|
|
Post by Nora on Jul 31, 2021 21:09:49 GMT
I am wondering what other people would do in this situation:
Lets say you are hired as the Head of ethics department for a big multinational company. You are creating their ethics strategy and are responsible for its implementation and all.
One day you find out, that one of the new employees of the company is a high ranking public official (regional director of police) who was only very recently put off duty because he is under pending investigation for committing a felony called "extreme DUI". (Thats when you drive and are so drunk, that it is no longer a misdemeanor but an automatic felony, even if you dont hit anyone). Once the investigation is concluded, it is very likely this person will have to pay a big fine, but furthermore, will be on probation for 2-4 years, with their drivers license removed. At this time they are off duty but still get half of their paycheck from the police, pending conclusion of the investigation.
This person is hired at the company as its Chief of risk management and security. Once you find out, you feel it is your duty to let the company know about the investigation. You do. You raise it to the general counsel and consequently also to the CEO. It turns out they knew. It turns out they hired him in spite of the ongoing investigation, because the CEO's close friend (who is also a high ranking executive of the company) recommended him.
When you talk to them about it they say: "but he didnt hit anyone" and "he is very remorseful already, why should we punish him further by firing him or demoting him". and "what he does in his life outside of his working hours for us or what he did before he started here is irrelevant" and "but he is such a nice and skilled guy".
You being the chief ethics officer, having found out this is the CEOs stance on this thing, having tried to educate them on why ethics is important and why conflict of interest is bad and why having a person who admitted to committing a very recent felony as head of security is not a good idea etc etc, to no avail, would you then leave the company or not? And why?
|
|
|
|
Post by Catman on Jul 31, 2021 21:43:31 GMT
No, because if Catman stays, maybe he can keep things from getting worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Jul 31, 2021 22:11:17 GMT
No, because if Catman stays, maybe he can keep things from getting worse. interesting perspective. and i see your point. i saw something similar done by some government officials while they were working for trump. the attitude "i dont condone what he is doing, (and I hate being here) but I am staying in order to make sure he doesn't do something Real bad". I personally think that the tone from the top and further more, the intention from the top, really matters and is what guides the company's ultimate culture and success in ethical behavior. if you have the top executives ignore whats ethical (or worse, legal), then I think its really hard (bordering on impossible) to ensure ethical behaviors of others within the same environment In this particular case, this persons hiring was agreed upon by the entire C-suite, with nobody from the executives raising their hand saying its a concern, or at least asking " is this ok to do". I dont know what the "universally right answer" here is, of course, I can only say what I would do, and I assume different people will have different opinions, but I find it interesting to ponder about.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jul 31, 2021 23:05:36 GMT
No. Unless your rear-end is on the line legally, no. If the CEO wants to hire a drunk, he gets to hire a drunk, and owns the decision. I'm surprised the PD are okay with him working there while still employed by the city. Could there be an ulterior motive behind his hiring?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Aug 1, 2021 0:03:39 GMT
No. Unless your rear-end is on the line legally, no. If the CEO wants to hire a drunk, he gets to hire a drunk, and owns the decision. I'm surprised the PD are okay with him working there while still employed by the city. Could there be an ulterior motive behind his hiring?Thats the thing. I dont think the PD KNOWS its happening. Which is even worse. Technically the PD has to approve any other source of income for any policeman, AS LONG AS the police officer has not been put off duty. Its weird isnt it. Once you are put off duty, even though you still get paid by the PD you technically don't need your PD superiors to sign off on your other income. Its a loophole really. There could be bunch of motives yeah but who knows whats happening behind the scenes on either side really. The thing is, even if your own ass is not on the line legally, it could tarnish your reputation in the field just by being connected to it (how do you ever explain/prove you were actually lobbying against it, and raised concern etc) but also can you really feel like your work has any merit in a company managed like this? Or are you just supporting a hypocritical front, so the company LOOKS good from the outside, while not being able to influence things really, on the inside?
