Mobility and loyalty in labour relations: an Israeli case

Employee mobility is a phenomenon that challenges workplace ethics. This paper argues that despite on-going attempts by management and consultants to build and install employee loyalty, and despite the complexity of relationships between employees and their organization, employee mobility remains a common phenomenon in today's market. Courts, at least Israeli courts, perceive the employee–employer relationship as almost purely contractual and thus strive to protect workers first, often ignoring deeper commitments such as loyalty. This results in a certain dissonance in the relationships between employees and employers.     

Organizational characteristics and HRM policies on rights: Exploring the patterns of connections

The protection of employee rights in the workplace is one of the fundamental ethical questions facing organizations today. Organizations differ in the extent to which they protect the rights of both employees and themselves as employers, yet little research has examined the types of organizations that have rights protection policies. Instead of the classic normative approach to ethical issues, this study took a contextual approach to the management of rights in the workplace through human resource policies. Associations were found between the organizational characteristics of size, industry, unionization, business condition, and the existence of employee and employer rights policies. Additional analyses revealed underlying dimensions in right policies and the relationship of organizational characteristics to these aspects of rights management were examined. The results are discussed in terms of understanding human resource rights management within an organizational context.Catherine E. Schwoerer is an Assistant Professor in the School of Business at the University of Kansas. Her research interests include work place rights and responsibilities, training and development, self-efficacy, and aging and work.Douglas R. May is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Management at the University of Nebraska. His research interests include social issues management and the impact of the physical environment on employees' attitudes and health.Benson Rosen is Hanes Professor of Management and Chairman of Management Area at the Kenan-Flagler Business School, The University of North Carolina. He is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association and a member of the Academy of Management.     

Dealing with problem employees: A legal guide for employers

One of the more difficult responsibilities of employers is dealing with problem employees. Employee misconduct and poor performance can lead to productivity issues, morale problems, and inferior quality products. For these reasons, it behooves employers to address performance issues rather than allow them to fester. By understanding which federal employment laws can be triggered when making employment decisions, avoiding common mistakes in applying these laws, and implementing key policies, employers can provide structures in the workplace that allow them to address problems effectively and minimize their legal exposure.     

Corporate Social Responsibility,Product Differentiation Strategy and Export Performance

This article examines why an organization might wish to manage workplace romance, and describes a number of alternative approaches to managing dating. At first sight the ethics of dating bans balances the need to protect female employees from harassment against employee rights to privacy and freedom of association – a rights versus rights issue. However, dating bans seem not to be directed at protecting female employees from harm, but rather protect employers from sexual harassment liability claims – an employer self-interest versus employee rights issue. This article advocates a consequentialist approach to the problem, via the factoring in of other harms caused by prohibiting workplace romance. Given that most workplace romances end up in marriage or long-term partnerships, a ban on workplace romance is argued to be antisocial. The incidence of sexual harassment is very low in comparison to the number of long-term relationships initiated in the workplace. This article concludes by citing examples of firms that encourage romance, showing that is feasible to manage any resulting problems within these firms’ existing conflict of interest and sexual harassment rules.     

Non-compete agreements: How fiduciary duty and covenants not to compete restrict managers’ mobility

Companies spend time and money training employees; in the case of a merger or acquisition, they spend resources such as cash, stock, and debt. It makes sense, then, that they do not want an employee to take the expertise the company underwrote to a competitor. Thus, employment contracts will often include non-compete clauses—sometimes known as covenants not to compete—which state that the employee cannot move to a competitor for a certain period of time. Though not all employees have the heightened fiduciary duty of board members and officers, they frequently have signed agreements that, at least on paper, restrict their employment mobility. Not only have officers and board members often signed such agreements as well, but they also have fiduciary duties further restricting their new employment plans. In decades of teaching courses in the legal environment of business as well as in business ethics, no topic flummoxes students more than this one. After all, in a free country, a person should be able to work where they wish, right? How can such restrictions be fair? Legally and ethically, this is a complicated area and one in which the old lawyer’s answer—it depends—is true. This article provides some parameters for employees and employers to know when fiduciary duty precludes certain employees from moving to a new company, including when those are legal in what ways they are fair.     

Owing loyalty to one's employer

Neither employer expectations of loyalty, nor good treatment of employees by employers, nor employee appreciation of employers, nor the duty of nonmaleficence, nor the intention to be loyal, nor the duty not to act disloyally provide a basis for a moral or ethical duty of employee loyalty. However, in addition to the law, a pledge to be loyal can obligate one to be loyal. But if the specific content of such a pledge is unstated, the conduct required by the pledge may be indefinite. Moreover, the content and implications of loyalty are fluid, varying from context to context. Consequently, there is only a limited basis for the thesis that employees owe loyalty to their employers.Raymond S. Pfeiffer is Professor of Philosophy at Delta College. He holds a Ph.D. from Washington University (Philosophy), is at heart an islander, and works largely in the area of applied philosophy, with recent articles published on collective moral responsibility, corporate personhood, oppression, and interpersonal manipulation.     

