Preview Extract
Chapter 7: Ethical Decision-Making: Technology and Privacy in the Workplace End of Chapter Questions, Projects, and Exercises
1. Marriott Resorts had a formal company party for more than 200 employees. At one point during the party, the company aired a videotape that compiled employees’ and their spouses’ comments about a household chore they hated. However, as a spoof, the video was edited to make it seem as if they were describing what it was like to have sex with their partner. One employee’s wife was very upset by the video and sued Marriott for invasion of privacy. Evaluate her argument, focusing on the ethical arguments for a violation of her rights. Direct students to the invasion of privacy discussion on page 257 so they can identify the basis of the claim. The employee's wife's argument against Marriott for invasion of privacy is grounded in several ethical considerations. Firstly, her privacy was violated by the company's use of personal comments made in a different context. The comments were not intended for public consumption and were manipulated to create a misleading and inappropriate depiction of intimate matters. This action disregarded the confidentiality and dignity of the individuals involved, exploiting their personal lives for entertainment without their consent. Secondly, the video's content crossed boundaries of decency and respect, impacting the emotional well-being of the employee's wife and potentially damaging her reputation. The video's creation and dissemination lacked ethical foresight and consideration for the emotional harm it could cause. This disregard for the individuals' emotional and psychological welfare demonstrates a lack of ethical sensitivity on Marriott's part. Furthermore, the use of the video in a public setting without the participants' informed consent violates their autonomy and right to control their personal information. Individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their personal lives, and Marriott's actions breached this expectation by exposing private matters to a wider audience without permission. In conclusion, the employee's wife's argument against Marriott is ethically justified based on the violation of privacy, lack of respect for personal boundaries, and disregard for emotional well-being. Marriott's actions in airing the video were unethical and demonstrate a failure to consider the ethical implications of their actions on individuals' privacy and dignity. 2. Richard Fraser, an at-will independent insurance agent for Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, was terminated by Nationwide and the parties disagree on the reason for Fraser's termination. Fraser argues that Nationwide terminated him because he filed complaints regarding Nationwide's allegedly illegal conduct, for criticizing Nationwide to the Nationwide Insurance Independent Contractors Association, and for attempting to obtain the passage of legislation in Pennsylvania to ensure that independent insurance agents could be terminated only for "just cause." Nationwide argues, however, that it terminated Fraser because he was disloyal. Nationwide points out that Fraser drafted a letter to two competitors saying that policy holders were not happy with Nationwide and asking whether the competitors would be interested in acquiring them. (Fraser claims that the letters were drafted only to get Nationwide's attention and were not sent.) When Nationwide learned about these letters, it claims that it became concerned that Fraser might also be revealing company secrets to its competitors. It therefore searched its main file server—on which all of Fraser's e-mail was lodged—for any e-mail to or from Fraser that showed similar improper behavior. Nationwide's general counsel testified that the e-mail search confirmed Fraser's disloyalty. Therefore, on the basis of the two letters and the e-mail search, Nationwide terminated Fraser's employment agreement. The search of his e-mail gives rise to Fraser's claim for damages under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA). Do you believe the employer was justified in monitoring the employee’s e-mail and then terminating him? What ethical arguments do you believe either side could use in this case? Refer students to the pages in the chapter explaining email monitoring (page 267-269) and providing arguments for and against it (pages 270-273). A debate format in class would be a great way to facilitate this discussion. The case of Richard Fraser raises complex ethical questions regarding the monitoring of employee emails and the justification for termination based on the findings. The ethical arguments for both sides can be analyzed as follows: Nationwide's Justification: 1. Protection of Company Interests: Nationwide could argue that monitoring Fraser's emails was necessary to protect its interests, especially in light of his actions of drafting letters to competitors and the potential risk of disclosing company secrets. The company has a responsibility to safeguard its confidential information and ensure that employees do not engage in actions detrimental to its business. 2. Violation of Loyalty: Nationwide could also argue that Fraser's actions, including drafting letters to competitors and potentially disclosing company information, constitute a breach of loyalty. Employees have a duty to act in the best interests of their employer, and Fraser's actions could be seen as disloyal and damaging to Nationwide's reputation and business. Richard Fraser's Argument: 1. Whistleblower Protection: Fraser could argue that his actions were protected under whistleblower laws, as he was allegedly reporting Nationwide's illegal conduct and advocating for legislation to protect independent insurance agents. Whistleblowers play a crucial role in exposing wrongdoing and promoting ethical behavior within organizations. 