While reading the case study “The oil rig” of chapter six, I was struck how this parallels everyday life in corporate America, and probably corporate everywhere else too.
The author of the case study makes some effort to elude that the treatment of the Angolans on the rig is based on race or culture, but in reality it is not unlike the treatment of the majority of office workers in the US today.
We see that the Angolan workers have substandard accommodation, diet and medical treatment when compared to their expatriate counter parts. This is no different in the United States. This can be seen when comparing blue collar workers or lower level white collar workers to company executives. Executive have access to more spacious and comfortable offices, while office workers more often than not make do in cramped open plan work areas. When travel is required, executives will have access to business class and non execs settle for economy. Lack of adequate health care is a reality for millions of American workers, while executives do have access to health care. The list of perquisites for executives go on and on.
Entitlement theory tells us that the acquisition of holdings or things is acceptable if the acquisition has been fair and just. The author does not expand on the skill level and training of the Angolans, but is making the assumption that they are less skilled than the expats a stretch? I think not. The expats are needed by the oil companies to perform their work and their preferential treatment are part of their renumeration. Many of them could potentially acquire another well paying job in the US and would possibly not work on the rig otherwise.
The Angolans come from a different environment. Angola has just been through a civil war which cost more than 500,000 lives with millions of people displaced. Additionally, the Angolan GDP is little over $2,000 per year, and with unemployment at around 30% and literacy at little over 40%, work on an oil rig present an attractive option.
The Angolan authorities are right to look the other way at the difference in standards on the rig. It is in line with the author looking the other way when he/she could be considering the standard of living of the Angolans on the rig and the ones off the rig.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Prisoners and Higher Education
In Friday’s News Journal, there was an article by the Pew Foundation* that found, in the US, over 1% of our population is in jail at a cost of $50 billion for the states and $5 billion for the federal government. This is the highest percentage ever recorded.
The statistics are staggering. Over 2.3 million are incarcerated. One in 30 is between the ages of 20-34 with black men 4 times higher. Four states pay more for corrections than they do for higher education! Delaware comes in as 5th in paying the same amount for corrections as for higher education.
The study points out that US crime rates have not gone up. Stricter sentencing has.
In chapter 6 of our textbook, “Ethical Issues in Business”, this article provides an example of John Rowels’ warning when the concept of utilitarianism allows for “certain ways of distracting“ from the overall societal satisfaction or when “strictness of common-sense notions” becomes philosophically irrational. This is not to excuse “criminal” behaviors. Many such behaviors, however, can be explained by lack of access to drug and alcohol treatment, social inequities (Might Nozick rationalize retribution here?), and impulse behaviors due to high levels of lead poisoning…..
Here, Rawles concept of “Original Position” is important. I understand this is “fair play” without having prejudices that lead to different outcomes when inequalities, Rawles’ first principle, exist. This disparity is certainly most apparent with outcomes for “white collar” criminals compared to the average person in jail. Similarly, his second principle, of “difference” is sidestepped when we pay more to incarcerate individuals than we pay for individuals to have access to higher education. Absurdities such as this never cease to amaze me.
*Article an be also found at http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/02/28/prison.population.ap/
The statistics are staggering. Over 2.3 million are incarcerated. One in 30 is between the ages of 20-34 with black men 4 times higher. Four states pay more for corrections than they do for higher education! Delaware comes in as 5th in paying the same amount for corrections as for higher education.
The study points out that US crime rates have not gone up. Stricter sentencing has.
In chapter 6 of our textbook, “Ethical Issues in Business”, this article provides an example of John Rowels’ warning when the concept of utilitarianism allows for “certain ways of distracting“ from the overall societal satisfaction or when “strictness of common-sense notions” becomes philosophically irrational. This is not to excuse “criminal” behaviors. Many such behaviors, however, can be explained by lack of access to drug and alcohol treatment, social inequities (Might Nozick rationalize retribution here?), and impulse behaviors due to high levels of lead poisoning…..
