What does your employer owe you?

[Dinsdale]

And vice versa?

The idea for this thread developed from a Pit thread discussing whether people should get Christmas off. Thought it might be worth an independent discussion.

I say your employer owes you whatever accomodations are required by law, equipment and materials necessary to do the required tasks, and the minimum salary and benefits required to retain valuable employees (and only if the cost of training new employees exceeds the expense of retaining current employees at higher salaries/benefits). An employer's function is to make a profit or to maximize returns from a set budget, not to have happy employees.

As to what you owe your employer, the bare minimum effort and results to ensure that you will remain employed, and will be considered for whatever bonuses/raises/promotions may arise. Further, you owe it to yourself and your family to minimize the extent to which your work infringes upon or detracts from your personal life.

Some subtle differences may occur depending upon whether we are talking about:
office/management/professional
retail/entertainment/hospitality
skilled labor
unskilled labor

I understand that some of these considerations may be phrased such that they apply to "for-profit" enterprises. I believe they could be reworded such that the same ideas applied to charitable, government, or other employers.

Happy New Year!

[Crusoe]

Your employer owes you the value of your time and labour on any tasks that contribute directly or indirectly to their business. In order to ensure that employers do not attempt to undercut this, there should be legal minimums (my opinion: I don't expect everyone to agree with minimum wages).

The problem comes in determining the value of your time and labour:

...the minimum salary and benefits required to retain valuable employees...

There are skills shortages in some areas, and really good employees are always in short supply. Companies will try to outbid each other in these situations. What you're owed is therefore dependent to a large part on your skills and performance.

[dal_timgar]

if you have to compete against people who are more economically desperate than you are then wages can be forced down. can the powers that be arrange this? is the purpose of television to brainwash almost everyone into being stupid consumers. Keynes died in 1946, did he ever see a television commercial?

Dal Timgar

[JubilationTCornpone]

Originally posted by Dinsdale
An employer's function is to make a profit or to maximize returns from a set budget, not to have happy employees.

Actually, I'd say that's the employer's primary goal. That same employer has multiple functions, and should abide by multiple principles.

One of those principles is fair treatment of the employee. For example, if the employee appears to be unproductive, the employer must first conduct a reasonable investigation before taking any punitive action. That employer must also give the employee an opportunity to voice his side, and must provide repeated feedback before taking any drastic action (unless the company is facing serious financial disaster, of course).

In other words, I believe that fair treatment is something which the employer owes the employee, as a matter of human decency.

[beakerxf]

My employer owes a fair wage for 40 hours work. By fair, I mean I expect to earn a wage equal to co-workers of similar talents and the average wage in the industry. I owe my employer 40 hours of my best effort, not the minimum.

I don't think my employer owes anyone health isurance or bonuses, but these make it more likely to keep employees with the company, especially in the last few years when the job market became tight and highly competitive.

I don't owe the company overtime, but I understand I will have a better chance for raises and promotion if I show the extra effort.

An employer doesn't owe an employee any days off other than that required by law. However, employees tend to be more productive if they're not pissed off. It all depends on how much an employer wishes to keep production high and employee turn-over low.

[ENugent]

My employer owes me everything he is required by law to provide me, plus whatever he is contractually obligated to provide me as a result of our employment agreement. I owe him the same (although I think my legal obligations are a lot less). It may be to the benefit of one or the other to give more than provided by the contract and the law, but it's not "owed."

[Dinsdale]

beakerLet's say you are capable of doing twice as much work as is average "production" within your workplace. Yet, you earn exactly the same as all other employees of similar seniority, raises are based purely on the passage of time and "acceptable" performance, and there are no significant bonuses or possibility of promotion. Do you give your employer your best effort, or something slightly above the norm?

[JubilationTCornpone]

Originally posted by ENugent
My employer owes me everything he is required by law to provide me, plus whatever he is contractually obligated to provide me as a result of our employment agreement

That's only what is legally owed, though. I think there's a difference between legal obligations and ethical obligations.

