Slashdot Mirror
A Corporate Code of Ethics?
Ethically Challenged asks: "Under the guise of recent legislation everyone at the publicly traded software company I work for is being asked to sign a 'Code of Business Conduct and Ethics'. In part, we have to swear to the following: we should not use company resources for any non-business purposes (I probably can't even write this); we must disclose to the CFO any relative that works for a customer, competitor or vendor; and, we are required to narc on coworkers who we suspect violate the code in any way. Are developers at other companies being asked to do this? Does it bother anyone that lowly workers like me are being asked to sign these things because executives are too immoral to behave themselves? Isn't all of this a colossal waste of time since most of it is common sense and it's pretty clear that the bad guys will ignore it anyway?" Most of this stuff sounds like the boilerplate protections most companies put in their employee agreements in the first place. Since you generally have to sign such agreements before you get your first paycheck, this new initiative seems rather redundant to me. Can someone more clued-in explain the justification behind this one?
"He didn't have to steal those plans like he was asked--in fact, it violates our code of ethics, and he would have promptly been helped, and his supervisor relieved." Yeah, and donkeys fly.
Sometimes you see companies doing this in order to make the rules more strict or to communicate to the employees that you are about to enforce them.
For example, we once had to sign a similar agreement about patents we held or had been granted at a previous job--even though we had already signed something similar when we came to work in the first place. (We were not granted any stock options unless we signed the new agreement.) The idea was that my current company wanted to ensure that their list was valid so that they would be justified in defending their own patents, or going after any that employees were granted during employment there.
It's just a lot easier to enforce an existing rule after you remind everyone that the rule is in place. That's why you hear around the holidays that the highway patrol will be cracking down on [insert your favorite violation, most often seat belt wearing where I'm from]. The law is already in place, and it is probably *possible* to enforce, but it is *easier* to enforce and subsequently prosecute if no one has an excuse of being ignorant of the law.
What are the consequences of not signing? If you had not been hired, they could make your hiring conditional on signing. Once you are an employee, what are they going to do? I think that firing you would be a collossal stupidity on their part, and could bring a lawsuit. What law do they claim triggered this?
J'aime mieux les méchants que les imbéciles, parce qu'ils se reposent. -- Alexandre Dumas
You're being asked to do this so your company can say that they adhere to a code of ethics. They think that having one means they're following one, and, in the eyes of many, that's true. It's form over substance. Companies with ethics policies appear to be ethical.
If you sign it, keep a copy of it for yourself.
... a better model and more universally ethical would be for the US government to scrap the laws that made corporations "persons". All that did was obfuscate human responsibility. "Corporations" are allowed to pay "humans" profits-they get the fruits of their labors, but when it comes time to dispute some manner in court it becomes a "corporate" problem and it's extremely hard to pin down which exact "humans" are at fault or liable. Extremely hard. Magnify this by daisy chaining,especially offshore/internationally- where corporations are created on the fly on paper using yet again another front corporation of "lawyers" ad absurdum, so they can lease stuff to themselves, use one corporation to "lose" money at to avoid taxes, use another corporation to pay for "expenses" that regular old single individuals can't deduct as expenses, etc etc it becomes -enron and worldcom.
What they are doing now is a pre-CYA effort with these ethics agreements. It's already theoretically illegal to break the law. This contract agreement is duplicating what already exists in yet another fashion. It might have a marginal effect. It's "feel good" legislation and effort, a facade move.
What would be interesting is if employee "guilds" (can't use the U word, that is considered swearing in IT land for some weird reason) would band together and force employers to sign personal accountability statements with serious fines held in third party escrow accounts for violations of breach of contract with their employees, for instance for issuing orders that are illegal, insuring open honesty in accounting, promotions, business models, etc, but that ain't happening any time soon, the PHBs and cartel lobbyists (the PHB unions) and polytickshuns would through a hissy fit.
Go ahead and sign it. From then on, with every decision you make, ask yourself, "Is this good for the company?"
How are you going to keep them down on the farm once they've seen Karl Hungus?
The only reason they are doing this is to "show" the world or the investors, "we are commited to integrity, and will not tolerate blah blah blah" This will more than likely be a marketing ploy, or if something big does happen maybe they can place the blame on everyone and not just the top honchos.
Useless sig.
I suspect literally every person I work with of, at least, taking the occasional personal phone call or surfing the web. Thus, I would have to report everyone who works for my firm, presumably every day.
I wonder how many days it would take before they let me stop.
I Can't Believe It's A Law Firm, LLP does not necessarily endorse the contents of this message.
Walk by his office frequently until you catch him on a personal phone call. You'll be obligated to show him how stupid the new policy is. Better yet, if he fires you for pointing it out you'll probably have grounds for a lawsuit.