2. Privacy Rights: Fraser could also argue that his privacy rights were violated by Nationwide's monitoring of his emails. Employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their electronic communications, and monitoring without consent or a legitimate reason could be seen as an invasion of privacy. In conclusion, the justification for monitoring employee emails and the subsequent termination of Richard Fraser is a complex issue with ethical considerations on both sides. While Nationwide may argue that it acted to protect its interests and prevent disloyalty, Fraser could counter that his actions were protected under whistleblower laws and that his privacy rights were violated. Ultimately, the resolution of this case would require careful consideration of the specific circumstances and the balance between protecting company interests and respecting employee rights. 3. A customer service representative at an electronics store is surfing the Internet using one of the display computers. She accesses a website that shows graphic images of a crime scene. A customer in the store who notices the images is offended. Another customer service representative is behind the counter, using the store’s computer to access a pornographic site, and starts to laugh. A customer asks him why he is laughing. He turns the computer screen around to show her the images that are causing him amusement. Is there anything wrong with these activities? This is a great class discussion on the issues of technology use policies, what is offensive and what is appropriate for the workplace. Yes, there are several ethical issues with the activities described involving the customer service representatives in the electronics store: 1. Inappropriate Use of Company Resources: Both representatives are using company computers and internet access for personal and inappropriate purposes. This violates the company's policy on acceptable computer and internet usage, which is typically in place to ensure that resources are used for work-related activities only. 2. Creating a Hostile Environment: The actions of the second customer service representative, in particular, create a hostile environment for customers. Showing pornographic images to a customer, especially without their consent, is highly inappropriate and can be considered harassment. It can make customers feel uncomfortable, offended, and even unsafe in the store. 3. Violation of Customer Privacy: Accessing graphic images of a crime scene in a public setting where customers can see them without warning or consent violates the privacy and sensitivity of those customers. It can be distressing and offensive to individuals who did not expect or want to see such images. 4. Violation of Company Policy: Both actions likely violate the store's policies on employee behavior, customer interaction, and the use of company resources. Employees are expected to conduct themselves in a professional manner and adhere to company guidelines to maintain a positive and respectful environment for both employees and customers. In conclusion, the activities described are ethically wrong due to the inappropriate use of company resources, creating a hostile environment for customers, violating customer privacy, and violating company policy. The employees involved should be counseled or disciplined according to the company's policies on such behavior. 4. The term cybersquatting refers to the practice of: registering a large number of website domain names hoping to sell them at huge prices to others who may want the URL or who are prepared to pay to get rid of a potentially confusing domain name. For instance, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, which operates www.peta.org, was able to shut down http://www.peta.com/, a pro-hunting website that dubbed itself "People Eating Tasty Animals." Cybersquatters often determine possible misspellings or slightly incorrect websites with the hopes that the intended website will pay them for their new domain. For example, someone paid over $7 million for the address www.business.com. In one case, one day after a partnership was announced that would result in an online bookstore for the Toronto Globe & Mail newspaper, Richard Morochove, a technology writer, registered the domain chapters-globe.com. When the partnership demanded that he stop using the name, he promptly agreed, as long as he received a percentage of the sales from the Chapters/Globe website. The case went to trial. In situations such as these, do you believe the cybersquatter is doing anything wrong? What options might the “intended website” owner have? Suggest that students use the ethical decision making process to determine whether cybersquatting is ethical. Students can refer to the following websites for more information on several cybersquatting cases: • World Intellectual Property Organization—Press Release 435: http://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/prdocs/2006/wipo_pr_2006_435.html • Apple Wins iTunes Cybersquatting Battle: http://news.com.com/Apple+wins+iTunes+cybersquatting+battle/2100-1030_3-5618589.html?tag=st.rn Cybersquatting, as described, raises several ethical concerns and typically involves exploiting trademarks or brand names for personal gain. The practice can be considered unethical for several reasons: 1. Misuse of Intellectual Property: Cybersquatters often register domain names that are similar to existing trademarks or brand names, with the intention of profiting from the confusion created. This can be seen as a form of intellectual property theft, as they are using someone else's brand name for their own benefit without authorization. 