For example, I earlier mentioned the need for fair treatment. Depending on where you work, the law won't always demand fair treatment -- but ethically, it's a must.

[ENugent]

Originally posted by JubilationTCornpone
That's only what is legally owed, though. I think there's a difference between legal obligations and ethical obligations.

For example, I earlier mentioned the need for fair treatment. Depending on where you work, the law won't always demand fair treatment -- but ethically, it's a must.


I'm not sure ethical rules apply to corporations, at least not in the same way they do to people. However, it is in the enlightened self-interest of the corporation to treat its employees fairly, if it wants to keep having employees.

[Dinsdale]

Fair from whose perspective?

Favoritism in the business world? I am shocked. Simply shocked!

An appearance of fairness, and plausible deniability as to the fairness of the process used, is more important than actual qualitative fairness in terms of results.

[JubilationTCornpone]

Originally posted by Dinsdale
Fair from whose perspective?

Favoritism in the business world? I am shocked. Simply shocked!

I'll grant that the criteria for "fairness" aren't always clear. Even then though, there are some basic rules to apply. For example, you need to provide feedback on the employee's performance (barring extreme offenses such as stealing, drunkenness and gross insubordination). Also, if it appears that a person isn't performing well, then give that person a chance to explain his side.

An appearance of fairness, and plausible deniability as to the fairness of the process used, is more important than actual qualitative fairness in terms of results. [/B]

Yes... but only "in terms of results." Not in terms of ethical obligations.

Originally posted by ENugent
[B]I'm not sure ethical rules apply to corporations, at least not in the same way they do to people. B]

I'm not claiming that the rules are exactly the same. That doesn't make corporations exempt from obeying ethical rules, though (hence the term "business ethics").

Of course, those rules aren't always clear -- but there are still some basic rules of fairness which are clear.

[Polycarp]

The distinguished and perspicacious Original Poster (;)) has set criteria for minima. What is the minimum that I must give my employer under the law? What is the minimum that he must give me?

These things will vary from place to place, but I believe he summarized them reasonably well. Note always that there are national laws and usually state laws governing fair employment practices. Even if I am an at-will employee, you may not dismiss me on racial, gender, or a few other grounds, and if I become disabled, you must attempt to make reasonable accommodations to allow me to continue work before you consider dismissing me. (E.g., if most of my duties consist of working with spreadsheets at a computer on the second floor, and I may use the elevator to get there, and I become wheelchair bound he can remove the step up to my office and replace it with a ramp, and the minor task of getting timesheets from our factory half a mile away once a week in order to input hours and such from them can be modified so that the factory manager who comes to the office building to meet with the VP of Production once a week can bring them. These are considered "reasonable accommodations." If, on the other hand, my job is to be a security guard walking the property and subduing intruders when necessary, and I become wheelchair bound, there is no "reasonable accommodation" possible and I may be dismissed.)

However, as already pointed out both on the Pit thread and here, there are other considerations than what is legally required to note. Perhaps I have been hired at a high annual salary for my creativity, my sales acumen, etc. It is a tacit part of the employment agreement that I must produce at levels far beyond minimum effort; that's why I was recruited for this job.

And the converse is true: attention to employee morale and the provision of benefits increases productivity, fosters the retention of good, fully-trained experienced employees, and generally increases the income attributable to that employee's work. A wise employer tries to find the break-even point where he is getting the maximum work per dollar of employee expenditure from his employees, and in virtually every industry this is not at the minimum legal level. Skilled tradesmen in the construction industry are now regularly getting benefits usually associated with upper white-collar jobs (e.g., profit sharing, company-furnished vehicles) because retaining your boss carpenter, your 25-year-experienced master plumber, and so on are worth it in avoided expenses to the hard-nosed contractor giving those benefits.

So there is a multi-part question going on here:

1. What are the legal requirements?
2. What is the economic optimum for the employer?
3. What ethical obligations does he have?