Would anyone EVER start any kind of busisness, if when it failed, or had an accident, they could be sued barefoot and out of thier own house? With corporations, there is less personal risk involved. If they did away with corporations, something else identical with a different name would pop up, or the entire worlds economy would die in about a day.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
we must disclose to the CFO any relative that works for a customer, competitor or vendor;
For starters, it's none of the companies business whom your relatives work for. Second, it is vague as almost *any* company could be considered to potentially have *some* business relationship with your company, especially if you are bug (for example Microsoft). Third, are you personally supposed to keep track of your relatives and their job changes?
Finally, in this effort to prevent kickbacks and other shenanigans, the CFO is the person to be informed? Why the CFO, why not HR? And who is watching the CFO?
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
My answers, though, would be Yes Yes No.
It definitely happens at other companies.
I think executives should be made to sign the agreement, as well. IIRC the Bush administration is pushing a new law forcing execs to sign off on their financial reports - a nice step in the right direction, I'd say.
As for it being a waste of time, it takes less than 5 seconds to sign. You'll probably want to read it first, but that's not all that much extra time. If you're ethical, you'll have no problems following it, and if you're not, then you're probably going to break the agreement anyways.
As for it being a waste of time, it takes less than 5 seconds to sign. You'll probably want to read it first, but that's not all that much extra time. If you're ethical, you'll have no problems following it, and if you're not, then you're probably going to break the agreement anyways.
Counter arguments:
1) If all ethical people would already follow the guidelines without signing it, and all non-ethical people would do what they want regardless of whether they sign it, it is a waste of time. How much time is wasted isn't really a consideration.
2) The assumption that a requirement to report all _suspected_ suspicious activity is not what I would qualify as ethical, and I'd have a huge problem signing this for that reason.
As far as the "execs to sign off on their financial reports": It's another waste of time. A feel-good, but that's it.
yeah, for those who didn't see it...Conan O'Brien guest starred as Andy's new boss...Conan's character (Fred) was, to say the least, a little nutty...in any case, his first action, was that he wanted co-workers to narc on each other if another employee was misappropriating office supplies, or things like that...
in any case, i love that show...it's hilarious, and damn, wendy & jessica are good looking...
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." - Homer Simpson
This is just like the episode of Dilbert TV called Ethics.
-- From episode (roughly)
Boss: Due to some ethical problems, management has decided to send all you engineers for ethics training
Dilbert: is this because we are working with the mafia?
(And a few other reasons that slip my mind right now)
Boss: Yes... So, your training begins on Saturday.
Dilbert: Will management be there
Boss: No..
Dilbert: But management is guilty of the most ethical offenses.
Boss: I know, but we're all too important to go to ethical training...
Dilbert: But...
Boss: no buts...
--
Man, this form is hilarious, Dilbert come true, S2S(so to speak). I betcha management doesn't even have to sign it, even though they are the ones that are "ethically challenged" in the companies in the news.
~ kjrose
I know where I work we are not supposed to use the business stuff for personal use, that is in the employee handbook. That includes, phone, internet, mail, servers, computer, etc, but people do it anyway. My cars in the shop so I need to call them. As long as it is not long distance it is not an issue around here, but if someone started making lots of long distance calls then it could become an issue.
I should not be surfing slashdot during work hours, but since they cut my pay by I say f****'em! I'm taking it out in bandwidth.
Only 'flamers' flame!
I suspect literally every person I work with of, at least, taking the occasional personal phone call or surfing the web. Thus, I would have to report everyone who works for my firm, presumably every day.
Of course everyone does. I have a similar agreement in place -- heck, I have to click "OK" on some such agreement when I log in to my workstation -- and here I am posting to Slashdot. The higher-ups know that people do this, and are generally pretty easy-going about it. As long as you don't go overboard, no-one really minds.
It's when you get people who surf the web for hours at a time or take 40 minute personal phone calls that you have more of a problem, and this is fair enough. The other point is that they're covering themselves; usually the rule is, be fair by us, and we'll be fair by you, but remember that, should anything dubious come up, you've signed this agreement, so you can't come back and complain when you get fired for the pr0n surfing.
Nobody here gets fired when they have a picture of the wife and kids as their desktop background, even though it's technically a violation of the agreement. OTOH, I suspect they'd have a problem if they put up one of those...you know...adult pictures.
It comes down to this: letter of the law versus spirit of the law. And most people can recognize the difference. (Apparently, "most people" doesn't include the majority of posters who've commented on this story thus far.)
This post is exactly why these companies are making people sign agreements that seem to simply restate common sense stuff that "everybody" knows.
The fact is that, what is common sense to you may not be common sense to the goober in the next cube. All too often this is the case, people seem clueless at the most common sense matters, as I stare at them in amazement. How could anyone be so stupid to not know that already? I frequently ask.
