Category: Business Ethics

Bank Robberies and Business Crime

On By southwerkIn Business Ethics

Bank Robberies and Business Crime

I was looking at the FBI’s bank robbery statistics for 2009, interesting stuff. And it got me curious – what would business crime look like in terms of profitability by comparison?

 

Violations by Type of Institution

Robberies

Burglaries

Larcenies

Commercial Banks

4,495

44

10

Mutual Savings Banks

16

0

0

Savings and Loan Associations

105

3

0

Credit Unions

398

13

1

Armored Carrier Companies

0

0

1

Totals

5,014

60

12

This table is copied with sincere thanks to the FBI from http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/bank-crime-statistics-2011/bank-crime-statistics-2011

That’s 5,014 bank robberies. A little further down you find that the total take on all these robberies was $38,343,501.96. This comes out to an average of $7467.29. To get a middle class income you are going to have a rob several banks.*

Now, let’s have a look at a fairly typical business crime. Here’s a little quote from the SEC –

In a complaint unsealed yesterday afternoon in federal court in Denver, the SEC alleges that Kristine L. Johnson of Aurora, Colo., and Troy A. Barnes of Riverview, Mich., have raised more than $3.8 million since April 2014 from investors they enticed into buying positions in their company Work With Troy Barnes Inc., which is doing business as “The Achieve Community.”  In Internet videos and other web promotions, investors were pitched “you and anyone you know can make as much money as you want” by purchasing positions that cost $50 each, and as they progress through the matrix they would receive a $400 payout on each position within three to six months.  Barnes claimed to have hired a seasoned programmer to perfect the triple algorithm investment formula supposedly generating the extraordinary returns.

Unlike a bank robbery where deposits are insured by the federal government, there is little change of recovery under these circumstances. The federal government (SEC) alleges that the funds were used to pay returns for the earlier investors. If true, this would be a classic Ponzi-scheme.

294 Bank Robbed!

I ask you to compare the profits. By any standards, the alleged Ponzi is a much better use of time and probably far safer than bank robbery. If we assume a profit of 50%, that is 1.9 million dollars. A bank robber would have to rob on the average 294 banks to get the same return. If our bank robber hits one bank a day, he’s working more days than a legitimate job at considerable hazard and his work doesn’t have medical insurance or sick leave.

If you do the business crime instead, you get to wear nice clothes, choose your hours and if you figure your profits (1.9 million) by a forty hour week at 52 weeks, that is $918.46 an hour. Now, should you point out there were two of them, you would be right and therefore each would only be getting $409.23 an hour. I would kindly suggest that they didn’t work that many hours.

So, what’s my point? There is business ethics and there is criminal justice. Criminal justice curbs crime and crime pays poorly. Business ethics is also concerned with crime and on a scale undreamed of by the common criminal. Now, of course, the criminal justice is also concerned with business crime. After all the SEC is acting in this case.

But not all business crime is prosecuted and when it is, there are often only fines. Are you aware of the Holder doctrine? Here’s William D. Cohan’s take on it:

That Mr. Holder prefers large settlements to prosecutions is no surprise to anyone familiar with the so-called Holder Doctrine, which stems from his now-famous June 1999 memorandum — when he was deputy attorney general — that included the thought that big financial settlements may be preferable to criminal convictions because a criminal conviction often carries severe unintended consequences, like loss of jobs and the inability to continue as a going concern.

So, if a typical American citizen commits a crime he can expect to go to prison while a bank executive’s whose conviction might have “unintended consequences” will pay a fine. This is where the accused in the SEC case (referred to above) erred – they didn’t run a larger organization where there could be unintended consequences of prosecution.

So, in conclusion, business crime pays hundreds of times better than regular crime, and if done on a large enough scale, prosecution will be waived and fines imposed instead.

It makes it difficult to understand why anyone would want to do something so mundane as rob a bank.

James Pilant

* I have decided to call the amount of money made in an average bank robbery in 2009 – a Pilant Unit. That is, an average of $7467.29 so that the scale of business crime might be better described. In future articles I will refer to business crime in terms of these units. jp

Women Make Gains in California

On By southwerkIn Business Ethics
Women Make Gains in California
!!@@#dddddd444plate17-th
Women Make Gains in California

California’s legislature: Led by women, passing laws to help women.