I think the honorable candidate from Dogpatch has covered the third question quite well. I'd just note that many employers feel it incumbent on themselves to assist in a catastrophic event in the life or family of a long-term employee, not for any legal or "happy employee produces more" reason, but just because it fits the firm's self-image. Example: "Fred has to retire early with terminal cancer, and the doctor gives him two years to live, so we as a corporation are going to self-carry his health insurance even though he's formally retired from here. This is not to be taken as a company policy for when you retire; it's a one-time decision to help out a man who's been a loyal and productive employee for 28 years." I dunno about you, but if I were an employee of that firm, even though it specifically does not benefit me, I'd feel my morale and loyalty greatly boosted by that.

[JubilationTCornpone]

Originally posted by Polycarp
I think the honorable candidate from Dogpatch has covered the third question quite well. I'd just note that many employers feel it incumbent on themselves to assist in a catastrophic event in the life or family of a long-term employee, not for any legal or "happy employee produces more" reason, but just because it fits the firm's self-image. Example: "Fred has to retire early with terminal cancer, and the doctor gives him two years to live, so we as a corporation are going to self-carry his health insurance even though he's formally retired from here. This is not to be taken as a company policy for when you retire; it's a one-time decision to help out a man who's been a loyal and productive employee for 28 years." I dunno about you, but if I were an employee of that firm, even though it specifically does not benefit me, I'd feel my morale and loyalty greatly boosted by that.

Speaking as the candidate from Dogpatch, I agree. (Glad to see that someone recognizes the reference.)

Here's a related anecdote. My former employer once caught a woman showing up for work, drunk and possibly on drugs. Legally, they had every right to terminate her on the spot. Instead, they took her aside and asked, "Is something wrong? What can we do to help?"

Eventually, they did wind up firing this woman. However, they showed mercy and concern first, and I'm sure that this had a positive impact on company morale. To this day, that company has a great reputation for being people-oriented, without sacrificing results.

BTW, I consider ethical obligations to be part of the aforementioned "minimal obligations." I believe that by definition, ethics ARE necessary. :-)

[erislover]

As far as the OP goes, well, nothing. Employers don't owe their employess anything (note: this is dealing with human interaction, not necessarily what laws are on the books. That's what the op seems to be about to me).
The employer and employee should be on equal footing, if possible. For example, can the employee quit at any time for any reason? Then so should the employer be able fire the employee at a moment's notice. Oh, you want job security? I don't see how it can be had both ways.
As with any relationship, there is trust that needs to be developed. It bothers me deeply that current laws favor the employee over the employer...that is, in talks of fairness it all seems to be one way.
I don't think anyone owes anyone else anything. I wasn't born with a claim check in hand.

[Utopia]

This answered by an introductory economics course.

The employer owes the employee what ever he/she is willing to accept for the work the employer expects from them. The employee owes the employer the expected tasks.

The market forces dictate what the employer's expectations are as well as the employee's wage.

The employer, of course, realizes there are trade offs for opening for business over Xmas. The employees expect more benefit (eg. overtime, Xmas bonus, more vacation time, etc.) the employer expects increased profits, where the increase would be more than the employee's extra benefits.
If the employer does not provide extra benefits, he may have to deal with unhappy employees and all the related problems associate with them (eg. strikes, "blue flu", deliberate inefficiency, finding another job, etc.)

The employees also see the trade offs: Work over Xmas should mean additional benefits. Deciding not to work would lead to being fired.

With all the positive/negative considerations on both sides a happy medium is always eventually established.

[doreen]

Let's say you are capable of doing twice as much work as is average "production" within your workplace. Yet, you earn exactly the same as all other employees of similar seniority, raises are based purely on the passage of time and "acceptable" performance, and there are no significant bonuses or possibility of promotion. Do you give your employer your best effort, or something slightly above the norm

I've had two jobs (both civil service) which almost exactly fit the above conditions (there are promotions, but they depend on test scores). One job got exactly what was required and my current one gets significantly more. The difference is exclusively because of how the policies and the supervisors treated the workers.

