Ethical Dilemmas: Whose Ethics?

[Evo]

The most realistic part of the scenario is "She should go to managment above the manager that she is dealing with and tell them

Go to them with what, a hunch, an unfounded rumor? That could be seen as slander, defamation of character, etc... not to mention unprofessional and probably career suicide at that company. For layoffs, there is usually sufficient legal documention since the worker can file for worker's compensation.

She has to keep confidential work information confidential.

I am assuming that this woman that was told about the layoff in confidence was in a management position. As a manager in a large corporation, my contract says that I can be terminated at any time and for any reason, without notice or compensation. It said the same thing at my last company. A lot of states are "employment at will" states which means you have no job security. Either party can terminate employment at any time without cause.

The reason a company doesn't pre-announce who is being laid off is because they are afraid that if the employees knows, instead of working, they will start job hunting, they might quit before the company is ready for them to leave, they might steal proprietary company information.

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.

It is really tough to be the manager that has to let people go. I've known managers that fell apart and started crying because they had to look at people they considered friends and tell them they were being let go. At my last job, they were downsizing due to a merger and my boss would tell us in every weekly meeting, don't assume that any of us will have jobs after the merger and act accordingly. The guy that worked across from me was let go, he had been out on disability with cancer of his eye (he lost it), pretty much unemployable at that point with medical issues and he got the boot. I still start crying when I think of it. He was allowed to stay for 30 days after his layoff in order to train his replacement.

 

[BobG]

At my last job, they were downsizing due to a merger and my boss would tell us in every weekly meeting, don't assume that any of us will have jobs after the merger and act accordingly. The guy that worked across from me was let go, he had been out on disability with cancer of his eye (he lost it), pretty much unemployable at that point with medical issues and he got the boot. I still start crying when I think of it. He was allowed to stay for 30 days after his layoff in order to train his replacement.

True, but notice they made sure people knew the overall situation so that they'd be unlikely to make some very ill timed financial decisions. They would also be a little better prepared emotionally for the chance that they may have to be looking for a new job. That's about as good as a manager can do in that situation.

 

[Astronuc]

Disgusting example of the common brainwashing procedure.
Managers and employers are not, as such, the sources of moral authority, however much some of them like to think of themselves in that way.

Like it or not, the people in charge make the rules

I agree with both positions - and they are not mutually exclusive.

We live in a dialectical world - in the sense that there is frequent conflict to assert oneself while resisting the assertions of external entitities, be that other individuals or institutions, which are afterall composed of people.

I for one learned at a very early age to challenge authority, especially bad authority.

 

[russ_watters]

Some expansion on this:

And I also agree with her that you can probably tip-toe through that scenario and come out ok, but that doesn't mean there won't be repercussions if the situation goes bad.

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...

 

[Evo]

True, but notice they made sure people knew the overall situation so that they'd be unlikely to make some very ill timed financial decisions.

Yeah, after the layoffs were announced on CNN and National news. (I work for very large companies). :tongue:

What wasn't known was which departments would get cut back, which positions, etc... It's just lovely knowing the axe will fall but you don't know who's going to be under the axe. I can't remember who in this thread said to just assume your job is always at risk and be prepared. That was great advice.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Here's the real problem with the training video:

Then they make the situation even worse. They say well what if she happens to know that the manager had a relationship with her friend at one time and he left her for his current wife. Perhaps she now has reason to believe that this manager may be laying her friend off out of revenge, what should she do? Obviously she still doesn't tell her friend. I believe that one of the people in the video actually says "Under no circumstances should she tell him."

This is saying "You will protect management even when they are behaving unethically."

The whole video is suddenly seen to be Orwellian Double-Speak. "Ethics" doesn't mean ethics : "a discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation", but merely: "the principles of conduct, however amoral, for a particular group."

 

[russ_watters]

Yeah, after the layoffs were announced on CNN and National news. (I work for very large companies). :tongue:

Merck, anyone? They didn't even announce which plants would close when they first announced their cuts.