2. Unfair Competition: Cybersquatters create an unfair competitive advantage by capitalizing on the reputation and goodwill associated with established brands. This can harm legitimate businesses by diverting traffic intended for their websites to the cybersquatter's site. 3. Bad Faith Intentions: Cybersquatters often register domain names with the sole purpose of selling them at inflated prices to the rightful owners of the trademarks or brand names. This demonstrates a lack of ethical behavior, as they are seeking to profit from the goodwill of others without providing any value in return. Options for the "intended website" owner facing cybersquatting may include: 1. Legal Action: The owner can take legal action against the cybersquatter for trademark infringement or cybersquatting. The Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) in the United States provides legal remedies for trademark owners whose trademarks are infringed upon by cybersquatters. 2. Negotiation: The owner can try to negotiate with the cybersquatter to purchase the domain name at a reasonable price. However, this approach may not always be successful, as some cybersquatters may demand exorbitant prices. 3. Domain Dispute Resolution: The owner can also use domain dispute resolution mechanisms, such as the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), to seek the transfer of the domain name to them. This process is often quicker and less costly than litigation. In conclusion, cybersquatting is generally considered unethical due to its exploitation of intellectual property and unfair competitive practices. The intended website owner has several options to address cybersquatting, including legal action, negotiation, and domain dispute resolution. 5. Spam, or spamming, refers to the use of mailing lists to blanket usenets or private e-mail boxes with indiscriminate advertising messages. Some people believe that spamming should be protected as the simple exercise of one’s First Amendment right to free speech while others view it as an invasion of privacy or even theft of resources or trespass to property, as Intel argued when a disgruntled ex-employee spammed more than 35,000 Intel employees with his complaints. In that case, the court agreed, considering his e-mail spamming equivalent to trespassing on Intel's property and recognizing that Intel was forced to spend considerable time and resources to delete the e-mail messages from its system. It is amusing to note that the source of the term spam is generally accepted to be the Monty Python song, "Spam spam spam spam, spam spam spam spam, lovely spam, wonderful spam…" Like the song, spam is an endless repetition of worthless text. Others believe that the term came from the computer group lab at the University of Southern California, which gave it the name because it has many of the same characteristics as the lunchmeat Spam: • Nobody wants it or ever asks for it. • No one ever eats it; it is the first item to be pushed to the side when eating the entree. • Sometimes it is actually tasty, like 1 percent of junk mail that is really useful to some people. Using stakeholder analysis, make an argument that spamming is either ethical or unethical. Using stakeholder analysis, we can examine the ethical implications of spamming from the perspectives of various stakeholders: 1. Spammers: From the perspective of spammers, spamming may be seen as a way to exercise their freedom of speech and promote their products or ideas. They may argue that they are simply using available tools to reach a wide audience, similar to traditional advertising methods. 2. Recipients: From the perspective of email recipients, spamming is generally considered unethical. Spam inundates email inboxes with unwanted and often irrelevant messages, wasting recipients' time and resources. It can also pose security risks if the spam emails contain malicious content or links. 3. Internet Service Providers (ISPs): ISPs are stakeholders affected by spamming as it can overload their servers and networks, leading to increased operational costs. ISPs often implement anti-spam measures to protect their networks and customers from spam. 4. Companies: Companies whose products or services are being promoted through spam emails may benefit in the short term from increased visibility. However, spamming can damage their reputation and alienate potential customers who view spamming as a nuisance. 5. Society: From a societal perspective, spamming can be seen as a form of pollution on the internet. It clogs up communication channels and detracts from legitimate uses of email and other online services. Considering these perspectives, spamming is generally considered unethical. It disregards the interests and preferences of recipients, imposes costs on ISPs and companies, and contributes to the degradation of online communication. While individuals may argue for the protection of their freedom of speech, spamming is ultimately harmful and disruptive to the online community. For additional assistance and discussion, refer students to the following websites related to the ethics of spam: • Taming the Beast.net: http://www.tamingthebeast.net/articles/EmailMarketingEthicsSpamReporting.htm • CAN-SPAM Act of 2003: http://www.spamlaws.com/federal/can-spam.shtml • Open For Business-Spam Fighting Part 1: Ethics and Morals: http://www.ofb.biz/article.pl?sid=362 