Ethics vs. Job: fight

[danaeris]

So, hypothetically, if you were asked to do something that violated your sense of ethics (write some patently false PR stuff, invent quotes, etc.), and your choices were to do it, or to get fired, what would YOU do?

At present, no one has the "permissions" to fire me, so I'm safe. But if this comes up again once we have our new CEO, said CEO could conceivably say, "Do it, or you're fired."

What then? I might just say, "Fine. Fire me."

Comments

[agnosticoracle.livejournal.com]

The ethical thing to do is, to not violate your sense of ethics. The practical way to do this, if you feel you are going to be told "do it or be fired" is to instead of saying no, play for time and try to delay having to answer the question. During the delay time you touch up your resume and start sending it out.

[zagatto.livejournal.com]

Grr... it pisses me off that there are such unethical people in the world who have some aspect of control over other people's lives.

It makes me happy to hear that you are standing by your ethics even though it may jeopardize your income in the near future. I'm not sure what the laws are here in Canada regarding truth in advertising but I do know that as an employee you only have marginal rights at best and that makes the whole thing suck even more.

alternative courses of action

[metalana.livejournal.com]

You might be able to provide an ethical alternative that satisfies their needs (e.g. a positive quote that you actually got from someone else).

You could point out that they are asking you to violate journalistic ethics, preferably with some accepted documentation of said ethics. I.e. embarass them into behaving themselves.

You could just not do the unethical thing, which dares them to actually fire you. They may not follow up on the threat. They may like keeping competent employees around.

You could quit before you get fired - it would look better on your record. Be sure to have a resignation letter in your back pocket. The minute they pull you into a surprise meeting and say "I have some bad news for you", you can say "I have some bad news for you".

You could discuss the ethical reasons for resignation/firing, in the letter and in the meeting.

You could negotiate a nice severance package, in exchange for you not embarassing them about their lack of ethics, or in exchange for you not suing for wrongful dismissal. (Which is more advantageous, being fired with cause or without? Aim for that.)

You could get advice from the Ministry of Labour or whomever is in charge of employment conditions, etc. You probably need advice on navigating the EI waters, because EI differs according to how you lost your job.

In other words, be prepared! Good luck, let's hope this blows over.

Re: alternative courses of action

[ebenezer.livejournal.com]

If you choose this high-drama option, be sure to talk to a lawyer first.

Re: alternative courses of action

[sunspiral.livejournal.com]

What you said. Good advice!

[ebenezer.livejournal.com]

I think that the only proper response to an ultimatum like that is to resign. Perhaps not on the spot; you might want to make sure that your affairs are in order (e.g. you might want to ensure that you have another job), but I doubt that severance pay is worth the stigma of termination.

[aberrantvirtue.livejournal.com]

That's not entirely true, in the States anyway. I don't know about Canada, but here in the US, if you were terminated for something like *that*, as far as I've been taught, it is actually value neutral to have been terminated. Frequently because the company will try to play it like they just couldn't afford you to avoid the embarassment. And that's the kind of thing it's okay to discuss, briefly, in an interview.

OTOH, I would resign, so as to properly express my anger.

[ebenezer.livejournal.com]

I doubt that the company actually carries significant reputational risk to care about a minor incident like this. But then, perhaps Danaeris's company is sufficiently small.

[aberrantvirtue.livejournal.com]

The embarassment of firing someone for having ethics knows no size of company. ;)

[jdhobbes.livejournal.com]

You have to decide what's more important: your ethics or holding down a job. In business, we are always faced with choices like that; sometimes we can afford to do the right thing, sometimes our ethics have to take one for the team.

But remember: it's your CEO who's making the decision to do something unethical. If you don't have a say in the decision, the responsibility lies in his camp 100%.

[gentlescholar.livejournal.com]

The boss has a say in their behavior.
Dana has the say in her behavior.
"Just following orders" is not an excuse.

[angel-thane.livejournal.com]

But remember: it's your CEO who's making the decision to do something unethical. If you don't have a say in the decision, the responsibility lies in his camp 100%.

Absolutely disagree 100%. Dana, to the best of my knowledge, is not a mindless drone autonomaton. She is a living, thinking, acting human. There is nothing that her CEO can do that removes her ability to choose to do or not do something. So long at there is that choice, there is also the responsibility to make the right choice.

This does not mean that the CEO is immune to responsibility herself, but nor is she alone in the responsibility. It is the CEO's decision to ask Danad to do something unethical, but ultimately, it is Dana who is making the decision to do something unethical (or to not do the same).

[yaksman.livejournal.com]

What about a pre-emptive strike?
When the new CEO pops up, approach him with concerns that you're being pressured into something unethical. He may actually have ethics of his own, even if your current boss doesn't.

[merovingian.livejournal.com]

I'd look for a compromise with which I was morally comfortable, and I'd state my moral objections.

Something like, "I would have ethical problems with that, and honestly it would probably come back to bite us soon. I know we want to put a good spin on this, so how about we say XXX instead?"

It takes some extra work to fill in the blanks of XXX, but it's definitely better than losing your job or going against your ethics.