The California Legislature passed nine bills aimed directly or indirectly at “women’s” issues. Calling them women’s issues seems inaccurate since they are quite legitimately society’s issues.

California is just one state but it is actually larger than most nations on earth and in the United States, its policies have at times become national policies. These legislative acts are in a real way an historical landmark, a turning point. And this follows my recent theme of women’s issues being the most important ethics issues before us. This is a time in which real change can happen. Social change often takes place in leaps. There is rarely constant and continual social change on any issue. When it come to progress, women’s issues have come to the front only for a few years at a time often followed by a bitter reaction.

But if my classes are good examples, the young women of today are angry and aware. That’s a good combination. They’re going to make things happen and as women gain more power, there may well be a kind of snowball effect with change forcing more change, something we’ve never seen before. I’d like that.

A lot of these are business ethics issues, for instance, airports must have private spaces for breastfeeding and there will be three guaranteed paid sick days a year.

An appreciation of the talents, skills and rights of all members of humankind strikes me as a good rule for all business ethics.

James Pilant

From the article:

Here’s what passed:

A bill requiring the state’s commercial airports to offer a clean, private space for mothers to breastfeed or pump.

A bill barring the sterilization of prison inmates

A bill establishing timelines for local law enforcement to process rape kits.

A bill expanding the definition of the word “harm” for the purposes of a restraining order to include and protect minors who were present during an act of domestic violence.

A bill making it easier for pregnant graduate students to finish their studies.

A bill bolstering Title IX enforcement.

A bill strengthening the California attorney general’s oversight of hospital mergers (mergers that could limit access to abortion services).

A bill requiring colleges to adopt an “affirmative consent” model in their sexual assault policies.

A bill ensuring all California workers have the right to earn and use three paid sick days a year.

via California’s legislature: Led by women, passing laws to help women..

Bankrupt in Thought ?

On By southwerkIn Business Ethics
Bankrupt in Thought
Bankrupt in Thought
Bankrupt in Thought

San Bernardino blues: Bankrupt city flailing amid financial overhaul | Al Jazeera America

What the city will spend money on is a new redevelopment guru to attract business investment to an area that turned the former Norton Air Force Base into the San Bernardino International Airport — an airport with a spanking-new passenger terminal to handle flights but, so far, no scheduled service from any airline.

via San Bernardino blues: Bankrupt city flailing amid financial overhaul | Al Jazeera America.

Confused?

I don’t understand. If the city is bankrupt, why is it spending money on business ventures?

The city is bankrupt but continues to spend money on business projects of an apparently dubious nature. The San Bernardino International Airport appears to be a major example of a verb large expenditure designed to attract business without proper planning. The article below might give you an idea of the planning for this airport (there’s another airport 23 miles away).

http://www.insidesocal.com/aviation/2014/03/05/have-you-ever-heard-of-san-bernardino-international-airport/

Or this article –

http://www.insidesocal.com/aviation/2014/04/09/san-bernardino-international-airport-a-quick-chat-wit-hteh-director/

But I’ve seen this before, many times. Cities will give out tax breaks to businesses, use eminent domain to seize property for private development and allocate some taxation powers to new malls, etc. Essentially they are getting rid of their own tax base. In addition, cities are building projects designed to attract business. There seems to always be politicians who are willing to invest tax money in dubious enterprises or as a reward for support. After all, it’s not their money. Furthermore, officeholders in cities may only serve for a few years. After that you need a new job. It’s good to have friends and one way to make friends is to give out lots of money.

Rahm Emanuel, the current mayor of Chicago and one of the most aggressive masters of the corporate handout, has little to fear if he loses his next election. He will no doubt find a safe harbor in a minimally six figure salaried job with any number of organizations what benefited from his “kindness.” Those benefits came straight from the taxpayers while he hammered those same taxpayers’ services.

http://preaprez.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/rahm-emanuel-worst-mayor-ever/

or

https://davestieber.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/hide-your-schools-hide-your-children-hide-your-homes-cause-hes-wrecking-it-all/

All over the United States, city political offices have become corporate benefactors, and by the time the citizens realize their city is being looted, the elected official has moved on to greener pastures.