Here, Rawles concept of “Original Position” is important. I understand this is “fair play” without having prejudices that lead to different outcomes when inequalities, Rawles’ first principle, exist. This disparity is certainly most apparent with outcomes for “white collar” criminals compared to the average person in jail. Similarly, his second principle, of “difference” is sidestepped when we pay more to incarcerate individuals than we pay for individuals to have access to higher education. Absurdities such as this never cease to amaze me.
*Article an be also found at http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/02/28/prison.population.ap/
The Justice of Company Perks
I recently read an article regarding the ethics of company perks. This is in regards to frequent flyer miles earned as part of company travel, the use of company resources (laptops, copier machines, etc), expense reports, etc. Unless you’re living under a rock, it most likely you have run into this situation, whether it be work or school.
There were a variety of ideas expressed in the article. The first was explicit direction from the company regarding the use of perks. In the cases that the company mandates certain behavior (such as turning in your airmiles) then to do otherwise is clearly unethical. To that end, the author recommends that companies create specific personnel directions. In the absence of directions it gets more tricky. The common problem is one of justification. If an employee travels during a weekend (their time) then are they justified in keeping the airmiles for themselves? What about offsetting some the travel time by leaving work a little early on a Friday? Where do you draw the line? What would Kant say?
Gifts are another issue. Walmart is notorious in its application of strict no gift rules. Even accepting a cup of coffee could be grounds for dismissal. What about a teacher working for a university? Can they accept an apple from a student? Notwithstanding the compensation issue of the Granny Smith, how will the acceptance of the gift be perceived by others? A cup of coffee might sound trivial, but what about a double grande cappuccino with sprinkles on top for all 10 members of the buying team?
The author recommends the use of the newspaper headline rule. If you would be comfortable having your actions be published as a headline in a newspaper, then the action is probably okay. Except for the most narcissistic among us, this will probably work. For those that are full of themselves there are websites that accept company purchase orders for $15,000 shower curtain rods.
My personal actions in regard to company ethics have been variable. I’ve been known to leave a little early on occasion after a trip and I have been known to enjoy a nice vendor supplied dinner (often with my boss at my side). During contract negotiations I’ve also been accused of having good ethics by those with whom I work, so my behaviors are somewhere in between. In relation to the case study of the oil field workers, I have an interesting situation somewhat similar. When traveling to our plant site in Taiwan, we travel business class per the company rule (greater than 8 hours). However, when our Asian colleagues travel to the US they travel in coach per the rule of their local boss who disregards the company rules. I feel terrible about this and the double standard is very evident. What are my responsibilities?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7274603.stm
There were a variety of ideas expressed in the article. The first was explicit direction from the company regarding the use of perks. In the cases that the company mandates certain behavior (such as turning in your airmiles) then to do otherwise is clearly unethical. To that end, the author recommends that companies create specific personnel directions. In the absence of directions it gets more tricky. The common problem is one of justification. If an employee travels during a weekend (their time) then are they justified in keeping the airmiles for themselves? What about offsetting some the travel time by leaving work a little early on a Friday? Where do you draw the line? What would Kant say?
Gifts are another issue. Walmart is notorious in its application of strict no gift rules. Even accepting a cup of coffee could be grounds for dismissal. What about a teacher working for a university? Can they accept an apple from a student? Notwithstanding the compensation issue of the Granny Smith, how will the acceptance of the gift be perceived by others? A cup of coffee might sound trivial, but what about a double grande cappuccino with sprinkles on top for all 10 members of the buying team?
The author recommends the use of the newspaper headline rule. If you would be comfortable having your actions be published as a headline in a newspaper, then the action is probably okay. Except for the most narcissistic among us, this will probably work. For those that are full of themselves there are websites that accept company purchase orders for $15,000 shower curtain rods.
My personal actions in regard to company ethics have been variable. I’ve been known to leave a little early on occasion after a trip and I have been known to enjoy a nice vendor supplied dinner (often with my boss at my side). During contract negotiations I’ve also been accused of having good ethics by those with whom I work, so my behaviors are somewhere in between. In relation to the case study of the oil field workers, I have an interesting situation somewhat similar. When traveling to our plant site in Taiwan, we travel business class per the company rule (greater than 8 hours). However, when our Asian colleagues travel to the US they travel in coach per the rule of their local boss who disregards the company rules. I feel terrible about this and the double standard is very evident. What are my responsibilities?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7274603.stm
How much should CEO get paid? Who decides?