6. Term papers on practically every subject imaginable are available on the Internet. Many of those who post the papers defend their practice in two ways: (1) These papers are posted to assist in research in the same way any other resource is posted on the Web and should simply be cited if used; and (2) these papers are posted in order to encourage faculty to modify paper topics and/or exams and not to simply bring back assignments that have been used countless times in the past. Are you persuaded? Is there anything unethical about this service in general? If so, who should be held accountable, the poster, the ultimate user, or someone else? Suggest that student use the ethical decision making model process to determine the ethics of the term paper service. The practice of posting term papers on the internet raises ethical questions regarding academic integrity, plagiarism, and the responsibilities of both the posters and users of these papers: 1. Ethical Concerns: • Plagiarism: Students who use these papers without proper citation are engaging in plagiarism, which undermines the integrity of their academic work. • Misrepresentation: Submitting a paper written by someone else as one's own work is dishonest and goes against the principles of academic honesty. • Quality of Education: Relying on pre-written papers hinders the development of critical thinking and research skills that are essential in academia. 2. Arguments in Defense: • Research Assistance: Some argue that these papers can serve as sources of information and inspiration, much like other resources available online. However, proper citation and referencing are crucial to avoid plagiarism. • Encouraging Innovation: Posting papers online may encourage faculty to create new assignments and exam questions, promoting academic innovation and preventing the reuse of old assignments. 3. Accountability: • Posters: Those who post term papers online should consider the potential misuse of their work and ensure that it is clearly stated that the papers are for reference only and should not be plagiarized. • Users: Students have a responsibility to uphold academic integrity and should use these papers ethically, citing them properly if they are used for research purposes. • Educational Institutions: Schools and universities should educate students about the importance of academic integrity and provide resources for proper research and writing. In conclusion, while the posting of term papers online can have some educational value, it also presents ethical challenges related to plagiarism and academic integrity. Both posters and users of these papers should be aware of their responsibilities and ensure that academic standards are upheld. 7. A college provided its security officers with a locker area in which to store personal items. The security officers occasionally used the area as a dressing room. After incidents of theft from the lockers and reports that the employees were bringing weapons to campus, the college installed a video surveillance camera in the locker area. Did the employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy that was violated by the video surveillance? Explain. Direct students to the discussion of “reasonable expectation of privacy” on page 260. In this scenario, whether the employees had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the locker area depends on several factors, including the nature of the area, the college's policies, and the employees' reasonable expectations. Here's how one might frame an answer: The employees' expectation of privacy in the locker area may have been reasonable prior to the installation of the video surveillance camera. The locker area served as a space for personal storage and occasional use as a dressing room, suggesting a level of privacy similar to that of a personal locker room or changing area. However, this expectation of privacy could be diminished or eliminated by several factors. First, the incidents of theft from the lockers and reports of employees bringing weapons to campus indicate a potential security risk that may justify increased monitoring in the area. Second, if the college's policies clearly stated that the locker area was subject to surveillance for security purposes, employees would likely have been on notice that their activities in the area were not entirely private. Additionally, the nature of the surveillance may affect the reasonableness of the employees' expectation of privacy. If the surveillance was limited in scope, such as focusing only on areas where thefts occurred or monitoring only during certain times, it might be more likely to be considered reasonable. However, if the surveillance was constant and indiscriminate, it could be viewed as overly intrusive and a violation of privacy expectations. In conclusion, whether the employees had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the locker area depends on the specific circumstances, including the nature of the area, the college's policies, and the nature of the surveillance. If the surveillance was deemed necessary for security purposes and employees were informed of its use, their expectation of privacy may have been limited. 8. While some companies block employee access to social networks such as Facebook and Twitter, others have a more permissive attitude. Explain several reasons why a company might choose to permit – or be indifferent to – employee access to social networks. Companies may choose to permit or be indifferent to employee access to social networks for several reasons: 1. Employee Morale and Engagement: Allowing access to social networks can boost employee morale and engagement. Employees may feel trusted and valued when they are given the freedom to access social networks during breaks, which can improve job satisfaction and productivity. 