A study of individuals' ethical beliefs and perceptions of electronic mail privacy

While electronic mail has enjoyed rapid growth in the workplace, many companies have failed to establish clear expectations among employees about their e-mail privacy rights. This has resulted in controversy and even lawsuits against employers where employees later learned that management personnel monitored or read their electronic communications. It has been speculated that most employees underestimate the legal right of their employer to engage in e-mail monitoring activities. However, this issue has been virtually unexplored from a research perspective. Consequently, the purpose of this study is to assess individuals' ethical beliefs and perceptions about electronic mail privacy. This study of more than 200 e-mail users reveals that there is significant resistance to e-mail monitoring, and that many individuals have a relatively poor understanding of their e-mail privacy rights. The results also suggest that companies need to develop and communicate a policy to employees that addresses this issue. Finally, this study suggests several possibilities for further research. Building a greater body of knowledge of this domain should assist business leaders and lawmakers as they work to formulate an effective response to this workplace challenge that will equitably balance the rights of employees and employers.James J. Cappel is a Doctoral candidate and Teaching Fellow in Business Computer Information Systems. He has published six articles in refereed journals in the United States and Great Britain, including a recent article in theJournal of Systems Management. His research interests include human-computer interaction and legal and ethical issues in information systems.     

Human rights in industrial relations – the Israeli approach

Basic human rights are supposed to protect people from abuse and harm. They are the means whereby we protect our humanity. One would expect, therefore, that basic human rights would be valid and sacred in any context, including industrial relations. However, the complexity of the employee–employer relationship obscures this issue, and it is not clear whether such rights can be protected or whether they are valid in the context of industrial relations. Since rights are relational, they are preconditioned on the special nature of the relationship between employee and employer. Hence, the specific meaning that these rights have in industrial relations cannot be grounded in the notion of human rights as such, but rather depends on the special relationships between employers and employees. Though much legislation has been passed to regulate the relationship between employees and employers, the issues surrounding this relationship remain one of the most debated topics in business ethics. Our paper focuses specifically on the right to equal pay and the right to privacy. With respect to the right to property, the paper examines whether there is a conflict between general human rights and the fundamental right of employers to their property. The Israeli legislature has responded to this conflict by enacting 'protective laws' that legally outline and mandate certain human rights. Under these laws, employees are prevented and prohibited from waiving the rights granted to them by law, even if employed in private industries. Despite this legislative effort, market forces are at times stronger, and consequently some basic rights are not fully applied or implemented.     

Exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act: The cost of misclassifying employees

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 created two classes of employees—those who are paid for each hour of their labor and those who are given a salary due to the administrative, professional, or executive nature of their responsibilities. The FLSA created exemptions from the hourly wage laws for executive and administrative employees who are paid a salary. Therefore, employers must classify each employee correctly or risk substantial damage payments for lost overtime hours. The law contains a two-fold test for exempting positions from the law's overtime provisions. The first prong of the test is that the position pays a regular salary that essentially does not vary according to either the quality or quantity of work performed. The second prong involves the position's primary duties as being executive or administrative. (The article does not discuss the professional exemption.) The executive-duties test is that the position directs the equivalent of two or more full-time employees in managing a recognized department or subdivision of an enterprise. To meet the administrative test, the position's primary duty must involve the exercise of discretion or independent judgment relating to management policies or conduct of the business.     

The responsible shareholder: a case study

Shareholders are sometimes considered to be, in moral terms, the owners of a company, they are after all the carriers of the residual liabilities and bear a higher proportion of the financial risk. However, in company law, the shareholders' responsibility is limited, and in financial terms shareholders are only liable up to the fully paid value of the share certificate. Moreover, when the shares are sold, the responsibility and risk are transferred completely to the new bearer of the shares. Whether this gap in moral and legal perceptions can be judged to be satisfactory in business ethics terms is a moot point and will be partly explored in this case study which seeks to analyse the shareholder's responsibility towards a firm in which they own shares. The case study company chosen as a vehicle to explore these issues is that of Turner & Newall; a company that subjected its employees, communities and customers to a major health hazard – asbestosis. This paper will use the Turner & Newall archive materials to illustrate the moral hazards that can arise for shareholders. In particular it will examine the ethical responsibilities of shareholders towards those stakeholders who were exposed to the dangers of asbestos. This case is a significant test of the veracity of the legal system of company control, and exposes the ineffectiveness of that system in accountability terms. The case study also deals with specific issues that arose in the asbestos crisis, as well as with more general issues in our present system of corporate governance and shareholder responsibilities.     