But, then there is the next level, where they do know the common sense ethic and they have even been formally informed of the policy and the punishment for breaking that policy, yet they justify their illicit actions with some form of glib nonsense that they feel makes it perfectly acceptable. As is so eloquently stated in the poster's final comment: I should not be surfing slashdot during work hours, but since they cut my pay by I say f****'em! I'm taking it out in bandwidth.
The agreement won't be regarded as a waste of time to them, when they fire you for breaking the company's policy, which you explicitly agreed to and signed.
We just got a new document to sign here are Bank of America...here are some highlights in quptes. My comments none quoted...
:)
"Work conflicts and outside activities
If you decide to pursue additional employment, engage in an independent business venture or perform services for another business organization, you must disclose such activities to your manager and obtain his or her preapproval to avoid any potential conflicts. You must not pursue such activities during Bank of America business hours or allow any outside business, civic or charitable activities to interfere with your job performance."
They should have told this to everyone when they were pushing United Way on us for THREE months non-stop!
"Duty of loyalty
You owe a duty of loyalty to the Corporation. You must not deprive the Corporation of an opportunity or take for your own advantage an opportunity that belongs to the Corporation. Further, you must not help others do so if they are in a position to divert a corporate opportunity for their own benefit."
I have a duty of loyalty to a company that thinks of me as a number and is willing to fire employees note based on how they perform but by luck of the draw?
"If you wish to serve as a director of any profit-making organization, you must first obtain the approval of the Finance Committee (or any successor committee). The terms of any approval will determine whether you may keep the compensation earned from a directorship. You may contact the Office of the Corporate Secretary to determine the meeting schedule of the Finance Committee and the process for submitting your request. "
bah! I don't need to tell anyone that I plan to incorporate my own business and become a diretory of it.
"Bank of America information
Nonpublic information regarding Bank of America is to be conveyed to others only on a reasonable need-to-know basis that furthers a legitimate business purpose of Bank of America."
whoops...
"Borrowing
You may not personally borrow money from or lend to suppliers, customers or other associates unless such loan is to or from a family member or from an institution normally in the business of lending, and there is no conflict of interest. You may make an occasional loan of nominal value (such as for lunch) to another associate as long as no interest is charged. "
Now they are telling me that I can't borrow a hundred bucks from a co-worker until pay day? (not that I need to that is
"Investigations
You must cooperate fully with any investigation, internal audit, external audit or regulatory examination."
Guess my boss should read that one..he always tells me to be uncooperative to the auditors....
Wow I don't think I'm going to sign this thing....
1) If it isn't nailed down, steal it.
2) If it is nailed down, pry up the nails and steal it.
3) If someone points out you are stealing, sue them.
4) After the lawsuits are over, steal from the defendant(s).
5) Buy politicians.
6) Demand politicians pass laws making corporate theft legal.
7) Demand politicians pass laws redefining "exercising Constitutional rights" as stealing.
8) Never tell lies, except when you feel like it or it is convenient for your goals.
9) Donate to charities only as a marketing tactic.
10) If 2 sq inches of contiguous flat surface are available, plaster an advertisement on it.
11) If they are unavailable, pay someone else to plaster the advertisement on it.
12) If it's smaller than 2 sq inches, plaster an advertisement on it.
13) Profit!
14) Appoint minions to Ethics Task Force.
15) Promise unending pain and humiliation to any appointees that draft any policies that remotely resemble ethics.
16) Disregard ethics policies.
17) Go steal something.
18) Profit!
19) Search for something beautiful, a landscape, art, or anything that gives people solace and feelings of peace. Plaster an advertisement on it.
20) If it is impossible to plaster an advertisement on the beatiful thing, destroy it an erect an advertisement in its place. Preferably with a bulldozer.
21) Profit!
22) Profit!
23) Profit!
24) When projected profits are equal, always choose the method that inflicts the most inconvenience and privacy violations on your customers.
25) If former customers refuse to buy your merchandise, have them arrested.
26) Buy judges.
27) Profit!
28) Demand that judges convict non-buying customers.
29) Profit!
Ok, I've ran out of ideas. still, this is a pretty decent outline, but please feel free to add more rules, as you see fit.
If you have to sign it after you've been employed by the company, to keep earning a paycheck, isn't that duress? (obviously, IANAL)
I had a personal experience with this at a previous employer... We signed this and were specifically informed all levels of management had to sign and agree to the same thing (by the CEO).
Not a couple of weeks later, I was contacted by a VP that wanted me to setup a Mac for his daughter's birthday -- on company time and with company resources. I refused, obviously, and was nearly fired... until I pointed out the violation of the code of ethics.
Of course, even though that violation was grounds for termination of employment, nothing ever happened to the VP. Big duh.
