Category: business ethics

Protecting the Public?

On By southwerkIn business ethics

!!@@#dddddd444193mProtecting the Public?

Government exists to protect people industry.

James Pilant

Republicans in North Carolina want to make it a felony to disclose fracking chemicals – Salon.com

Just when we thought we were making the first steps toward transparency in fracking — in the form of EPA indicating it might require frackers, at long last, to reveal the names of the chemicals they blast into the ground in order to extract oil and gas — three GOP state senators in North Carolina stepped in to put a stop to all that.

The senators, who seemed to have taken a page out of the ag-gag book, last week introduced a bill that would slap any individual who disclosed information about confidential chemicals with a felony charge. Such individuals could include fire chiefs and health care providers, who might require access to the information in order to respond to emergencies. Environmental groups see the provision allowing for easy access to that information as a good thing, but worry about the bill’s harsh terms for making sure those in-the-know keep it to themselves.

via Republicans in North Carolina want to make it a felony to disclose fracking chemicals – Salon.com.

From Around the Web.

From the web site, Lenin2u.

http://lenin2u.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/fracking-chemicals/

Shale needs to be fracked using a mixture of hot water, sand, and poisonous chemicals, the composition of which fracking companies claim to be proprietary secrets, and disclosing them would make them less competitive. However, scientists who have analyzed fracking fluid discovered the following substances common to diesel fuel: Benzene, Ethylbenzene, Toluene, Xylene, Naphthalene, Methanol, Formaldehyde, Ethylene glycol, Glycol ethers, Hydrochloric acid, Sodium hydroxide. Most fracking companies surveyed by a 2010 Congressional Committee admitted that diesel fuel is part of their fracking mixture. Where diesel fuel was not used, chemical mixtures includes high levels of benzene, a tiny amount of which can poison millions of gallons of water.

Theo Colburn, PhD, director of the Endocrine Disruption Exchange, Colorado, identified 65 chemicals that are probably used in fracking fluids. These included benzene, glycol-ethers, toluene, and ethanol, all of which have been linked to health problems when human exposure is too high. In 2012, ShaleTest visited many fracking sites in North Texas, monitoring ambient air using stainless steel summa canisters. Results showed the presence of the known carcinogen benzene. “It is unacceptable that the natural gas industries are ignoring the devastating impacts they have on citizens and the environment”, commented Susan Sullivan, board member of ShaleTest.

Another study in 2012, led by Lisa McKenzie, Ph.D., MPH, of the Colorado School of Public Health, concluded that air pollution caused by fracking may contribute to acute and chronic health problems for those living near natural gas drilling sites. The study, based on three years of monitoring, found benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene and xylene in the air around the frack sites. Other chemicals included heptane, octane and diethylbenzene ‘The greatest health impact corresponds to the relatively short-term, but high emission, well completion period’. The study said that this was due to exposure to trimethylbenzenes, aliaphatic hydrocarbons, and xylenes, all of which have neurological and/or respiratory effects, including eye irritation, headaches, sore throat, and difficulty in breathing. … ‘We also calculated higher cancer risks for residents living nearer to the wells as compared to those residing further’, the report said. ‘Benzene is the major contributor to lifetime excess cancer risk from both scenarios’.

When Duty Called …

On By southwerkIn business ethics

377mWhen Duty Called …

We know today that during the disastrous meltdown at the Fukushima facilities, most of the nuclear plant workers, those highly trained individuals, bold and brave, willing to stay when everything is going wrong and a possible disaster threatens us all, when confronted with an actual nuclear disaster decided to take a day off and fled the scene.

Goodness! Does this call into question all those scenarios where the nuclear plant is in trouble and the steely eyed, workers (who will be played by Tom Cruise in the later film) work those controls, klaxons sounding in the background, and bring that reactor back from the brink?