If public service is your reward in a society where many people believe that money is the only thing of value, that’s a pretty thin reward. If you believe that money is the only thing of importance and that those fools who elected you should have known better, then why not close the public libraries and the schools so you have money to build a new stadium or an airport? Why not sell the right to collect money from the city’s parking meters and turn highways into toll roads administered from Dubai?

Do businesses have a moral obligation not to loot the cities and states they live in? Or is that just “business.”

Or are we seeing a new wave, a new movement? A new corporate attitude? Let’s loot the cities. Let’s loot the states. And then move our headquarters to Canada (or Ireland).

Is it parochial to believe that corporations should pay taxes and avoid collecting welfare from governments?

James Pilant

 

Business Ethics and Women

On By southwerkIn Business Ethics4 Comments
Women and Business Ethics
Women and Business Ethics

Business Ethics and Women

It seems the awareness of women’s treatment in business, politics and culture has never been at a higher pitch. And I can’t seem to escape the thought that women’s issues are the most important business ethics issues of our time. Considering the competition, that is a pretty extreme statements. Corporations are busily seeking the status of independent nations. A prominent bank paid the government ten billion dollars with six point six billion more “devoted” to the injured to avoid prosecution for tens of thousands of crimes. Studies are showing that fracking is destroying the health of many and literally destabilizing the earth beneath our feet. And yet here I am claiming that women’s issues are the most important.

Why?

We’re at a cultural crossroads. You can feel it. Certainly, my female students are expressing a greater degree of confidence and awareness than I have seen before. The essays on the internet and national headlines are all beginning to reflect an awareness and urgency to these issues.

For instance, I’m seeing a fairly constant stream of writing about the rape crisis in India and rage over the official indifference to the problem. This from a country where a month long corruption crisis merited a single brief column in the New York Times.

Misogyny is at an almost incomprehensible level. Sometimes, I think that every single woman hating male has his own web site. And what they say borders on the hysterical rantings of the paranoid. You get the real impression that they believe women are “organized’ against them, in a conspiracy to deny them status and sex, their rightful deserts for being male and straight.

And this Misogyny, this hatred of women, is the strongest sign of women’s changing status. This incoherent rage is not a sign of strength. It is a sign of weakness. It is similar to the scream of angst of the segregationists fifty years ago. That too, in the minds of the privileged was an assault on the very nature of things. Their fear is palpable and very real. They do not understand how to deal with a changing world in which they no longer command respect and male for simply being male.

Are there counter motions in the culture? Absolutely, some of them bizarre beyond rational belief. Virginity promises are forced on ten year olds. In the same tradition, there are virginity balls attended by fathers and daughters. What rational merit does virginity carry? What value does it have beyond assuring insecure males that they are the first and only sex partner for women? Women and men are capable of having sex on regular basis and so we ration it for women with the idea that it’s better like soup from an unopened can?

If you want to see full scale hard core objectification of women, attend an abstinence meeting where females are compared to wrapped presents, candy bars, roses, chewing gum and packing tape. Because these objects are just like women, once they are used they become less attractive. This is ridiculous and it is time to start calling these fools out. Women can have sex and carry the same value that they had before. Female sexuality should not frighten anyone anywhere. It’s natural for women to be sexual and to have sex.

Once again, these are desperate rear guard actions by people who realize that culturally they are losing ground. Confidence does not make a ten year old girl promise something she cannot understand. Confidence does not censor works of art or worry that a naked breast on television will result in sexual perversion across the nation. Fear and insecurity does those things.

These are all business ethics problems because we live in a nation of employment at will. Employers have the right to fire anyone for virtually any reason. Our cultural beliefs about women makes their employment conditional on their willingness to conform to our stereotypes. How many women today avoided some kind of behavior from wearing a dress or conversely slacks at work, to not speaking their minds, to not asking for time off for pregnancy or children and often just to appease some ridiculous male who’d happily give a male two weeks off to go fishing? How many women work in underpayed professions like nursing, teaching and child care? And how many women are unwilling to go into one profession or another because they know they will be treated badly?

This isn’t a business ethics problem. It’s a business ethics crisis. For goodness sakes, in the United States, more than half the population is affected.