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Aug 1, 2021 0:34:41 GMT
I am wondering what other people would do in this situation: Lets say you are hired as the Head of ethics department for a big multinational company. You are creating their ethics strategy and are responsible for its implementation and all. One day you find out, that one of the new employees of the company is a high ranking public official (regional director of police) who was only very recently put off duty because he is under pending investigation for committing a felony called "extreme DUI". (Thats when you drive and are so drunk, that it is no longer a misdemeanor but an automatic felony, even if you dont hit anyone). Once the investigation is concluded, it is very likely this person will have to pay a big fine, but furthermore, will be on probation for 2-4 years, with their drivers license removed. At this time they are off duty but still get half of their paycheck from the police, pending conclusion of the investigation. This person is hired at the company as its Chief of risk management and security. Once you find out, you feel it is your duty to let the company know about the investigation. You do. You raise it to the general counsel and consequently also to the CEO. It turns out they knew. It turns out they hired him in spite of the ongoing investigation, because the CEO's close friend (who is also a high ranking executive of the company) recommended him. When you talk to them about it they say: " but he didnt hit anyone" and "he is very remorseful already, why should we punish him further by firing him or demoting him". and "what he does in his life outside of his working hours for us or what he did before he started here is irrelevant" and "but he is such a nice and skilled guy". You being the chief ethics officer, having found out this is the CEOs stance on this thing, having tried to educate them on why ethics is important and why conflict of interest is bad and why having a person who admitted to committing a very recent felony as head of security is not a good idea etc etc, to no avail, would you then leave the company or not? And why?Personally as an individual I would not wish that any person is stopped from hiring just because of DUI. But as a Head of Ethics department, I will recommend this high ranking official not to be hired at the company because these days ethics can matter a lot and your company can potentially lose customers if they are found in some controversy. If the CEO doesn't listen to me as a Head of ethics in his company then it means there is question of independence of my job. Technically hiring process should have my say in who should be hired and who should be not. If I don't exercise that much power in my role then I will not feel comfortable working here. So even though I won't go mad and immediately resign, it will be in back of my mind to look for a place where I can have more independence of decision making.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ass_E9 on Aug 1, 2021 0:55:34 GMT
Considering they looked the other way regarding the sexual harassment complaints and Nigerian prince scam accusations on my record when they hired me, I'm inclined to stay put.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Aug 1, 2021 1:51:16 GMT
I am wondering what other people would do in this situation: Lets say you are hired as the Head of ethics department for a big multinational company. You are creating their ethics strategy and are responsible for its implementation and all. One day you find out, that one of the new employees of the company is a high ranking public official (regional director of police) who was only very recently put off duty because he is under pending investigation for committing a felony called "extreme DUI". (Thats when you drive and are so drunk, that it is no longer a misdemeanor but an automatic felony, even if you dont hit anyone). Once the investigation is concluded, it is very likely this person will have to pay a big fine, but furthermore, will be on probation for 2-4 years, with their drivers license removed. At this time they are off duty but still get half of their paycheck from the police, pending conclusion of the investigation. This person is hired at the company as its Chief of risk management and security. Once you find out, you feel it is your duty to let the company know about the investigation. You do. You raise it to the general counsel and consequently also to the CEO. It turns out they knew. It turns out they hired him in spite of the ongoing investigation, because the CEO's close friend (who is also a high ranking executive of the company) recommended him. When you talk to them about it they say: " but he didnt hit anyone" and "he is very remorseful already, why should we punish him further by firing him or demoting him". and "what he does in his life outside of his working hours for us or what he did before he started here is irrelevant" and "but he is such a nice and skilled guy". You being the chief ethics officer, having found out this is the CEOs stance on this thing, having tried to educate them on why ethics is important and why conflict of interest is bad and why having a person who admitted to committing a very recent felony as head of security is not a good idea etc etc, to no avail, would you then leave the company or not? And why?Personally as an individual I would not wish that