What the employer owes the employees (and vice-versa),aside from the legal requirements,is to treat them as people, in the way the employer would want to be treated in an analogous situation.For example, if the employer doesn't want people falsely calling in sick when they are scheduled to work, he owes it to them not to falsely create an "emergency" which causes them to work overtime {maybe by assigning something shortly before quitting time and wanting it done that day,even though the employer knew about it for hours and the next day would be soon enough}If the employer docks pay for five minutes of lateness (because he doesn't want to pay for five minutes that weren't worked ), he shouldn't also have a policy of not paying for overtime of less than an hour (thereby gaining up to 59 minutes of free work} [both actual policies at the job that got exactly what was required]

[Dinsdale]

Originally posted by Polycarp
So there is a multi-part question going on here:

1. What are the legal requirements?
2. What is the economic optimum for the employer?
3. What ethical obligations does he have?

I think the honorable candidate from Dogpatch has covered the third question quite well. ...

My position is that the 3d is nice, but not necessary. And the employer owes the employees ethical treatment only when required to do so by law, or what it is in the employer's economic best interest. Employers are not social service agencies or substitute families.

Same way it would be nice to have a job that offered personal fulfillment. But not everyone is so fortunate. Or some have made a trade-off to accept a job that pays well and complements their private life, instead of a demanding, lowpaying job that would be more rewarding. In such a situation, all the worker should expect from the employer is his pay check, and all he should give is the bare minimum to avoid getting fired. Perhaps a little more, so someonw is performing worse and will be the target of the employer's ire.

Perspicacious, huh? I used anti-perspirant this a.m.!

[JubilationTCornpone]

Originally posted by Dinsdale

My position is that the 3d is nice, but not necessary. And the employer owes the employees ethical treatment only when required to do so by law, or what it is in the employer's economic best interest. Employers are not social service agencies or substitute families.

I disagree. Employers may not be families or social service agencies, but they still need to treat their employees with decency.

Suppose the laws were to change, such that employers could physically abuse their employees. (Remember slavery, people?) Would that make it acceptable? Obviously not! Even if there were an economic advantage to doing so, that still wouldn't make it right. Now I know this is an extreme case, but it goes to show that what's legal is just the bare MINIMUM of one's obligations as a human being.

There's also a big difference between "what is owed" and "what is in the employer's economic best interest." The former is an OBLIGATION. The latter is DESIRABLE, but optional. Employers are never obligated to seek their best interest, although there are clear advantages to doing so.

[Polycarp]

The Hon. Jubilation T. has hit the nail on the head. Dinsdale, there are always ethical obligations involved. For example, "an honest day's pay for an honest day's work" is a matter of ethics -- just because the manager cannot seem to turn a profit is no reason to short someone's paycheck (something I've seen happen to some low-income employees, and I directed them to the State Labor Department in consequence). Following rather than circumventing labor law would be another ethical obligation.

It is rather pointless to argue category 1: debating what are (as opposed to, perhaps, what should be) the laws governing employment is about equivalent to debating the meaning of the color blue. It's far more a GQ than a GD. And, as everyone seems agreed, there are no obligations on the part of employers to actions not legally required that may benefit employees, but such actions may well be economically beneficial in terms of increased productivity, morale, and general income-producing circumstances.