论股东对公司债权人的直接责任

公司不能清偿债务,同时存在股东虚假出资或抽逃出资的情况,债权人在何种情况下可要求股东直接承担责任,《关于审理公司纠纷案件若干问题的规定(一)》(征求意见稿)于第六部分就股东对债权人的直接责任问题加以规定。股东对公司债权人直接承担责任的理论基础是揭开公司面纱即公司人格否认原则。滥用公司人格是导致股东对公司债权人直接承担责任的法定事由。     

Financialization and the Employee Suicide Crisis at France Telecom

The privatization of France Telecom (FT) in 1997 led to the implementation of a profit-oriented financialization strategy. An unforgiving work environment was developed, which has unsettled many employees. Between February 2008 and October 2011, 69 employees took their own life. Many left notes blaming management for having privileged the interests of shareholders over those of employees. Through interviews with employees and professional practitioners associated with FT, we reveal that employees strongly resented the company’s use of financialization policies to maximize shareholder value. Pursuit of such policies led to the de-institutionalization of socially prescribed norms that were applied commonly in Continental European workplaces. Feelings of anomie, disgrace, futility and isolation ensued among employees. This case highlights an important effect of a modern corporation’s adoption of financialization policies. It points to the need to improve workplace sensitivities and the ethical dispositions of companies and their managers.     

Enhancing Employee Voice: Are Voluntary Employer–Employee Partnerships Enough?

One of the essential ethical issues in the employment relationship is the loss of employee voice. Many of the ways employees have previously exercised voice in the employment relationship have been rendered less effective by (1) the changing nature of work, (2) employer preferences for flexibility that often work to the disadvantage of employees, and (3) changes in public policy and institutional systems that have failed to protect workers. We will begin with a discussion of how work has changed in the last 20 years in countries like Australia and the United States, and then take up the issue of employees as organizational stakeholders and the ethical duties that are owed them, with special attention given to issues of power. We will then consider whether voluntary action by employers such as social auditing is sufficient to ensure equity for employees, and conclude with a discussion of how changes in public policy might ensure greater fairness in the employment relationship by bringing employers and employees together in partnership.     

Theory to practice: HIV/AIDS policies in operation within British retailing

Despite recent scientific advancements, Human Immune Deficiency Virus (HIV)/ Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) remains a serious health issue for those involved in employee management. The introduction of the Disability Discrimination Act (1995) has meant that increased numbers of HIV/AIDS infected workers are able to remain in employment, fully protected by this legislation. Because of the nature and characteristics of retail employment, it is suggested that retailers have an increased likelihood of encountering employees and/or customers with the disease, compared with most other industries. This paper examines one particular aspect of the challenge facing retailers, notably that of the ‘operationalization’ of their HIV/AIDS policies into practices, especially in terms of company selection rocesses, education and training, employee relations and employee assistance programmes. Data were collected from a number of leading retail companies, ¹ from which, important observations can be made with regard to retailers' attitudes towards employee welfare in general, and in relation to HIV/AIDS in particular. The research results indicate potential discrimination in terms of employee selection involving a significant number of major retailers, and little comprehensive education/training on HIV/AIDS occurring, despite evidence of disruptive behaviour by staff. In addition, the findings provide evidence that even major companies find it difficult to balance issues of employee welfare against the financial concerns of the organization, in terms of assisting affected employees.     

Staff Attitudes to Talking Openly About Ethical Dilemmas: The Role of Business Ethics Conceptions and Trust

To ensure ethical employee behavior, companies often utilize several forms of mostly one-way communication such as codes of conduct. The extent to which these efforts, in addition to informing about the company stance on ethics, are able to positively influence behavior is disputed. In contrast, research on business ethics communication and behavior indicates a relatively clear, positive link between open workplace dialogue about ethical issues and ethical conduct. In this article, I therefore address the question: What influences employee attitudes to talking openly about ethical issues? Answers are proposed on the basis of focus group interviews with staff at the Denmark and Brazil affiliates of the global healthcare company Novo Nordisk. It was found that interest in discussing ethical issues was influenced by two main factors: employee conceptualizations of business ethics and the level of inter-collegial trust, credibility, and confidence. In this article, by examining these phenomena, I aim at providing insight that can both inform scholars in these fields as well as help managers in their attempts to promote open workplace dialogue about ethical issues.     