any person is stopped from hiring just because of DUI. But as a Head of Ethics department, I will recommend this high ranking official not to be hired at the company because these days ethics can matter a lot and your company can potentially lose customers if they are found in some controversy. If the CEO doesn't listen to me as a Head of ethics in his company then it means there is question of independence of my job. Technically hiring process should have my say in who should be hired and who should be not. If I don't exercise that much power in my role then I will not feel comfortable working here. So even though I won't go mad and immediately resign, it will be in back of my mind to look for a place where I can have more independence of decision making. I agree that having a criminal record should not be a reason for a person to never get any jobs. But it should be a factor when the job you are applying is directly tied to the nature of the felony in question. Head of security who has had 7 beers and 3 shots and then thought it was an ok idea to drive their (police) SUV on a highway? Would you want that person overseeing your companys securty and manage risk? Also, one thing is when the felony is years ago and the person has proven to be a good memeber of society since then. Yeah absolutely give them another chance. But this happened 2 months ago and their punishment was not even declared, let alone over (as of when the society Should look at the person as “having paid their debt to society”). Those two factors play important roles in this story. 1. should he still be allowed to make living? yes. As a leader of a security/risk management org? Well no, not that. 2. Should society forgive felons who have served their sentence (and show they have changed) and treat them as regular citizens? Yes. Should you automatically give this courtesy to someone who has done this so recently and has not even had time to show their change and pay the fine etc... No. Thats what the probation period is for. As I mentioned in the “Is Booze Nasty thread” I have zero tolerance for people who drink and drive. Want to do something stupid? Sure do, by all means, thats your right. Drink and then walk on your roof. But dont drag other peoples lives into it. The number of people harmed/killed by drunk people is really high and its such disregard for human life and such avoidable expense...  And to me it doesnt really matter he didnt hit anyone. It was pure luck. He drove on the highway for at least 20 miles completelly shit faced. In a suv. Its just pure luck a tragedy didnt happen. |
|
uncreative
Sophomore
@uncreative
Posts: 406
Likes: 280
 
|
Post by uncreative on Aug 3, 2021 18:41:04 GMT
Depends how much they're paying me to not make a fuss about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Aug 3, 2021 19:04:53 GMT
Personally as an individual I would not wish that any person is stopped from hiring just because of DUI. But as a Head of Ethics department, I will recommend this high ranking official not to be hired at the company because these days ethics can matter a lot and your company can potentially lose customers if they are found in some controversy. If the CEO doesn't listen to me as a Head of ethics in his company then it means there is question of independence of my job. Technically hiring process should have my say in who should be hired and who should be not. If I don't exercise that much power in my role then I will not feel comfortable working here. So even though I won't go mad and immediately resign, it will be in back of my mind to look for a place where I can have more independence of decision making. I agree that having a criminal record should not be a reason for a person to never get any jobs. But it should be a factor when the job you are applying is directly tied to the nature of the felony in question. Head of security who has had 7 beers and 3 shots and then thought it was an ok idea to drive their (police) SUV on a highway? Would you want that person overseeing your companys securty and manage risk? Also, one thing is when the felony is years ago and the person has proven to be a good memeber of society since then. Yeah absolutely give them another chance. But this happened 2 months ago and their punishment was not even declared, let alone over (as of when the society Should look at the person as “having paid their debt to society”). Those two factors play important roles in this story. 1. should he still be allowed to make living? yes. As a leader of a security/risk management org? Well no, not that. 2. Should society forgive felons who have served their sentence (and show they have changed) and treat them as regular citizens? Yes. Should you automatically give this courtesy to someone who has done this so recently and has not even had time to show their change and pay the fine etc... No. Thats what the probation period is for. As I mentioned in the “Is Booze Nasty thread” I have zero tolerance for people who drink and drive. Want to do something stupid? Sure do, by all means, thats your right. Drink and then walk on your roof. But dont drag other peoples lives into it. The number of people harmed/killed by drunk people is really high and its such disregard for human life and such avoidable expense... And to me it doesnt really matter he didnt hit anyone. It was pure luck. He drove on the highway for at least 20 miles completelly shit faced. In a suv. Its just pure luck a tragedy didnt happen. "As I mentioned in the “Is Booze Nasty thread” I have zero tolerance for people who drink and drive." Yeah, that's a completely fair stance. Reckless drivers take so many innocent lives all around the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Aug 4, 2021 0:54:53 GMT