The third category, as JTC and I exemplified it, might better be defined as "morally appropriate acts which are not legally required and which do not directly impact the morale/productivity/income scenario. Dinsdale is in essence correct that these are never circumstances where the employer owes the employee anything. Indeed, by definition they could not be. In a very real sense, however, they are things which the employer owes himself. I refer you to the account of one E. Scrooge, prop., Scrooge & Marley, who, as depicted by Boz, is far more at peace with himself and has a much higher self-image following his sequence of nightmares and the actions he takes in consequence. While this is a classic Dickensian caricature, it does speak to the emotional improvement resultant from what used to be termed "charitable acts." On this item, I can speak from experience, having an extremely good friend and ex-employer who made a real-life Scroogian journey of sorts. I'd suggest that the fact that there are times when an extraordinary voluntary gift is appropriate is the key to this sort of thing: They are in no wise "owed" and "due" to the recipient, but a completely voluntary act.

On the assumption that Dinsdale's questions have been directed at what is called for by law or by custom having the force of common law, the issues at hand seem settled. Such out-of-the-ordinary circumstances are never required by any outside force, but may be required by the ethics the businessman holds for his own life.

This in turn raises the question of whether corporations have true ethics, and if so, how they can be defined.

[The Asbestos Mango]

Originally posted by Dinsdale
beakerLet's say you are capable of doing twice as much work as is average "production" within your workplace. Yet, you earn exactly the same as all other employees of similar seniority, raises are based purely on the passage of time and "acceptable" performance, and there are no significant bonuses or possibility of promotion. Do you give your employer your best effort, or something slightly above the norm?

Dinsdale, I'd like to toss this question to you- how do you define productivity? I have two personal examples to cite as far as this issue is concerned.

Example #1-

I once worked at a factory job where, four times a year, I was sung a little hymn of praise for having the highest quality rating of anyone in the shop, "But, Loretto, you're not making rate." Somehow, my supervisors had failed to take into account that significant portions of my workday were spent repairing defective parts made by some of my more "productive" coworkers, who were making rate, before I could do my part of the manufacturing process. I had started off by laying the parts aside, and letting my supervisor know they were defective and needed repair, but they were never sent back either to the person who had done the bad work, or to the repair station, and if I didn't do it, it simply would not have been done. So I was basically doing my job, plus the job of at least one, if not two or three other people. Was I being more, or less, productive than my coworkers, who were turning out greater numbers of parts, but creating the need for repairs down the line, which cost more in terms of both money and man hours than it would have to do the job right the first time.

Example #2-

I was an order checker in a music store warehouse, sort of the shipping equivalent of quality control. Everything was fine until we started keeping count of how many orders per day each checker was checking, then all hell broke loose. The other two checkers would grab all the small, easy to handle orders for themselves, which was fine with me, because the easy work was also boring, and I enjoyed handling the larger orders, which tended to have more problems, which I ended up solving.

The other two checkers would frequently check 150 to 200 orders to my 100, but when the mistakes came back, their error rates were five times higher than mine, and that is a conservative estimate. It cost an average of $20 to fix each mistake, so I figure I was actually saving the shop money by processing fewer orders, but taking the time to get the job done right.

If the sales or customer service people took an order which required special handling, or got a rush order late in the day, they would make sure that I was the one who checked it after it was filled. They knew that I would take the proper care of the order, and that I would stay late after work to make sure got out the door, often jumping the conveyor line and packing it (the packers got off a half hour earlier than I did) so that it would get onto the truck. My cohorts would simply say, "Fuck this, I'm not staying late for one order" and leave it for the next day.

The other two were eventually fired, not for their sloppy work, but because of complaints made by several other people who worked there of refusal to cooperate on the job, a wide variety of personal insults, and generally making people's lives miserable. One of these two actually went to my supervisor and falsely stated that I had physically assaulted her, in an attempt to get me fired, but there were plenty of witnesses around who testified that I was doing my job and minding my own business, so she didn't get that one on. But I digress...

We all made the same six dollars an hour, but they got bigger bonuses than I did because the numbers showed that they had higher "productivity".

[Tim # 2fl]

Originally posted by Dinsdale
I say your employer owes you whatever accomodations are required by law.
And where did those laws come from?
Employee initiatives, once known as the labor movement.