Last Wednesday in WSJ, an article about CEO payment caught my eyes. It is mainly about the “Say on Pay”, in which shareholders vote each year on whether CEO compensation is acceptable based on their performance. This is popular in Australia , Sweden , Britain and the Netherlands , but not in USA
“Of the 50 or soU.S.
Other concerns about it include 1) if this is a company-by-company approach, companies in an industry which let holders vote on the pay could be at competitive disadvantage; 2) if investors have this right from now on, is it possible that the boards’ power would become seriously compromised? Similarly, last year, Sen. Barack Obama also introduced a say-on-pay bill in the Senate.
“Of the 50 or so
Other concerns about it include 1) if this is a company-by-company approach, companies in an industry which let holders vote on the pay could be at competitive disadvantage; 2) if investors have this right from now on, is it possible that the boards’ power would become seriously compromised? Similarly, last year, Sen. Barack Obama also introduced a say-on-pay bill in the Senate.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Rawls- Two Principles of Justice
After reading through “Distributive Justice” by John Rawls, I will attempt to summarize my interpretation of the two principles of justice:
1. Any individual who is exposed to a certain type of organization should have the opportunity to succeed within the group
2. Differences spelled out within the organization’s structure are not applicable until 1) everyone benefits from the structure and 2) Advancement within the organizational structure is available to all members.
John Rawls applies the second principle of justice to social systems. Any given society will most likely favor some individuals more than others. All members are born into an established rank within the social system, leading to inherent inequality. The two principles are applicable to society only if every person benefits from the inequalities spelled out.
The second principle of justice can only succeed when everyone in the structure is affected by advancement/movement of one group member. This can be seen as a ripple effect. If a group member at the top of a social structure improves his/her expectations, the individual at the low end of the structure should too be affected. This idea promotes improvement of a group as a whole.
1. Any individual who is exposed to a certain type of organization should have the opportunity to succeed within the group
2. Differences spelled out within the organization’s structure are not applicable until 1) everyone benefits from the structure and 2) Advancement within the organizational structure is available to all members.
John Rawls applies the second principle of justice to social systems. Any given society will most likely favor some individuals more than others. All members are born into an established rank within the social system, leading to inherent inequality. The two principles are applicable to society only if every person benefits from the inequalities spelled out.
The second principle of justice can only succeed when everyone in the structure is affected by advancement/movement of one group member. This can be seen as a ripple effect. If a group member at the top of a social structure improves his/her expectations, the individual at the low end of the structure should too be affected. This idea promotes improvement of a group as a whole.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
The Fragile State Of Internet Freedom
A federal judge in San Francisco recently closed down Wikileaks.org, a Web site specializing in the disclosure of confidential information. Apparently, a Cayman Islands bank, Julius Baer Bank and Trust, sued Wikileaks because a former employee posted on the site some secret internal documents it claimed were purloined from the bank. According to Wikileaks, the documents revealed alleged "trust structures used for asset hiding, money laundering and tax evasion."
The court, by way of permanent injunction, ordered the Internet "registrar" to disable the Web address and lock it down to prevent transfer to another registrar. But the Web site remained available at its IP address and at "mirror" sites registered abroad. Meanwhile, Wikileaks' lawyers were preparing an attack on the court's order as a "prior restraint" of speech, analogous to the 1971 Pentagon Papers case.
In this case, I find a conflict. On the one hand, as everybody knows, freedom has always been part of the American mythology. Freedom of the internet is one component of freedom. People have right to speak out what they think on internet.
On the other hand, the Web, by its very nature, interacts with people throughout the world. It is inevitable that some contents of posts are confidential or will hurt other people.
So when web sites find this kind of post, they have two choices: keep it or delete it. If they decide to keep it, they may get penalty just like Wikileaks. However if they choice to delete it, doesn’t it conflict with the American freedom?