2. Recruitment and Branding: Social networks are powerful tools for recruitment and employer branding. Allowing employees to access social networks can help promote the company's brand, attract potential candidates, and showcase the company's culture and values. 3. Networking and Collaboration: Social networks can facilitate networking and collaboration among employees. Platforms like LinkedIn can be valuable for professional networking, while internal social networks can enhance communication and collaboration within the organization. 4. Market Research and Customer Engagement: Social networks provide valuable insights into customer preferences and trends. Allowing employees to access social networks can help gather market research data and engage with customers more effectively. 5. Learning and Development: Social networks can be used for learning and development purposes. Employees can access industry news, participate in online courses, and stay updated on relevant trends and developments in their field. 6. Flexibility and Remote Work: For companies with remote or flexible work arrangements, social networks can help employees stay connected and engaged with their colleagues and the company's culture. 7. Productivity and Creativity: Contrary to the belief that social networks distract employees, some studies suggest that limited access can actually boost productivity and creativity by providing breaks that allow for mental relaxation and idea generation. Overall, companies may choose to permit or be indifferent to employee access to social networks based on their organizational culture, goals, and the perceived benefits of such access for employee morale, recruitment, branding, collaboration, and market research. Some websites that may be helpful include: • “TechDebate: Social Network Sites: Block or Not?” http://www.networkworld.com/community/tech-debate-block-social-networks • “10 Reasons Not to Block Social Media at Work” http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/10things/10-reasons-not-to-block-social-networking-at-work/3140 • “Debate Room: Social Media Sites: Employers Should Block Them?” http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2012/01/social_media_sites_employers_should_block_them.html • “Social Media: The Business Benefits may be Enormous but Can the Risks – Reputational, Legal, Operational – be Mitigated”: http://www.acegroup.com/us-en/assets/ace-progress-report-social-media.pdf 9. You work as an accountant at large accounting firm where your job leaves you with a lot of down time at the office in between assignments. You spend this time on your office computer developing a program that can make your job even more efficient and it might even be a breakthrough in the industry. This new product could be a huge success and you could make a lot of money. You think of quitting your job and devoting all your time and resources to selling this new product. However, you have developed this product using company equipment and technology, and also used the time you were at work. Do these facts raise any red flags in terms of ethical issues? What should you do? Lead students in a discussion of whether or not there are ethical dilemmas in this scenario? If dilemmas exist, how would students work through them? How would circumstances need to be different for it to be ok for you to sell the software you’ve developed? The scenario raises several ethical issues that should be carefully considered: 1. Use of Company Resources: Developing a program using company equipment and technology, as well as during work hours, raises questions about the ownership of the intellectual property rights to the program. Typically, work done on company time and using company resources belongs to the company. 2. Conflict of Interest: If the program is intended to improve efficiency in your current job, there may be a conflict of interest in using it for personal gain outside of work. This could be perceived as using your position for personal benefit at the expense of the company. 3. Breach of Employment Agreement: Many employment agreements include clauses that stipulate that any inventions or developments created using company resources or during work hours belong to the company. Violating such agreements could lead to legal consequences. 4. Ethical Responsibility: As an accountant at a large firm, you have a responsibility to act ethically and in the best interests of your employer. Using company resources and time for personal gain may be viewed as a breach of this responsibility. What you should do: 1. Review Employment Agreement: Review your employment agreement to understand the company's policies regarding intellectual property rights and inventions created using company resources. 2. Seek Legal Advice: Consult with a legal professional to understand your rights and obligations regarding the program you have developed. 3. Discuss with Supervisor or HR: Consider discussing your situation with your supervisor or the HR department. They may provide guidance on how to proceed and can help clarify any policies or agreements that may apply. 