Depends how much they're paying me to not make a fuss about it. yeah, not enough, believe me 
|
|
|
|
Post by Spitfire926f on Aug 4, 2021 5:01:51 GMT
I am wondering what other people would do in this situation: Lets say you are hired as the Head of ethics department for a big multinational company. You are creating their ethics strategy and are responsible for its implementation and all. One day you find out, that one of the new employees of the company is a high ranking public official (regional director of police) who was only very recently put off duty because he is under pending investigation for committing a felony called "extreme DUI". (Thats when you drive and are so drunk, that it is no longer a misdemeanor but an automatic felony, even if you dont hit anyone). Once the investigation is concluded, it is very likely this person will have to pay a big fine, but furthermore, will be on probation for 2-4 years, with their drivers license removed. At this time they are off duty but still get half of their paycheck from the police, pending conclusion of the investigation. This person is hired at the company as its Chief of risk management and security. Once you find out, you feel it is your duty to let the company know about the investigation. You do. You raise it to the general counsel and consequently also to the CEO. It turns out they knew. It turns out they hired him in spite of the ongoing investigation, because the CEO's close friend (who is also a high ranking executive of the company) recommended him. When you talk to them about it they say: " but he didnt hit anyone" and "he is very remorseful already, why should we punish him further by firing him or demoting him". and "what he does in his life outside of his working hours for us or what he did before he started here is irrelevant" and "but he is such a nice and skilled guy". You being the chief ethics officer, having found out this is the CEOs stance on this thing, having tried to educate them on why ethics is important and why conflict of interest is bad and why having a person who admitted to committing a very recent felony as head of security is not a good idea etc etc, to no avail, would you then leave the company or not? And why?I would not, but that is because I am biased because of my work. I see alcoholism as a disease, and I would assume/hope that this incident drove this person into treatment and recovery and sobriety was a stipulation of employment. I believe in second chances. If he is still drinking, that is an issue, and yes, I would leave. |
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Aug 4, 2021 9:08:41 GMT
Alcoholism is a medical condition. You're looking at this as some sort of moral problem.
There is no morality involved - no more than if you hire a person who has cancer.
If you are head of ethics you should know that you cannot fire an employee for a medical condition. As long as he is treating his illness (i.e. not drinking and attending a program which treats alcoholism) legally you cannot dismiss him from his job.
I wouldn't leave. But if you think alcoholism is a moral issue, you should not be head of ethics.
Although it could be his underlying issue alcoholism wasn’t mentioned in the OP. He might just be someone who once did something stupid after a night out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Aug 4, 2021 16:16:02 GMT
Although it could be his underlying issue alcoholism wasn’t mentioned in the OP. He might just be someone who once did something stupid after a night out. The OP said he had a felony DUI.
You can't get a felony DUI for driving once with a high blood alcohol level as long as you don't hit anybody.
Real world - he's an alcoholic.
The OP is a moralizing behavior associated with a disease.
You can in Europe. And you can also fire/not hire people for having a current criminal record, if the the felony relates to the nature of the job. Both options are fully legal. The morality (or rather ethics) is applied toward the leaders of the company, making that decision, to hire someone who has had a very recent felony, as the head of their security and risk management. A felony that by nature is endangering safety of others. I am not judging the person who committed it, I am "judging" the persons who thought it would be a good idea to hire said person into this particular role. Again, fully legal not to hire on account of current felony or let someone go because of it, there are conditions that have to be met, but it is a legal option.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Aug 4, 2021 16:33:50 GMT
Alcoholism is a medical condition. You're looking at this as some sort of moral problem.
There is no morality involved - no more than if you hire a person who has cancer.
If you are head of ethics you should know that you cannot fire an employee for a medical condition. As long as he is treating his illness (i.e. not drinking and attending a program which treats alcoholism) legally you cannot dismiss him from his job.
I wouldn't leave. But if you think alcoholism is a moral issue, you should not be head of ethics.