Do you think any corporation in the 20's had enough collective guts to stand up to it's greediest exec.? No. They all looked the other way as coal miners were killed with unnecessary dust and cave-ins. Etc.

All companies are like packs of dogs. Each is ok on its own, but when one decides to snarl they all do it, and the courage lets them all strike anything that nears them.

[matt_mcl]

Originally posted by ENugent
I'm not sure ethical rules apply to corporations, at least not in the same way they do to people. [/B]

Don't be ridiculous. Corporations are nothing other than large groups of people, all of whom have the same ethical responsibilities of any other citizen (whether or not they live up to them). You don't abdicate your status as an ethical agent by going to work, no matter how much you may want to.

[Totoro]

My ex-employer owes me an apology.

I used to work at a Hollywood Video. My boss, Duane, was an anal jerk. I had a nervous breakdown one day, and I didn't go to work because of it. I explained to him that I had a few problems in my non-work life, and he wouldn't hear of it. I asked for fewer hours because of it, he put me on more. I wasn't sleeping. Finally, I quit. I did it over the phone, because I was scared of him. A friend of mine said that he just said it was because I "didn't have the skills to cope." Fuck you Duane.

Half an hour after I quit my girlfriend broke up with me, I fell down some stairs, and thought it best to kill myself. Nearly did too.

[Dinsdale]

Thea, I say the individual worker is in the best position to define productivity in the manner that is best for him in any given situation, cognizant of signals sent by the employer.

For example, in your factory example, you do not mention bonuses or piece-rate pay. It is standard for employers to play quality off against quantity. However, in my limited experience quantity is much more easily, er, quantified. So it is. How much could you have dropped your quality rating, and raised your quantity? How much were the quarterly hymns of praise worth to you?

I have a somewhat similar situation in my present job. A co-worker interprets his religious obligations as requiring that he expend his best effort at work. But, our office has a very plain quantifiable category of production. However good your quality, that is hard to evaluate, and every performance review is begun with a listing of your average quantity of production compared to co-workers. Moreover, our office's written policy seems to clearly contrast with the unwritten policy governing our day to day jobs. So if you do what you believe the written policy clearly requires, you keep butting heads with management who are pursuing a different, unwritten agenda. This guy experiences a great deal of stress, because what he thinks is doing the BEST job (and I tend to agree with him as to how our job SHOULD be done) doesn't look all that good the way things are quantified in our office. Tough situation for him. Me, I make sure I look good on paper FIRST, before trying to decide what is the right" thing to do. Who is right, and who is wrong?

In your order checking example, the cost-benefit is clear. Each employer must weigh for themself. Your co-workers got bonuses for a short while while doing easier work. You enjoyed your work, and continued employment. (Tho you suggest the co-workers' firings were due to them being assholes, not due to their shoddy work.)

In both situations,it seems your employers were pretty stupid in identifying and rewarding employee conduct that was in their best interest. They chose, instead, to evaluate employees by whatever factor was most easily counted. In such a case, why do you owe it to your employer to be wiser than he? Especially if you will not be rewarded, and may even be punished, for doing what you consider right?

Poly and JTC, you sized up the issues in a manner that makes sense to me. Thanks. I would not be troubled by a debate over "what should be" regarding category 1.

It seems obvious that I could argue category 3 along the lines of "all ethics are economics", but I don't know that I am up to mounting a spirited defense of that position right now, and it would be unfair to you guys to simply toss it out superficially and impose upon you the burden of both developing and countering it. (Oops! Isn't that what I just did?)

[JubilationTCornpone]

Originally posted by Dinsdale

Poly and JTC, you sized up the issues in a manner that makes sense to me. Thanks. I would not be troubled by a debate over "what should be" regarding category 1.

It seems obvious that I could argue category 3 along the lines of "all ethics are economics", but I don't know that I am up to mounting a spirited defense of that position right now, and it would be unfair to you guys to simply toss it out superficially and impose upon you the burden of both developing and countering it. (Oops! Isn't that what I just did?)