The court, by way of permanent injunction, ordered the Internet "registrar" to disable the Web address and lock it down to prevent transfer to another registrar. But the Web site remained available at its IP address and at "mirror" sites registered abroad. Meanwhile, Wikileaks' lawyers were preparing an attack on the court's order as a "prior restraint" of speech, analogous to the 1971 Pentagon Papers case.
In this case, I find a conflict. On the one hand, as everybody knows, freedom has always been part of the American mythology. Freedom of the internet is one component of freedom. People have right to speak out what they think on internet.
On the other hand, the Web, by its very nature, interacts with people throughout the world. It is inevitable that some contents of posts are confidential or will hurt other people.
So when web sites find this kind of post, they have two choices: keep it or delete it. If they decide to keep it, they may get penalty just like Wikileaks. However if they choice to delete it, doesn’t it conflict with the American freedom?
Criticism Vs Criticism?
Andrew Carnegie would have had a net worth of $298.3 billion in 2007 dollars, which is huge in any respect and especially for a man who started his career as a poor telegrapher. Carnegie says that the problem of today’s age is the proper administration of wealth and that in bestowing charity the main consideration should be to help those who will help themselves. He advocates continuation of individualism, but also wants millionaire to be a trustee for the poor. Carnegie accumulated a huge fortune in steel industry. He stuck to his philosophy and promoted arts and education by funding various libraries, educational institutions and libraries. That was a little more than a few years back and Carnegie’s millionaire is today’s billionaire.
Two of Carnegie’s noted followers are two of the three richest men of today’s times: Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. They have made the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation their platform: donating billions of dollars and making the foundation one of the richest in the world. In the U.S., the foundation is more concentrated on education (libraries, scholarships and to educational institutions) while health care and poverty-alleviation take priority globally.
In spite of their commitment towards the foundation, there have been criticisms regarding the Foundation’s mission, control, transparency and so on. It seems like the Foundation and its trustees are being constantly scrutinized. One of the key persons in charge is the CEO of Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Patty Stonesifer, former Senior Vice President at Microsoft. Handling an endowment of over $38 billion can be a challenge. Interestingly enough, Stonesifer is stepping down from her position in the Foundation and which adds more fuel to the Foundation’s scrutiny.
What if Warrant Buffet and Bill Gates had just spent their fortunes left, right and front, passed on most of what was left to their families and donated a small part to a trust for charity? Perhaps, they would still be criticized; but just one time! Well, I personally think that they are trying to accomplish the most with what they have and need to be applauded for it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Carnegied
http://en.wikipedia.ortg/wiki/Patty_Stonesifer
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/02/26/the-toughest-job-in-philanthropy-giving-away-3te-billion/
http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i11/11005201.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_and_Melinda_Gates_Foundation
Two of Carnegie’s noted followers are two of the three richest men of today’s times: Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. They have made the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation their platform: donating billions of dollars and making the foundation one of the richest in the world. In the U.S., the foundation is more concentrated on education (libraries, scholarships and to educational institutions) while health care and poverty-alleviation take priority globally.
In spite of their commitment towards the foundation, there have been criticisms regarding the Foundation’s mission, control, transparency and so on. It seems like the Foundation and its trustees are being constantly scrutinized. One of the key persons in charge is the CEO of Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Patty Stonesifer, former Senior Vice President at Microsoft. Handling an endowment of over $38 billion can be a challenge. Interestingly enough, Stonesifer is stepping down from her position in the Foundation and which adds more fuel to the Foundation’s scrutiny.
What if Warrant Buffet and Bill Gates had just spent their fortunes left, right and front, passed on most of what was left to their families and donated a small part to a trust for charity? Perhaps, they would still be criticized; but just one time! Well, I personally think that they are trying to accomplish the most with what they have and need to be applauded for it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Carnegied
http://en.wikipedia.ortg/wiki/Patty_Stonesifer
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/02/26/the-toughest-job-in-philanthropy-giving-away-3te-billion/
http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i11/11005201.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_and_Melinda_Gates_Foundation
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)