It’s not just unfair. It’s not just wrong. It is counterproductive. It lowers the value of women’s contribution to society and does immense harm which we try to undo in small part with therapy and drugs. But far beyond that, in a world where woman cannot live at their potential, we all lose. Because in a society where people are valued and realize they are valued, we are all better off. Cruelty and unfairness are toxic and travel through the entire society like an infection diminishing us all. When these things change for the better, this nation will be a healthier place to live. We will have a better opportunity to have a richer emotional and spiritual lives.

That’s worth a struggle. That kind of world is worth fighting for.

So, I believe that women in the workplace are going to be the most important business ethics issue in our time.

James Pilant

Do Women Not Run for Office Because They’re Scared of Being Judged?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/08/13/why_more_women_don_t_run_for_office_a_new_study_says_they_don_t_like_being.html

After all, the reason that women are more afraid to offer themselves up for public judgment isn’t because women are inherently timid, as shown by their willingness to volunteer in the random selection groups. The likelier explanation is that women know, from experience, that the process of having a group evaluate your worthiness is a much more punishing experience for women, because you have to endure greater and more candid scrutiny than men do, a gender disparity that any foray into social media or parenting or Hollywood easily demonstrates.

I can’t help but observe that running for office in the United States is a bizarre trying experience in which women are often walking targets for cruel tactics. Perhaps women are not frightened but too smart to subject themselves to that kind of nonsense? jp

BYU’s Sex Ban Is Terrible for Victims of Sexual Assault

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/08/14/byu_s_sex_ban_keli_byers_speaks_out_in_cosmo.html

As a teenager, Byers was sexually assaulted by a man who had just returned from a Mormon mission. When she told her bishop about the assault, “I was banned from church for a month,” she writes. “I was punished because a man had touched me.” And now, at BYU, she is being shamed yet again by policies that have more consequences for women than men, like the dress code that’s framed as a way to “help men control their thoughts.”

When sex is not supposed to happen, it always seems to me that the rules are applied unequally with women expected not to give in to their base urges while boys will be boys. Inherent and obvious unfairness in role expectations have gone on too long.

Why These Women Who Saved Themselves For Marriage Don’t Masturbate

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/12/marriage-masturbation-women-save_n_5673198.html

“For me, and I think what the Bible shows us is that, the pleasure that comes from sex is part of something that is reserved for people who are married,” Velthouse said. “It’s one of the joys that comes from committing your whole life to a person. So sexual pleasure comes from my husband. When he’s not around, that’s not around either.”

It is entirely possible to get people to internalize behavior. Some of it is useful. For instance, I still look both ways crossing the street and I still signal a turn while driving even if there are no other cars there. However, it seems to me that this behavior, this absolute ban on sexual pleasure can’t help but complicate matters when sex does eventually happen. If your own body is a mystery to you, how are you going to be comfortable with somebody elses?

Girls on Film: The true cultural legacy of Sex, Lies, and Videotape

http://theweek.com/article/index/266366/girls-on-film-the-true-cultural-legacy-of-sex-lies-and-videotape

Even in the most masculine moments of Sex, Lies, and Videotape, Graham and John are powerless. They have their own particular techniques to assert their superiority — Graham’s seductive curiosity, John’s roaring sense of entitlement — and each is easily defeated. Graham is powerless against Ann’s questions and John’s violence; John tries to be powerful when he assaults Graham and kicks him out to watch Ann’s tape. They both push the women to a new understanding of themselves, and suffer the results.

Women have a lot of power. Even now. But it’s not across the board. But the power of sexuality is quite significant and as women assert their right to choose sexual partners and have pleasure on their own terms, a lot of other power will probably come their way.  jp

President Obama is Killing Net Neutrality

On By southwerkIn Business Ethics
President Obama is killing net neutrality
President Obama is killing net neutrality
President Obama is Killing Net Neutrality

I received an e-mail the other day. It was from the Daily Kos. They called upon me to “Thank President Obama for supporting net neutrality.”

I’m not signing.

The President said many times during the 2008 campaign that he was in favor of net neutrality, sometimes with great emphasis.

It is a trite phrase to say “Actions speak louder than words.” I believe the current phrasing is “He can talk the talk but can he walk the walk.”

Yes, Obama said the wonderful words, very important to me, a regular blogger who didn’t want his work placed on the slow lane.