 

[Astronuc]

. . . . my contract says that I can be terminated at any time and for any reason, without notice or compensation. It said the same thing at my last company. A lot of states are "employment at will" states which means you have no job security. Either party can terminate employment at any time without cause.

Standard contract language, which I have signed several times.

I got caught in situations where the VP or President of my company came to me about another employee, and even one case where a President asked me to essentially 'spy' on another manager. I had to play that very carefully for obvious reasons. The manager subsequently left the company.

At another time, I new someone (another manager) was going to get fired, but I could not go to him, although I tried to help him improve his situation, which unfortunately proved futile. Nevertheless, I could not go tell this guy that he was in danger of being terminated.

Finally, I left my previous employment because a VP acted in a very unethical way behind my back until I accidentally found out.

Fortunately, I now work with a really cool group of people in small company in which there is good mutual support.

 

[Astronuc]

. . . a woman who finds out that her good friend and co-worker is going to be laid off but isd told to not say anything. To make it worse she gets a phone call from her friend later that night and he starts telling her about how he and his wife . . .

They say well what if she happens to know that the manager had a relationship with her friend at one time and he left her for his current wife. Perhaps she now has reason to believe that this manager may be laying her friend off out of revenge, . . .

I don't watch soap operas and never have, and that is why I am probably confused with the second part of this scenario. It is clear that the friend is male (he). Then the manager, who is firing the friend, had a relationship with the friend, who left his wife for his current wife.

So did this guy leave his first wife, or the manager (who may be female, but could be gay), or both for the current wife?

Is this typical in large corporations?

I am glad I work in a small company with people I respect.

 

[BobG]

Merck, anyone? They didn't even announce which plants would close when they first announced their cuts.

Probably not quite as unethical as 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. Or is it just nice to blame problems on the idiot that had the job before you?

 

[zoobyshoe]

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

There should be no confusion: the manager is strongly suspected by one employee of firing another for personal revenge. Who is gay, male or female, is irrelevant. The trainee is being told the 'ethical" thing to do ignore this and not interfere.

 

[BobG]

There should be no confusion: the manager is strongly suspected by one employee of firing another for personal revenge. Who is gay, male or female, is irrelevant. The trainee is being told the 'ethical" thing to do ignore this and not interfere.

No, the trainee is being told to piss the manager off by ratting him out to the manager's boss. The trainee just better be right or the reason for not telling the trainee's friend prematurely might become clear. There could always be a last minute change in which employee is released. :rofl:

 

[zoobyshoe]

No, the trainee is being told to piss the manager off by ratting him out to the manager's boss. The trainee just better be right or the reason for not telling the trainee's friend prematurely might become clear. There could always be a last minute change in which employee is released. :rofl:

What a person should actually do in this situation could be discussed to death, of course. I'm just pointing out the frightening double-speak in the use of the word "ethics". The trainee is being told not to bring any authentic ethics into the workplace. If a trainee can sit back and watch a friend get fired for personal revenge then the company can expect them to sit back and be quiet when they find out it is cheating it's clients by using cheaper materials than claimed and things of that nature.

 

[Anttech]

As a manager in a large corporation, my contract says that I can be terminated at any time and for any reason, without notice or compensation.

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...

Social welfair does have its good points! Although I suppose thinking this as a good point is subjective.

The company I work for has a 2 week redundancy rule for its US emps.. Not for the Europeans however, we get paid slightly less (in general), but I personally don't do bad, on top of this I get 3* more holidays a year (ie 30 days), I have a life contract so if they want rid of me they will pay through there teeth via my lawer...

 

[Anttech]

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 wait with baited breath... I have also been in this type of situation. Management had to desided to become more "dynamic" ie a whole office was being moved to another country! I was informed early on due to my role in IT requires me to know these things (I had to design the new office's Telecoms and Data solutions, and help implement them). People arent stupid and it was clear by the atmosphere what was going to happen, I never told anyone exactly who asked me anything, only that they should get themselfs a employment lawer in case anything happened...

 

[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. :tongue:

 

[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.