4. Consider Options: Depending on the advice you receive and the specifics of your situation, you may need to consider options such as seeking permission from the company to use the program for personal gain, negotiating a fair arrangement for ownership of the program, or refraining from pursuing the program further to avoid potential ethical and legal issues. In conclusion, the use of company resources and time to develop a program for personal gain raises ethical and potentially legal issues that should be addressed carefully and transparently. Consulting with legal and company representatives can help you navigate the situation ethically and responsibly. 10. As you learned in this chapter, drug testing in the work place is a somewhat controversial issue in terms of employer responsibilities and employee rights. Using sources from the web, discuss the pros and cons of these programs. During class discussion, visit websites that students find and use to answer this question. Discuss with students if they think the corporate culture is different within companies that drug test in comparison with companies that do not. Is one more desirable than the other? Drug testing in the workplace is a contentious issue with arguments both for and against. Here are some key points from both perspectives: Pros: 1. Safety: Drug testing can help ensure a safe working environment, especially in industries where impairment could lead to accidents or injuries. 2. Legal Compliance: Drug testing can help companies comply with federal and state regulations, especially in safety-sensitive industries like transportation or healthcare. 3. Productivity: A drug-free workplace may lead to higher productivity and lower absenteeism. 4. Deterrence: Knowing that drug testing is in place may deter employees from using drugs in the first place. Cons: 1. Invasion of Privacy: Some argue that drug testing is an invasion of privacy and violates employees' rights. 2. Effectiveness: Critics question the effectiveness of drug testing, arguing that it may not accurately measure impairment or drug use. 3. Stigmatization: Drug testing can stigmatize employees, especially if the results are made public or used for punitive actions. 4. Cost: Drug testing can be expensive for companies to implement and maintain. In conclusion, drug testing in the workplace is a complex issue with valid arguments on both sides. While it can help ensure safety and compliance, it also raises concerns about privacy, effectiveness, stigmatization, and cost. Employers should carefully consider these factors and weigh the pros and cons before implementing drug testing programs. Chapter 7 Readings Main Points and Summaries Reading 7-1 “Drug Testing and the Right to Privacy: Arguing the Ethics of Workplace Drug Testing” by Michael Cranford Main Points • The argument over the ethical justification for drug testing takes a different turn when we consider drug testing, not as an employer’s right under the terms of an employment contract, but as a means by which an employer may prevent harms committed by employees who abuse drugs. • One argument assumes that an employer has a general obligation to prevent harm. To the extent that drug testing is a reasonable means for preventing those harms, the employer is obligated to test for employee drug abuse. • A second argument is that employers have not only an obligation to prevent harm, but a responsibility for harms committed by their employees. This responsibility justifies an employer in obtaining information pertaining to employee drug abuse if acquiring that information can help the employer prevent harm. • Cranford believes that companies have a moral obligation to prevent harm, and utilizes the “Kew Gardens Principle” as justification. • He argues that ca corporation is not only entitled to use drug testing, but is obligated to do so. Summary This article addresses the ethics of workplace drug testing. The argument over the ethical justification for drug testing takes a different turn when we consider drug testing, not as an employer’s right under the terms of an employment contract, but as a means by which an employer may prevent harms committed by employees who abuse drugs. Two related arguments are at issue in this view, either of which may provide adequate justification for workplace drug testing. The first argument assumes that an employer has a general obligation to prevent harm. This obligation requires an employer to utilize reasonable means to prevent or mitigate potential harms committed in connection with workplace activities. To the extent that drug testing is such a reasonable means, the employer is obligated to test for employee drug abuse. The second argument is that employers have not only an obligation to prevent harm, but a responsibility for harms committed by their employees. This responsibility justifies an employer in obtaining information pertaining to employee drug abuse if by acquiring such information the employer can mitigate potential harms. This second phase of the argument has drawn the greatest attention and criticism. Cranford argues that a corporation is entitled to drug test its employees to determine employee capacity to perform according to the terms of the employment contract, and that the corporation is morally obligated to test employees for drug and alcohol abuse when a condition of impairment would place the safety and health of other human beings at risk. He believes that companies have a moral obligation to prevent harm, and utilizes the “Kew Gardens Principle” as justification. He argues that ca corporation is not only entitled to use drug testing, but is obligated to do so, to the degree that a critical need to prevent drug-related harms is actually present. Reading 7-2 “The Ethical use of Technology in Business” by Dr. Tony Mordini Main Points • The potential for communication, data management and business processes are endless but so too are the potential