The government and TEPCO kept this from their public and us until now. It’s embarrassing. After all, if you’ve telling a story of courage and stalwart endurance in the face of nation-wide danger, the revelation that the last ditch defenders against nuclear disaster were searching their pockets for car keys may be less than edifying.

If you think this constitutes an argument against nuclear energy, you’re right.Those systems designed to stop nuclear disaster aren’t all automatic. They need human guidance, and if the workers flee, only the thinnest of chances protects us from disaster.

James Pilant

Business Ethics Implications –

The workers violated their duty to their nation, friends and relatives by leaving their stations. It seems obvious that TEPCO, the utility company, did not properly prepare for the incident and its management handled the events poorly. The Japanese government and TEPCO have actively suppressed information regarding the incident and its aftermath.

If you are a student writing a paper about an incident in which a lack of business ethics actively contributed to the disaster, this is a good topic with abundant sources.

James Pilant

Panicked workers abandoned Fukushima as the nuclear disaster unfolded, report reveals

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/20/panicked_workers_abandoned_fukushima_as_the_nuclear_disaster_unfolded_report_reveals/

As a nuclear disaster began to unfold at the Fukushima No. 1 plant, a full 650 of the 720 workers on hand panicked and abandoned the scene, a previously undisclosed report reveals.

That’s a very different version of events than the one put forward by TEPCO, the plant’s operator, which has said that it evacuated most of its workers, leaving a small, dedicated team behind to risk their lives fighting to contain the crisis. …

When Duty Called,

They Did Not Hesitate,

They Ran Like Hell.

(my thoughts, not in the original article, jp)

The Japanese government confirmed the report, but did not explain why it had been kept secret. TEPCO countered only that Yoshida’s vague order to withdraw to “low radiation areas” technically could have referred to the No. 2 plant, and said that it therefore didn’t consider those workers to have violated orders.

That the plant experienced such a severe breakdown in its chain of command during the 2011 earthquake and tsunami becomes all the more relevant as the Japanese government moves to restart the country’s other nuclear reactors, which were temporarily shut down after the disaster. As the Asahi article notes, “Yoshida’s testimony raises questions about whether utility workers can be depended upon to remain at their posts in the event of an emergency.”

From Around the Web.

From the web site, Japan Safety, Nuclear Power Updates.

http://japansafety.wordpress.com/2014/03/27/tepco-under-calculated-radiation-exposure-for-142-fukushima-workers-rt/

Tepco under-calculated radiation exposure for 142 Fukushima workers — RT

March 27, 2014

” Tokyo Electric Power Co. underestimated internal radiation exposure of 142 workers involved in immediate emergency operations at the damaged Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant in March 2011, according to Japan’s Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry.

After reexamining exposure records provided by TEPCO, the Ministry said Tuesday it had increased the 142 workers’ radiation data by an average of 5.86 millisieverts, The Asahi Shimbun reported.

The Ministry said one male employee was exposed to 180 millisieverts. He was initially reported to have been exposed to around 90 millisieverts.

Two other workers were exposed to radiation of 50 to less than 100 millisieverts, the Ministry found.

According to the International Commission on Radiological Protection a person should be exposed to no more than one millisievert per year from all sources of radiation, though it says only doses of more than 100 millisieverts are associated with a higher risk of cancer.

…

Repent and support fast lanes

On By southwerkIn business ethics

As serious as this subject is, I can still find time to get the joke!

My Letter to the FCC Board

On By southwerkIn business ethics

This is an excellent, eloquent piece of writing directed at the FCC. If you are going to write a letter in the same spirit, you should use some of these points! jp

weszor's avatarThe Sky Thief

Public opinions are now open via an official FCC email regarding the proposed net neutrality rules proposed this week by the board and Chairman Wheeler. This is what I wrote. You can send your own at openinternet@fcc.gov and I urge you to do so.
—————————-
To FCC Board Members and Chairman Wheeler,

My name is Wes Smith, and I wanted to make a statement regarding the proposed net neutrality regulations recently put forth by the board members of your committee. I do not feel that these proposed rules will leave a positive effect on the internet and will ultimately hurt consumers, stifle innovation, and establish a harmful precedent for future technological advances.