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
I still think Google put it best: Don't be evil.
When violence rules the world outside / And the headlines make me want to cry / It's not the time to just keep quiet
Not knowing anything about your company, I can only speculate on the reasons for having to sign this type of agreement. As for my own company, this comes in to play in several areas of the business.
1) Investors. When investors are doing their due dilligence on my company they want to make sure that the IP of the company stays with the company. So the question comes up, "Have all your employees signed [insert policy here]?"
2) Aquisition. Almost the same thing. If you are looking at a potential buy-out for the business, the company doing the aquiring wants to make sure that there are no sticky issues out there anywhere.
Those are the two biggies. The thing you need to realize from the business perspective (and that any good manager should communicate to you) is that exectives are held liable for fudiciary responsibility. What that means is, if I don't get an employee to sign that type of agreement, and some IP ends up in the wrong hands, investors have the right to sue on the basis that I have not upheld fudiciary responsibilities.
Hope that helps a little.
As far as the "execs to sign off on their financial reports": It's another waste of time. A feel-good, but that's it.
Read up on the plan - statements that are proven to be false result in criminal charges.
For example, Ken Lay of Enron could be charged - IIRC the penalty is 20 years in jail. That's better than he and his wife giving tearful interviews about how they've "lost everything" from their $6 million house.
Thanks! What you said. I was in a rush this morning and didn't have time to do such a good job as you did with the corporations and their history. A lot of folks seem to think corporations have always been as they are now, which you have shown is simply not the case.
Now, if people would take the personal time to research the actual history of the origins of the "federal reserve act" and how that has lead to the longest running largest concerted ripoff in US history we could sort some economic *things* out better. Too bad it's not taught in public schools, guess it would conflict with "diversity awareness" training or some such.
Here's another one most folks don't get. Ask some adult how much "tax" the US people pay. You'll get rough answers like 50% etc. I doubt one in 10,000 has thought it through to the logical conclusion that 100% of the money is taxed back into "government" hands in well under 10 commercial transactions, yet the government persists in the "debt" fiction for generations.
I hope your post gets modded up to a more appropriate level. It deserves getting maxed out +
Read up on the plan - statements that are proven to be false result in criminal charges.
They could already result in criminal charges without the signed statements. There are already laws against fraud.
People and management matter well beyond a code of ethics.
As any experienced contractor knows, the contract is important but means nothing if there aren't good and properly motivated people -- contractor and client -- on both sides willing to fight to live up to the spirit of the thing.
That said, the code of ethics you are being asked to sign is a CYA for upper management. They want to point a finger at someone if something goes wrong.
If you do sign it, keep a paper trail of your activities. These kind of things also can be used in office politics by those who will blissfully ignore the whole concept of ethics.
I'd avoid signing anything unless the alternative is job loss.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
You know you are breaking the law when you speed. Why do you speed if it will break the law? The mental math in your head tells you that for speeding 10-15 miles over the limit (which is a guess on the average) you probably can get away by paying only $250-300 for the ticket.
The thing is that you don't necessarily know when you're speeding. In CA there's a thing called the California Basic Speed Law, which basically states that the speed limit is whatever is safe for the conditions. Allow me to illustrate this with a funny, but true, story from my brother-in-law, who is a California Highway Patrol Officer.
He's driving down a freeway in LA when he notices a car that's weaving erratically, like it would if the driver was drunk. Naturally he pulls the car over, and realizes as soon as he looks in the car that the guy isn't drunk; the problem is that he has this gigantic bowl, like a serving bowl you'd use for pasta, full of soup which he is holding and trying to eat out of while driving.
He was going 65, which is the posted limit on that road, and the weather was clear, but my brother-in-law wrote the guy a ticket for 65mph over the limit, since any speed was unsafe for what he was trying to do.
My point is that the law is flexible, and you don't necessarily know when you are breaking it. I'm sure this guy thought he was in the clear since he was driving the speed limit, but now he's been slapped with a felony speeding ticket. The really funny thing is that if he hadn't been eating the soup which caused him to weave, he could have been going 75 and no officer would have batted an eye (CHP policy is to give 10mph of leeway in most cases).
Laws (and Codes) need to take circumstances into consideration. About a year and a half ago my wife fell and hurt her leg bad enough that she couldn't walk, or even stand, and she was certainly in no condition to watch over our 1 year old daughter, so she dragged herself (literally) to the phone and called me at work. Was that a personal phone call which I recieved on Company time on a Company phone? Absolutely, but there's something seriously wrong with a Code of Ethics that can't accomodate that, and I certainly shouldn't be punished to the same extent as the guy who calls up his girlfriend just to chat, consistency be damned.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Without the statements, however, the CEO is not guilty of fraud - the company is, and pays a relatively insignificant penalty (as a company cannot be jailed).