Although it could be his underlying issue alcoholism wasn’t mentioned in the OP. He might just be someone who once did something stupid after a night out. That is actually the persons explanation yes. But even if it was alcoholism and as such a disease, certain diseases, including alcoholism, may legally prevent you from getting certain jobs because you will simply not be seen as having qualified or will have lost qualification. In this case, not hiring someone is not for their potential medical condition, but the associated current felony where the nature of it relates to the nature of the job. Had he applied for a job where he is not in charge of safety for the company, it could have been a different story.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Aug 4, 2021 16:42:59 GMT
I am wondering what other people would do in this situation: Lets say you are hired as the Head of ethics department for a big multinational company. You are creating their ethics strategy and are responsible for its implementation and all. One day you find out, that one of the new employees of the company is a high ranking public official (regional director of police) who was only very recently put off duty because he is under pending investigation for committing a felony called "extreme DUI". (Thats when you drive and are so drunk, that it is no longer a misdemeanor but an automatic felony, even if you dont hit anyone). Once the investigation is concluded, it is very likely this person will have to pay a big fine, but furthermore, will be on probation for 2-4 years, with their drivers license removed. At this time they are off duty but still get half of their paycheck from the police, pending conclusion of the investigation. This person is hired at the company as its Chief of risk management and security. Once you find out, you feel it is your duty to let the company know about the investigation. You do. You raise it to the general counsel and consequently also to the CEO. It turns out they knew. It turns out they hired him in spite of the ongoing investigation, because the CEO's close friend (who is also a high ranking executive of the company) recommended him. When you talk to them about it they say: " but he didnt hit anyone" and "he is very remorseful already, why should we punish him further by firing him or demoting him". and "what he does in his life outside of his working hours for us or what he did before he started here is irrelevant" and "but he is such a nice and skilled guy". You being the chief ethics officer, having found out this is the CEOs stance on this thing, having tried to educate them on why ethics is important and why conflict of interest is bad and why having a person who admitted to committing a very recent felony as head of security is not a good idea etc etc, to no avail, would you then leave the company or not? And why?I would not, but that is because I am biased because of my work. I see alcoholism as a disease, and I would assume/hope that this incident drove this person into treatment and recovery and sobriety was a stipulation of employment. I believe in second chances. If he is still drinking, that is an issue, and yes, I would leave. I see your point. And I too believe in second chances. But since this is so recent and that particular role is head of safety for the entire company, would you really run the risk the person has not been driven to treatment and sobriety and experiment with the safety of the company and all its people to find out? Or would you rather they had a different role for a while where they prove they are sober/responsible/able to do their job without endangering others and then potentially promote them?
|
|
|
|
Post by Spitfire926f on Aug 4, 2021 17:23:17 GMT
I would not, but that is because I am biased because of my work. I see alcoholism as a disease, and I would assume/hope that this incident drove this person into treatment and recovery and sobriety was a stipulation of employment. I believe in second chances. If he is still drinking, that is an issue, and yes, I would leave. I see your point. And I too believe in second chances. But since this is so recent and that particular role is head of safety for the entire company, would you really run the risk the person has not been driven to treatment and sobriety and experiment with the safety of the company and all its people to find out? Or would you rather they had a different role for a while where they prove they are sober/responsible/able to do their job without endangering others and then potentially promote them? That is a hood option as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Aug 4, 2021 17:29:18 GMT
You can in Europe. And you can also fire/not hire people for having a current criminal record, if the the felony relates to the nature of the job. Both options are fully legal. The morality (or rather ethics) is applied toward the leaders of the company, making that decision, to hire someone who has had a very recent felony, as the head of their security and risk management. A felony that by nature is endangering safety of others. I am not judging the person who committed it, I am "judging" the persons who thought it would be a good idea to hire said person into this particular role. Again, fully legal not to hire on account of current felony or let someone go because of it, there are conditions that have to be met, but it is a legal option. He's already hired, right? That's not the issue. If you leave you're making a moral judgment based on the fact he has a disease called alcoholism. Alcoholism is no indicator that he is an unethical man or that he cannot do his job. It's a disease like cancer. I would require that he be treating his disease. It sounds like he is or will be under court order to do that. I see no problem except your own self righteousness.
you look at this from a very narrow point of view. focusing only on the aspect of a potential desease (which has not been confirmed is this case anyway). The fact that you do not see as a problem that a person whos judgement was recently so flawed/impaired (by self induced act) to the point of being charged with a felony and at the same time that that person should be in charge of ensuring for example drug testing and testing for alcohol consumption in work place, shows some gaps in understanding of conflict of interests and ethics. Again: I am not judging the person who has committed the felony, but the people who thought its a good idea to put this person in charge of safety protocols and risk management. Without having any testing period since the felony, when the person could prove themselves and show their sobriety/ successful treatment. Do you honestly not see a problem with that individual having this particular role at this time? Other than the felony, there is another problem which you skip over and that is hiring a person who is at the same time on the payroll of the police department. That itself presents another conflict of interest and problems on its own. So the way this hiring was done points to a whole array of problems and shows unequal /preferential treatment as well. Not an ethical approach to appointing the leaders of a company that wants to be a good corporate citizen.
|
|