I understand that Mr. Wheeler has stated that there will careful regulation of business practices, essentially stating that companies purchasing faster access to customers is ok so long as internet providers do not place other websites in a…

View original post 426 more words

Steaming Mad

On By southwerkIn business ethics

I agree. This is important. You should add your voice. jp

Net Neutrality, A Student Site!

On By southwerkIn business ethics

023!!@@#dddddd444Net Neutrality, A Student Site!

I search the Internet for sites of interest almost daily. There are so many sites with great writing and a lot of passion. They often are up for a year or six month, … and then there are no more posts. It’s like the skeleton left after a body decomposes.

So, I try to encourage people to post and keep on posting. I ran across this student, David Watson, and his web site on net neutrality. I like his attitude and his writing.

Please give him a read and encourage him to continue posting and developing his ideas.

James Pilant

Net Neutrality, Don’t get caught in the slow lane!

http://com472netneutrality.wordpress.com/

We connect to the web using pipes owned by major telephone and cable companies. These companies such as Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner, and AT & T want to change that. They want to establish their own parts of the web, and to make sites pay them more money to use it.  Now they would like to charge you for access to the network, and then charge you again for the things you do while you’re online. These big companies want to set up a restricted fast-lane on the internet, a fast-lane that would only be usable for their partners and services that have complied with the additional fees. In order to achieve this, these companies will be destroying one of the internet’s founding principles known as net neutrality.

This issue is meaningful to me because if net neutrality becomes a reality, innovators who want to start small and work there way up to the top and become the big thing will be shut out of the big picture and their dreams will be destroyed. There are rules in place to prevent internet service providers from blocking or “unreasonable discriminating” against any legal website or other piece of online content. If they eliminate net neutrality, they will be destroying one of the internet’s founding principles known as net neutrality. These rules guarantee equal opportunities for all web sites and internet technologies. Without those rules, the internet will turn into how you can buy a cable package today that has some channels and excludes others.

A Guide To DWP Euphemisms

On By southwerkIn business ethics

They use the same language tricks here in the United States particularly the word, reform.

richardhutton's avatarA New Place Of Exile

"I love you this much" “I love you this much”

‘Reintroducing fairness to the welfare system’ – introducing means-testing in order to dismantle the welfare system.

‘Fairness’ – discriminating against people.

‘Creating a system based on fairness’ – ignoring need, in favour of targets.

‘Work experience’ – unpaid labour.

‘Fit to work’ – somebody suffering from an incapacitating condition, whose heart still beats.

‘Tough’ – punitive.

‘Tough but fair’ – punitive and arbitrary.

‘Employment Support Allowance’ – financial support for people incapable of retaining employment due to illness/disability.

‘Unconditional support’ – strictly conditional support.

‘Scrounger’ – somebody who is poor.

‘Hardworking people’ – people on very high salaries, such as company executives.

‘Striver’ – somebody who works for a low salary, and who doesn’t object to a pay cut. Alternatively, somebody who works for a high salary, and who doesn’t object to a pay rise.

‘Skiver’ – somebody who is temporarily too ill to work…

View original post 506 more words

How to deny, discount, and dismiss bullying and psychological abuse at work

On By southwerkIn business ethics

The always invaluable David Yamada has a new post. Please read and then sign up as a follower for his blog. James Pilant

David Yamada's avatarMinding the Workplace

A recent blog piece by psychologist Kenneth Pope explaining how reports of torture can be easily denied, discounted, and dismissed strongly resonated with my understanding of the dynamics of bullying and abuse at work. I thought it worth sharing and discussing with readers here.