misuses of the technology. • Ethics provides research, frameworks and educational instruments that can help to maximize the ethical use of technology in business and help to articulate the issues, identify what is expected in particular contexts and propose appropriate ways to engender compliance. • The developments in information communication technology (ICT) have resulted in the boundaries between individuals’ private and public lives becoming significantly blurred. • Technology also has the potential to invade individuals’ personal lives, distract them from their work, cost businesses significantly if the technology resources are not deployed effectively and requires sound risk management to ensure data is not misappropriated. • Jennifer Jackson (1996) proposes that the difficulties in ascertaining what is ethical and what isn’t begins with the notions of identification and compliance. • The issues of work time and work equipment are critical factors in assessing and addressing a case like this. Individuals are often entrusted to do a job and act in good faith. • Another factor is that once connected to others in the public domain the lines between public and private become blurred. • Blogging on a political site may make it clear what an individual’s political leanings are; participating in wikis means that any text a person writes in this space can be edited by others; meeting people through Web-based social networks may expose individuals to a variety of risks. • Firms are rarely adequately prepared to respond to such issues. It is impossible to have one clear statement that covers all possible contingencies. • Workplaces need to be safe (in the broadest sense of the word—physically, emotionally, psychologically etc.). Rules need to be in place to ensure that individuals are not marginalized. Individuals, however, need to be reminded that what is in the public arena is public and anyone can read it. • Individuals may also need to be reminded that in public domain, Web-based contexts they may be providing people who they don’t know with more personal information than they realize. • Policies need to have some level of flexibility, need to be reviewed regularly and need to have a level of flexibility to deal with current, emerging and future issues. • Above all, work places need to be ethical and individuals need to be encouraged to work in a manner that is compliant and based on an understanding of what is considered appropriate workplace practice, what are appropriate ways to engage with the technology they are using in the workplace and how they can minimize the risks associated with the use of technology in their day to day lives. Reading 7-3 “Hiring in a Social Media” by Avner Levin Main Points • Are current practices of using online information for hiring decisions ethical? May they be conducted ethically under certain conditions? • Organizations display a wide range of hiring practices and policies regarding online information. One of the most common practices is the unauthorized use of such information (such as Google searches, or “fishing” expeditions on popular social media sites) in order to formulate a decision or an opinion about a candidate. • As use of online information increases so does the incorporation of this practice into formal organizational policy. • In an attempt to control the use of on-line media, firms may implement a practice that requires the candidate to be informed if on-line information is used in the hiring practice, but some organizations have taken the position that not disclosing such investigations is important to ensure that the information collected is authentic. • There are organizations that feel that they already have a hiring process that works for them, and they see no need to take online information into consideration as part of their hiring decisions. • Individuals are comfortable posting personal information online but do so expecting that information will not be shared between different destinations. Most organizations refuse to accept such network privacy concerns as valid. • Organizations that use online information about candidates face additional ethical questions. Is it ethical to collect such information in the performance evaluation process? To not disclose such collection? To base hiring decisions on information that is derived from sources when you have no way of knowing whether or not they have biases against the candidate? • First, there does not seem to be either an ethical way or justification, for collecting information outside of an organization’s defined hiring process. • Second, except for ultra-sensitive positions, there appears to be no good reason not to disclose to a candidate that the hiring process will involve collection of online information. • Third, it is more ethical to rely on information provided by the candidate than it is on information provided by others. • An organization must ask itself if its existing hiring process that does not rely on online information is broken. • In the not too distant future every candidate may have an online digital record of his life. The boundaries between work and private life will blur to an extent that individuals will no longer be able to separate these parts of their life. • To navigate this new terrain ethically organizations should consider the following recommendations: o Develop an understanding of online social media and their role in the culture and communication behavior of their candidates. o Formulate, disclose to candidates, and enforce internally transparent rules and guidelines about the use of social media for hiring purposes. o Resist