But when it came time for action, he appointed Tom Wheeler as Chairman of the FCC.

Here’s a brief quote from Wikipedia?

Prior to working at the FCC, Wheeler worked as a venture capitalist and lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry, with positions including President of the National Cable Television Association (NCTA) and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA).

So, when it came time to put the soaring rhetoric into action, he found not a stalwart defender of the open internet, but an industry lobbyist, the proverbial fox in the chicken house.

Not surprisingly, new rules that allowed for the creation of fast lanes (not to mention enormous profits for the cable giants) were written. And there has been a tremendous outcry among we the people (defined as not well heeled corporate lobbyists) in opposition to those rules.

And the President once again leaps to the defense of net neutrality.

It is possible that having heard the public outcry that the President may actually envisage exerting some pressure to keep the open internet and preserve net neutrality. It may be possible that he can persuade the former industry lobbyist to defend the public interest.

It is possible but I recall the promises from before and I am not optimistic.

Is this a business ethics issue?

Yes, net neutrality is an issue of fairness, that all users be treated equally. But it is also a question of power. The huge cable companies will be able to pick and choose among users who is favored and who is not, like some great medieval king awarding fiefdoms to their followers. It will be one of the greatest transfers of power in the history of the world, power and money beyond the wildest dreams of avarice. A toll road for every message, every magnetic impulse on the information superhighway.

I exaggerate? We have some net neutrality now but when Netflix was negotiating with Comcast for higher speeds they found out who was boss. They were given an object lesson in just how slow things can become for the unfavored. And that’s not the only way, the big internet providers are putting the hammer down.

Who is more important here?

It would be nice to think that democracy could effect this issue, that more than million comments would sway the FCC from its path. But how much power is there in a mass of citizens as opposed to cable operators? Each one generates billions of dollars in profits. Each one has a team of corporate lobbyists and makes lavish campaign contributions. This year Comcast alone has made political contributions of $3,402,202 for the current election cycle and spent $18,810,000 on lobbying last year.

Citizens United has changed the power dynamic. Now corporations can literally bury the voice of the opposition. It’s a form of “corporate” democracy where the disputes are between corporations and the citizens are incidental factors. Net neutrality may be the beginning of the end for effective citizen participation.

I can’t help but feel insignificant in this struggle.

And what’s worse, if the world is changing in this direction, what will become of business ethics? Will we will settle in for a new limited form of business ethics designed to discourage employee theft and absenteeism? Will we discourage whistle blowing as an act of betrayal? Will the tales of Enron and World-com, and the tragedy of Bhopal be written out of our books as unfortunate but understandable aberrations?

This is a critical point in the history of business in the United States and the larger world. I don’t know what’s going to happen.

But I do know net neutrality is important and I know the President isn’t on our side whatever he says.

James Pilant

Buckets of Small Change

On By southwerkIn Business Ethics3 Comments
Buckets of Small Change
Buckets of Small Change

Buckets of Small Change

Insurance broker pays out $21K settlement to 73-year-old in buckets of small change

This is not just a business ethics violation, it is a failure of judgment. This act is petty and vindictive.

Adriana’s Insurance Service agreed to a settlement but following the letter rather than the spirit of the law acted with the maturity of a seven year old. They delivered the money in buckets of small change.

Besides being simply foolish and a failure of civil behavior, the act calls into question the business judgment of those running the company.

I tell my students that if they act as reasonable people and bend over backwards to conciliate those few clients whose reaction to a business problem is overwrought, they are virtually never going to be sued. I tell them that this may involve apologizing when you’re not wrong and returning money when you don’t have to. But avoiding conflict is a good long term strategy for a business, and besides, shouldn’t at the very least businesses act reasonably? And you are not in business to make enemies, you are in business to build trust and make friends and allies who cooperate with you in a quest for mutual advantage.

This organization obviously doesn’t mind conflict even at the most childish level. Are they making other decisions using this kind of judgment? Would you feel comfortable as a client knowing that if you have a dispute with the company, this is how they are going to act?

Bad business ethics, poor judgment and a failure to act as ladies and gentlemen is poor business practice. It is a failure of that common duty of civility we owe all other citizens.

James Pilant

Is Vitamin E Beneficial?

