegal," or, "I really can't promise that without knowing more." I learned this way back when being taught how to counsel students who might come in with social or psychological issues...you had to gain their confidence, but without making promises you couldn't keep, such as promising you would keep the entire session confidential and then learning they were thinking about suicide, which couldn't be kept confidential (we wouldn't be broadcasting on the news, but I would have to report it to someone better qualified to get them the help they needed, including possibly calling the police if they were really a threat to themselves or others).

Again, even with the additional information about the scenario, the problem is still bad management. The manager does not need to tell Sally that Bill is going to get fired just to get Sally to learn more of Bill's job before he leaves. Instead, the manager could tell Sally something like they need to have people who can cover for various jobs in case someone is sick or leaves, so she should start learning some of Bill's job. Actually, telling Sally that she needs to learn the job to be her friend's replacement when her friend is laid off only makes it sound worse! With that being the reason for disclosing the information, I might be inclined to send out my own resume and choose the "or you can leave the company" option.

 

[Moonbear]

That is standard business practice. They have to apply uniformly or face a charge of discrimination. You could easily have been exposed to their proprietary business practices (assuming they had anything unique - and I am sure most practices are universal). Basically, companies want to maintain any competitive edge over the competition. It is enforcable, but probably expensive, but the company retains that right at their discretion.

I had heard those non-compete clauses were not enforceable, at least not if they terminated your employment (I'm not sure if they're enforceable if you leave voluntarily). Basically, they can't stop you from seeking employment elsewhere once your employment with them is ended, especially if you're in a specialized field and their competitors are the only ones you can work for.

I think if I was ever faced with a contract stating something like that, I'd ask for modifications to make it clear that if they laid me off, the clause no longer is enforceable, only if I quit (I can understand the reasoning there, so that you don't get lured away by the competition with higher salaries to persuade you to reveal company secrets).

 

[Evo]

They forgot the obvious way to handle the situation. If someone comes to you and asks if you can keep something a secret before they've told you, don't agree to keep the secret "no matter what." Put a condition on it. Say something like, "As long as it doesn't involve hurting yourself or others or anything illegal," or, "I really can't promise that without knowing more." I learned this way back when being taught how to counsel students who might come in with social or psychological issues...you had to gain their confidence, but without making promises you couldn't keep, such as promising you would keep the entire session confidential and then learning they were thinking about suicide, which couldn't be kept confidential (we wouldn't be broadcasting on the news, but I would have to report it to someone better qualified to get them the help they needed, including possibly calling the police if they were really a threat to themselves or others).
Again, even with the additional information about the scenario, the problem is still bad management. The manager does not need to tell Sally that Bill is going to get fired just to get Sally to learn more of Bill's job before he leaves. Instead, the manager could tell Sally something like they need to have people who can cover for various jobs in case someone is sick or leaves, so she should start learning some of Bill's job. Actually, telling Sally that she needs to learn the job to be her friend's replacement when her friend is laid off only makes it sound worse! With that being the reason for disclosing the information, I might be inclined to send out my own resume and choose the "or you can leave the company" option.

Exactly, this company that made this video completely failed because they did not present what is appropriate business behavior. If you have a group of neophytes, you have to give them some baseline of what is proper conduct. You and I would know that this "secret" business is improper right off the bat, but someone new to business wouldn't know.