the temptation to seek unnecessary online information, and if such information is obtained, or unsolicited information is received, refrain from using it. Summary The number of organizations that use information collected online in hiring decisions is on the rise. These can range from a Google search to a larger “fishing expedition.” The use of online information has also been incorporated into formal organization policy. Firms may choose to disclose their use of online information to applicants, but many have not. While individuals are comfortable posting large amounts of information to social networks, they do not expect information to move from one network to another. Organizations, on the other hand, do not regard such separation as a valid concern. Levin argues that there is no ethical way to use information collected outside of a defined hiring process. Candidates must be informed that the hiring process will involve collection of online information. It is more ethical to rely on information provided by the candidate than from other sources. An organization must ask itself why it wishes to change its existing system. To navigate this terrain, Levin proposes that organizations must develop a clear understanding of social media, formulate clear rules and disclose these rules to candidates, and resist the temptation to abuse social media. Reading 7-4 “Genetic Testing in the Workplace” by Chris MacDonald Main Points • The idea of employers conducting genetic tests on employees has generated considerable controversy even though few employers seem to have expressed an interest in such use of genetic testing. • In 2008, the U.S. government passed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), which effectively prohibits discriminatory use of genetic information in the workplace. • Ethical questions regarding workplace genetic testing remain salient due to questions regarding compliance, the scope and adequacy of some of the existing legal protections, and advocacy for legislative or regulatory change. • Workplace genetic testing can be divided into genetic monitoring and genetic screening. Genetic monitoring is less controversial: it tests for genetic damage that may have resulted from exposure to workplace toxins or radiation. Genetic screening, on the other hand, is used to detect either genes associated with hereditary diseases or genes associated with heightened susceptibility to workplace toxins. • Genetic screening can be useful by determining if a worker is likely to have medical issues that would impact their ability to do their job. • Genetic testing in the workplace raises two interconnected ethical issues: privacy and discrimination. • Limits to privacy in the workplace are many. Much of this lack of privacy is taken for granted as part of the inevitable tradeoff involved in leaving home to make a living. • Genetic information is often regarded as highly private. The employer who seeks genetic information about an employee is, in some sense, seeking to know something very deep and personal. Given that genes are shared within families, the employer is incidentally seeking knowledge about her employees’ families. • Genetic discrimination is a risk because employers may use it to discriminate for no other reason than an employee’s genes. • There is a subset of health conditions (disabilities) that has often been singled out for special legal and ethical treatment. Discrimination based on disability is prohibited. • Is genetic information ever a morally legitimate basis for discriminating among employees? Consider whether a gene can interfere with an employee’s ability to do her job. For example, would it be fair to discriminate in hiring or firing decisions against a pilot known to carry a gene connected to loss of vision, but whose eyesight is, at present, 20/20? • Individuals who have a heightened risk for certain illnesses may be less attractive as employees due to an average of fewer years in the work force, and greater health care costs for the employer. • There are three approaches available to balance an employer’s need for information with an employee’s right to privacy. o Genetic testing in the workplace and employment decisions made on that basis are permissible because they are simply a matter of rational individuals choosing freely in the marketplace. o Genetic testing and decision-making based on it could be permitted in the workplace only if suitable safeguards are put in place. o Genetic testing is unjustifiable. Summary This article discusses the potential ethical issues stemming from the use of genetic information by employers. In the U.S., the use of genetic information has been restricted by the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) but many ethical questions remain unanswered. Genetic screening of employees has the benefit of being able to identify potential health issues early. It raises two different issues, however. Many workers would prefer that their genetic information, which also provides information about their families, remain as private as possible. There is also the risk that employees will be discriminated against due to their genes. If a potential employee poses a higher health risk, is it fair to deny them a job if they are currently fully capable of performing the job? Employers can take several approaches, from treating it as part of a voluntary contract to avoiding the question altogether as unjustifiable. Solution Manual for Business Ethics: Decision Making for Personal Integrity and Social Responsibility Laura P. Hartman, Joseph R. Desjardins, Chris MacDonald 9780078029455, 9781259060588, 9781259417856