On By southwerkIn Business Ethics
fig17
Is Vitamin E Beneficial?

Is Vitamin E Beneficial?

Whether or not vitamin E should be taken or avoided is a continuing discussion. From what I see, there is no clear answer. Below I have listed three articles, one a study and two news articles reporting studies, that report negatively on the effects of vitamin E.

Vitamins E and C in the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Men: The Physicians’ Health Study II Randomized Trial

This study found no long term benefits to vitamin C or E in the prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Vitamin E Supplements Raise Risk of Prostate Cancer

This AARP newsletter references research showing that 400 I.U. of vitamin E increased the chance of prostate cancer.

Taking vitamin E linked to osteoporosis: research

This article from Yahoo news discusses a Japanese study showing vitamin E increased the rate of osteoporosis in mice.

Are Vitamins Useless?

In my last post – Are Vitamins Useless? – I discussed whether or not selling a product like vitamins whose main effect seems to some authorities as being nothing more than a placebo is ethical. My primary interest was in the business ethics implications. I freely admit that it is obvious that well supported arguments can be made for and against vitamins. There are countless studies on the subject.

However, supplements are a 12 billion dollar a year industry. They sponsor research and buy enormous ad time and quantity. There is little incentive to study from the opposite angle and no money at all in any commercial sense in opposing the sales. If this were a sponsored site with paid advertising, it might well have been a subject I would have been advised to avoid.

Under these circumstances, I am going to lean toward the skeptics. When there is an incredible amount of profit to be realized, I become suspicious. I am also well aware that selling a good and effective product is difficult, and by implication a useless and ineffective product is much easier to generate a profit from as long as you can keep the science confused and governmental regulators at a safe distance.

None of these products should be on the market without proof of their usefulness, their safety and their contents. The very sad tale of the young man dead of a caffeine overdose is a case in point.

Taking supplements is dangerous. You can overdose many vitamins with health effects ranging from discomfort to death. But at least vitamins have a long track record (however varied). The other supplements can be placed on the market without pre-clearance by any agency. Generally speaking, if they don’t cause harm, they don’t get investigated. So, how do you tell which one works and which one doesn’t? You could use yourself or your family as guinea pigs, and hope you can reason out the placebo effect. And since there are thousands of these product, it will take you several lifetimes and careful record keeping to come to some conclusions – although your sample size is too small to count as scientific evidence.

We should not be buying products based on the chance that the seller is telling us the truth about its contents and effects. We should buy products where there is some proof offered of usefulness and safety.

Vitamins and other supplements should be pre-cleared by the Food and Drug Administration before they can be sold.

James Pilant

 

Burglary and Banking

On By southwerkIn Business Ethics2 Comments

Burglary and Banking

What if we punished burglars the way we punish banks for crimes?

Let us assume the burglar steals one hundred high definition televisions from one hundred different homes and sells them for one hundred dollars each. He now has ten thousand dollars. If caught and convicted of all these offenses, his sentence could run into hundreds of years and he would be forced to restore any stolen property and profits derived from the sale of such property.

Now, let us use banking penalties – The same burglar steals the same number of sets and makes the same profit, 10,000 dollars. We catch him and after some negotiation he is willing to accept a fine but will not admit committing a crime. The fine is usually around ten percent of his ill-gotten gain, thus he owes the government, 1,000 dollars.

Obviously, he will not commit this same offense because of the stigma that now hangs over him from being caught committing a crime, and since his reputation has been damaged, no further punishment is necessary as a deterrent. And since, he is an upstanding and valued member of the community because many can buy inexpensive televisions due to his financial innovations, and a number of people who sell his “finds” rely on him for their jobs – for this man is indeed a job creator.

Now a cynic might point out that the burglar can replace all his losses from the fine by stealing just ten more televisions. And that if he is only caught ten percent of the time and has to pay ten percent of his gains each time, his penalty would only come to one percent of his criminal profits.

That is the situation the banks are in. To reiterate, if you pay a ten percent fine on your thefts and you are only caught ten percent of the time, you are out 1% of your profits.

Now, you are reasonable human being, if you were the burglar in this example and subject to these kinds of penalties would the pressure on you reform you or inspire you to even greater crimes?