[dicedork.livejournal.com]

You have two choices: don't do it, or do it under protest. (Well technically you have three, but you wouldn't be having such a problem if you were a sellout.) Not doing it gets you fired, so you have to weigh the pros and cons of that. Doing it under protest can be anything from mentioning to your boss that you don't like it, to asking that a formal complaint be placed in your file, to mailing yourself a sealed envelope that you did something under protest. It really depends on how much you don't like it, and what you think the consequences might be.

[lawbard.livejournal.com]

I'd say "Fine, fire me...and I'm glad that this will make such an interesting story to publish."

Seriously, its your journalistic integrity that would be on the block, not your boss's. Your name, your reputation, your career future hanging in the by-line. Not his. After all, if it gets exposed as false, its the author that will never be able to write seriously again, not the boss. The boss gets to fire you anyway, and save face, and get credit for enforcing the honesty of the profession.

Do it the other way, and not only may they be reluctant to fire you, but if they fire you for refusing to publish lies, you can turn around and publish the fact that they demanded that you lie, and then you would ruin their professional reputation publically - which would be well deserved, if they were ordering you to lie.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

It seems to me you've got some time, because there's no CEO at the moment. I'd tell her that you'd prefer to ask for client testimonials as has been done in the past, and then go ahead and do it. You're already looking for other work, so your bases are covered there. She'll have two choices: bring up your insubordination with the new CEO in an attempt to get you fired, or suck it up. The first probably gives you the option to tell your side, while the second only adds to a level of animosity that is already present and therefore not that big a deal.

Meanwhile, I'd keep your nose squeaky-clean in every other way, so as not to give the CEO and other, legitimate reasons to fire you.

[tunape.livejournal.com]

mm.... my time in journalism showed that "ethics" is very loosely defined in that profession. People were constantly making up quotes and information when pressed for time, and when there's lacking of an interesting story or source.

some would even claim that strong ethics is a luxury that not all can afford. There does seem to be an implicit "acceptable" amount(and type) of falsification that comes with experience in the industry.

[tunape.livejournal.com]

one analogy may be that a (sexual) virgin may have "ethical" issues about this and that... but the experience know what is allowable/acceptable and what is not.

[insomnia.livejournal.com]

If you're ever asked to do something questionable, the bare minimum you should do is GET IT IN WRITING (or email) after getting assurances that what you are doing is both legal and acceptable within the bounds of your company's ethical standards, after expressing your concerns.

For what publication, might I ask? The reason I would ask this question is this: how important is their reputation for them, and how exposed are they to liability issues involving investors or shareholders? Misrepresenting the company, the product, or even other companies becomes a much bigger ethical dilemma when you have shareholders or investors, as the company has a legal obligation not to misrepresent such things, or even, in some cases, to act unethically so as to cause financial harm to said investors/shareholders.

One way of dealing with such ethical issues is to get the request communicated to you in email if possible, and then to do a bit of casual, polite cc:ing to inquire what the policy is regarding how such things are handled/authorized.

For instance, you get requested to do something from your boss that you find questionable, so you forward or cc: it to the department, his manager, the company's legal advisor, sales/marketing, shareholder relations, etc. and say something to the effect of:

"One of the most basic ethical lessons I had when studying ___________ was not to ___________, but I don't know whether such a general rule applies to this kind of article/statement.

That said, I'm concerned about the potential legal liability that such a decision could have with our investors/shareholders, as well as the risk of misrepresenting our company's products, stock, or financial information, and the possible damaging effect it could have on our company's reputation and perceived credibility.

Could this be run this by legal first, just to make sure that we're handling this in the right way?

Do we have any company policy in place to handle such things? If not, could we establish some kind of standard on this to avoid any potential issues of impropriety or perceived conflict of interest.

Alternately, do any of you have any suggestions on alternate ways of accomplishing essentially the same goal through different means, by using different material or citing different quotes, sources, reports, etc?"

The nice thing about opening up the discussion a bit is that it creates a larger conversation, with several people saying "yeah, we do need to have some standards in place here..."

It also, conveniently, means that should the email ever get leaked -- as sometimes happens when people are fired for having a conscience -- it's hard to trace back to the leaker. That, in turn, could make it much more difficult for someone like you to get fired for expressing legitimate ethical and legal concerns regarding such a matter.

If you handle it professinally enough, it might even impress your boss' boss.

[vsbooklady.livejournal.com]

Don't do it. If she threatens to fire you over it, go to her superiors. It would be illegal for them to do that, so:
Print out & keep copies of any email correspondence involved with this, and write down the times & content of phone calls. That should protect *your* ass.
I've done ghostwriting in the past for letters to a newspaper. I was told their opinion, I wrote up a letter, and sent it back to them. It was up to them to decide whether or not to sign it & send it in. I don't have any problem with that - I felt it was me helping someone express an opinion that they couldn't express the way they wanted.
This is different.

[tocityguy.livejournal.com]

I haven't read the other comments and cannot speak for you. That said, however, I would never violate my own code of ethics for any job.

I've worked for several companies in the past with shady dealings but at no time did I do anything outside my ethics. Some people would call me hypocritical for that, but that's how I see it.

No job is worth that and there are more than a few jobs that will hire you just because you won't put up with that.

[etherial.livejournal.com]

I've posted about my own ethical dilemma at work. The advice I got from the Union Lawyer was to dodge the question whenever possible and not do the unethical thing. I haven't heard a peep about it since December.