Three cognitive strategies

Dr. Pope identifies “three common cognitive strategies for denying, discounting, dismissing, or distorting instances of torture and for turning away from effective steps to stop it and hold those responsible accountable”:

First, “reflexively dismissing all evidence as questionable, incomplete, misleading, false, or in some other way inadequate.”

Second, “using euphemism, abstraction, and other linguistic transformations” to hide the abuse.

Third, by “turning away: ‘I’m not involved,’ ‘There is nothing I can do about it,’ ‘I have no authority, jurisdiction, power, or influence,’ ‘This is no concern of mine,’ etc.”

Applied to workplace bullying

I quickly thought of workplace bullying when I read this blog post.

View original post 182 more words

Net Neutrality Under Attack

On By southwerkIn business ethics2 Comments

hedgeNet Neutrality Under Attack

I guess it is the nature of the beast. Whenever a profit can be made by converting a public asset into a private one, the knives are out. The reasons for net neutrality are so obvious and so important, it should not be necessary for me to repeat them here. The idea of favoring one user over another has one major advantage over net neutrality, the enormous profits possible on services already provided.

James Pilant

Net neutrality: What is it, and why is the U.S. about to lose it? | Al Jazeera America

For decades, Americans have taken for granted that every website, service and app is treated equally by their Internet service providers. This principle, dubbed Net neutrality, is what allows startups and large corporations to compete on a level playing field, ensuring that Internet providers can’t pick winners and losers by blocking websites or having some load faster than others.

But Internet advocates warn that under a new set of rules scheduled to be introduced by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on Thursday, this guarantee will be effectively gone, allowing Internet service providers to give prioritized access to websites that pay a premium — and slower service to everyone else.

The FCC proposal would be welcome news for broadband Internet providers like Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner Cable, some of which have already begun experimenting with charging online services for fast-lane access to their customers. FCC chairman Tom Wheeler has tried to reassure critics that these arrangements would be strictly regulated on a case-by-case basis. But a growing coalition of Net neutrality advocates, tech companies, investors and members of Congress have slammed the anticipated proposal, calling it “a threat to the Internet” as a domain for free speech and commerce.

“It’s going to be ruinous for innovation online,” said April Glaser, an activist with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “It directs people away from newer, innovative services that might not be able to afford that price tier.”

via Net neutrality: What is it, and why is the U.S. about to lose it? | Al Jazeera America.

From Around the Web.

From the web site, Andelino’s Weblog.

http://andelino.wordpress.com/2014/05/16/net-neutrality/

What could that mean for me, in English, please?

First off, the web could get more expensive. The impact on the average Internet user will likely not be felt right away. But over time, websites would probably pass on to consumers the costs of paying for high-speed access, according to Harold Feld, a senior vice president at the consumer group Public Knowledge.

In addition, it could become difficult to view certain websites owned by companies that can’t afford to pay for access to an Internet fast lane, Feld said.

On top of Internet users potentially paying more, they would also be more confused, Feld said. Under the proposed rules, people would need to make sense of a fragmented Internet landscape where the time it takes to load an online video would depend on whether that website paid extra to their Internet provider. Consumers may start choosing their Internet providers based on which websites they like to visit.

Feld compared the situation to the exclusive deals that AT&T and Apple once made that only allowed AT&T subscribers to purchase the iPhone.

This sounds pretty frustrating. It would be. Under the FCC’s proposed rules, the quality of online streaming services like Netflix or HBO Go would depend on whether those services are paying your Internet provider or not, Feld said.

“It will become more fragmented and more frustrating,” he added.

The proposed rules could affect not just entertainment, but also education. If schools use an online curriculum made by a company that cut a deal with Verizon, students who subscribe to Verizon’s Internet service at home would have an advantage over other students who subscribe to another provider, Feld said.

How to “Do Your Homework” and Be a Critical Consumer of News

On By southwerkIn business ethics

04hThis is simple intelligence. I wish everybody did this. Remember, I emphasize over and over again the importance of facts and reason in business ethics. How do you get those watching nonsense on television?