Well, I think we can easily come up with a situation wherein "ethics" doesn't equal "economics."

Suppose that you promise someone minimum wage, but then decide to pay them less. Let's also suppose that this person can be quickly replace because labor is abundant and the job does not require significant skills. There would be a clear economic advantage to shrifting this fellow. If you live someplace where minimum wage laws are not enforced (e.g. some poorly run Third World country), then you can most likely get away with this.

In such situations, there is an economic advantage to shrifting the employee -- but it wouldn't be ethical.

We can think of many other situations. For example, it may be economically advantageous to dismiss an employee for some misdeed without giving him due process, or perhaps based on some trumped up charges. With enough legal maneuvering, you can even get away with it (I've seen it happen). That may be economical, but it wouldn't be ethical.

Having said that, I do believe that ethical treatment often translates to better morale and greater productivity -- but it's not always the case.

[Dinsdale]

JT, what I was suggesting is the line of thought that the only reason anyone acts "ethically" is because they derive some benefit from it. "Economics" not being limited to money. The extreme argument would posit that there is no such thing as a truly humanitarian, self-sacrificing action. Semantic twaddle? Perhaps.

Again, I readily acknowledge that it is kinda scummy of me to toss this out here in this half-assed manner without championing one side or the other.

[ENugent]

Originally posted by matt_mcl
Originally posted by ENugent
I'm not sure ethical rules apply to corporations, at least not in the same way they do to people.

Don't be ridiculous. Corporations are nothing other than large groups of people, all of whom have the same ethical responsibilities of any other citizen (whether or not they live up to them). You don't abdicate your status as an ethical agent by going to work, no matter how much you may want to.

Obligations between groups are different from obligations between individuals. If you're trying to insinuate that I don't help out co-workers in a jam, you're barking up the wrong tree. But that doesn't mean that my department has an ethical obligation to carry a different department that hasn't been profitable this year.

Getting back to the OP, I interpret "owe" pretty narrowly. You owe that which it is legally or contractually required that you do (keeping in mind that contracts need not be in writing). Many corporations have policies that go beyond that which they are legally required to do for economic reasons (keeping employees happy, making charitable contributions, etc. increase value to the stockholders). I doubt that many make these types of decisions without the conviction that they inure to the long-term benefit of the stockholders in some way, although a few may.

[JubilationTCornpone]

Originally posted by Dinsdale
JT, what I was suggesting is the line of thought that the only reason anyone acts "ethically" is because they derive some benefit from it.

A rather cynical view, then? Besides which, I really don't see how one could extrapolate that from your specific verbiage.

More importantly, I pointed out some situations wherein the employer would benefit more from UNethical conduct that from ethical conduct. Sometimes the only benefit from behaving ethically is the knowledge that you've done the right thing.

I've worked at companies where the employees were exploited. I've also worked at a company where they were treated well, even though management derived no clear benefit from such action. Perhaps some people only follow ethics when it's in their own best interest, but that doesn't mean that everyone does.

Besides, even if your statement were correct, it would only describe how people DO behave. The original question was about how employers SHOULD behave -- that is, what they truly owe unto the employees.

[JubilationTCornpone]

Originally posted by ENugent
ethical[/i] obligation to carry a different department that hasn't been profitable this year.

Come now. Nobody's suggesting that the company must carry the department under such circumstances, so I don't see the point of that specific example.

Matt_mcl is correct; corporations are still bound by ethics. In this situation, the company isn't obligated to carry that department, but they are ethically obligated to treat the employees correctly. Among other things, this means that the company shouldn't drum up false charges against the employees, so that they can be conveniently dismissed. It also means they should conduct a fair and equitable investigation as to why that department was not profitable, instead of going on a wild witch hunt.