James Pilant

On The Same Subject.

http://ronmamita.wordpress.com/2014/04/21/banking-fraud-under-attack/

What’s the Business Ethics? Should the Employees in Video Stores be Movie Buffs?

On By southwerkIn Business Ethics2 Comments

029What’s the Business Ethics? Should the Employees in Video Stores be Movie Buffs?

It seems like a good idea – knowing the product – being able to understand questions – give good recommendations. But they are not always move buffs. Sometimes, they know very little about films at all.

For me personally, this isn’t much of a problem, I am a film buff, myself and know what I want to rent or buy. Of course, sometimes they think they’re film buffs. I’m sorry, one recommendation, Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry, is never going to be a classic.

But let us return to the question: Should the employees in video stores be movie buffs? I think they should at least have some rudimentary knowledge because of something that happened to me.

Now, I live in the Bible belt and here among many there is a certain pride in not being cultured, knowledgeable or educated. One day I wander into a video rental place and have a look around. There’s a couple of John Wayne films that I had seen when I was in my teens that I wanted to watch again as an adult. So, I’m back there in the shelves looking for Rio Bravo and El Dorado, when I come across the film, Even Cowgirls Get the Blues.

I had seen Even Cowgirls Get the Blues. I don’t remember where. It may have been on cable or a friend rented it. I think it’s a pretty good film but generally I don’t watch lesbian films. Now I have seen a lot of films involving lesbians but this isn’t quite the same thing. The film is not a lesbian film so much as it is a LESBIAN film. It shouts and screams and at the top of its lungs proclaims that it is a lesbian film. Okay? LESBIAN!!! And as for rating, it’s a hard R. How hard? Think of steel or diamonds.

I immediately see a vision in my mind of a Bible belt family just home from church about to watch what they believe is the usual redemptive tale of a white hatted cowboy slaughtering bad guys or Native Americans and winding up with the appropriately virginal school teacher who cannot restrain her ardor for a man who kills so casually. And instead the family gets to learn about female sexuality in a new and controversial way.

So, I, a good citizen and business ethics teacher (which means I can’t so much as eat a grape in the supermarket – a student might see me) carry the film up to the front and ask the clerk to move it from Westerns.

The conversation goes like this.

“You say this film isn’t a Western?”

“That’s right.” I reply.

“Does it take place in the West?”

“Well, yes it does.” I admit.

“Are there actual cowgirls in it?”

“Well, they do wear chaps.” I was not willing to disclose the absence of other clothing.

“Then why should we move it?”

“Look, just watch it, okay?” I give up, not willing to explain the significance of Uma Thurman’s outsized thumbs.

He gives me that look which means “I will go through the motions of appearing to take your concerns seriously but as soon as you leave this is going back in the Westerns.”

And it was back there the next time I came in.

As business ethics go, this is a small problem, no matter how traumatized the formerly happy middle class family that sees it, may become.

And of course, I did my ethical duty, so I can feel good about myself. But maybe, just maybe it would be a better world if the sales clerks in video rental places knew more about films.

James Pilant

Real White Male Privilege?

On By southwerkIn Business Ethics

042-1Real White Male Privilege?

I knew something like this was going on. I’ve seen my female fellow students get low level employment while the males went into management and other lucrative career paths. But I didn’t know it was this bad.

But there was an experience of mine that bears a little on this. I am a white male but one of my proudest accomplishments was being invited to join the Black Student Society where I went to college. You see, they had lost their certification as a campus organization and I worked to get it back – so I was invited. I was a member in good standing through thick and thin until I left for law school three years later.

And being very proud of it, I put it on my resume.

I think you can figure out the rest of the story. Only when I pulled that off my resume did I start getting responses to my job inquiries.

It’s not just women.

This is a continuing problem in business ethics. First, it’s not fair to penalize people in hiring and promotion because of their sex. Second, it’s foolish to not have your best in the most appropriate positions for skills.

Now, I want you to treat women fairly because it is right but do note that it also very foolish to discriminate in this manner.

James Pilant

For much more detail, please go to the web site below –

Female ‘A+’ Students End Up Making As Much As Male ‘C’ Students.

From Around the Web.

From the web site, Why Evolution is True.

There are some interesting comments here on the same subject.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/09/22/new-study-shows-gender-bias-against-female-students/