Corporations are bound by ethical rules, even if those rules aren't exactly the same as the ones for individuals. As matt_mcl said, corporations are essentially groups of individuals, and these individuals must behave decently. The ethical rules for a corporation are derived in part from the ethical rules for treating individuals. Ultimately, their goal is to ensure that the employees are treated humanely, while allowing the company to pursue its goals.

[ENugent]

Originally posted by JubilationTCornpone
Originally posted by ENugent
Obligations between groups are different from obligations between individuals. If you're trying to insinuate that I don't help out co-workers in a jam, you're barking up the wrong tree. But that doesn't mean that my department has an ethical obligation to carry a different department that hasn't been profitable this year.

Come now. Nobody's suggesting that the company must carry the department under such circumstances, so I don't see the point of that specific example.

The point is that it's the parallel to one person helping out another that's in a tough spot - one department helping out another that's had problems this year.

Anyway, I don't disagree that corporations should do all the good stuff you guys are suggesting, just that they owe it. I happen to think that treating employees well has huge long-term benefits for a company, and that a lot of them are missing the boat.

[JubilationTCornpone]

Originally posted by ENugent
Originally posted by JubilationTCornpone
Originally posted by ENugent
Obligations between groups are different from obligations between individuals. If you're trying to insinuate that I don't help out co-workers in a jam, you're barking up the wrong tree. But that doesn't mean that my department has an ethical obligation to carry a different department that hasn't been profitable this year.

Come now. Nobody's suggesting that the company must carry the department under such circumstances, so I don't see the point of that specific example.

The point is that it's the parallel to one person helping out another that's in a tough spot - one department helping out another that's had problems this year.


I don't think it's a parallel at all, for one simple reason.

Individuals are not always ethically required to help out other employees who are in tough spots. It depends on the situation. Sometimes it's an ethical obligation, at other times, it isn't. By the same token, companies are not always required to do the same.

Additionally, I don't think anyone's arguing that ALL ethical rules which apply to individuals also apply to corporations. (For example, there are ethical rules governing parent-child and sibling-sibling relationships which don't seem to have any analogues in the corporate world.) All we're saying is that there are ethical principles which DO govern corporations, and these are ultimately derived from person-to-person ethical principles -- for example, treating other people as human beings with inherent dignity and worth.

Anyway, I don't disagree that corporations should do all the good stuff you guys are suggesting, just that they owe it. I happen to think that treating employees well has huge long-term benefits for a company, and that a lot of them are missing the boat.

I admit that the use of the word "owe" here can be confusing. Employees certainly aren't "owed" ethical treatment in the sense that a financial debt is owed. However, it is owed to them insofar as it's something they deserve to get -- partly due to their inherent human worth, and partly because of the commensal relationship which the employer and employee have entered into. It's not owed in exchange for something, but it's owed nonetheless.

[JubilationTCornpone]

Originally posted by JubilationTCornpone

I don't think it's a parallel at all, for one simple reason.


Upon further reflection, I'd like to amend that statement. It is a parallel, but it's predicated upon a flawed premise (whether individuals are always ethically obligated to help struggling, non-profitable employees).

Also, please remember that matt_mcl and I were responding to the specific statement, "I'm not sure ethical rules apply to corporations...." This is different from the question of what is truly "owed." The two issues are related, but only tangentially so.

[The Asbestos Mango]

Dinsdale-

In my factory job, there was no piecework pay, it was flat hourly. You started at minimum wage, and got a ten cent per hour raise every four months. When I started work there, mimimum wage was $3.35 per hour, five years later, when I left, I was making $4.75. Annual bonus around Thanksgiving time was based on company profits, not individual performance. A lot of people would calculate what their rate was, make rate for the hour, and go into the bathroom to smoke.

I don't know what the job market in my old hometown is like now, but when I left there it was tight enough that employers pretty much demanded the maximum effort an employee was able to give, and in return give the minimum pay and benefits they could get away with. (Insurance with extremely high deductibles and co-payments, low wages, extremely bad working conditions- I still have back problems from the factory job, and I left it a decade ago)