Managing millennials: Embracing generational differences

The topic of the Millennial Generation in the workplace drives much business conversation, as members of this generation form a growing percentage of the employee base. Both popular media and scholarly literature have painted the population of younger workers in an uncharitable light. The goals of this article are to contextualize the results of a large, empirical study in a more favorable manner and to suggest that embracing generational differences provides an opportunity as well as a challenge. This article examines traits of the different generations, in addition to the relationship between organizational commitment and workplace culture. We present findings that show millennials (also known as Generation Y, or Gen Y) as the only generational group that does not conceptually link organizational commitment with workplace culture. This group also thinks of work differently than members of the other generations, yet these differences can be understood through a managerial lens focusing on qualities such as duty, drive, and reward. We argue that by changing performance evaluation metrics to encompass a greater variety of measures, managers can provide a more detailed picture of the employee's work, and thus impact the worker's sense of duty. Additionally, by providing a more transparent workplace, employers can increase the employee's drive and clearly demonstrate the reward that workers will receive. Finally, changes that help newer employees adjust to the workplace can also allow the organization to operate more efficiently, benefiting employees of all generations.     

Investigating the Impacts of Organizational Factors on Employees’ Unethical Behavior Within Organization in the Context of Chinese Firms

Unethical behavior is under-examined in the workplace. To date, few studies have attempted to explore the antecedents of an employee’s ethical decisions, particularly with respect to unethical behavior and its effects. To capture an employee’s psychological perception of unethical behavior in the workplace, this paper integrates organizational factors (codes of conduct, likelihood of detection, and performance pressure) into the Theory of Reasoned Action. By conducting an empirical study in a Chinese firm, we found that codes of conduct and performance pressure have a significant influence on an employee’s attitude toward and social beliefs about unethical behavior. We also demonstrated that employees’ unethical behaviors affect the firm performance of an entrepreneurial venture. The insights gleaned from the findings on this Chinese company have a number of important implications for both research and practice.     

The internal disclosure policies of private-sector employers: An initial look at their relationship to employee whistleblowing

Whistleblowers have usually been treated as outcasts by private-sector employers. But legal, ethical, and practical considerations increasingly compel companies to encourage employees to disclose suspected illegal and/or unethical activities throughinternal communication channels. Internal disclosure policies/procedures (IDPP's) have been recommended as one way to encourage such communication.This study examined the relationship between IDPP's and employee whistleblowing among private-sector employers. Almost 300 human resources executives provided data concerning their organizations' experiences.Executives in companies with IDPP's reported a significant increase in the number of internal disclosures by employees after implementation. Respondents also reported a significant decrease in the number of external disclosures after implementation of their IDPP. When the level of employee disclosures in companies with IDPP's was compared to those in companies without IDPP's, the overall level of internal disclosures was significantly higher among employers who had the internal policies/procedures. Respondents also reported a marginally significant association between the responsiveness of management to employee-voiced concerns and the level of internal disclosures by employees. Possible interpretations of these results are discussed, and their implications for private-sector employers are addressed.Tim Barnett is an Assistant Professor of Management at Louisiana Tech University. His current research interests include ethical issues in human resources management and ethical decision making. His work has appeared in various journals, including theJournal of Business Research, theJournal of Business Communication, and theJournal of Business Ethics.Dan Cochran is a Professor of Management at Mississippi State University, where he is the Arthur Anderson Business Ethics Coordinator. He has published in numerous national journals and conducts training programs for organizations in managerial skill areas to include ethical decision making. He is past president of the Southern Management Association.G. Stephen Taylor is Associate Professor of Management at Mississippi State University, with emphasis in human resource management. His research and publication interests are in the areas of ethics and HRM, ethical implications of computer applications to business, and compensation management.     

Stock Option Repricing: Heads I Win, Tails You Lose

Recent scandals at Enron, WorldCom and Global Crossing have put the ethical spotlight on corporate malfeasance as never before. However, these are the situations in which management knew that they made the wrong choice. As professor Joseph Badaracco of Harvard Business School points out, the real ethical dilemmas arise when people must choose between right and right — where both choices can be justified, yet one must be chosen over the other. Whether or not to reprice stock options represents one such ethical dilemma. Repricing can help exodus of talented employees and motivate them to improve firm performance. However, it alienates shareholders and other workers of the company who are left unprotected from the adverse economic consequences of a stock price decline.In this paper we examine the ethics and the economics of stock option repricing. We find that repricing runs counter to two key tenets of business ethics — distributive justice and ordinary decency. To examine the economics of repricing, we draw upon agency theory to identify situations where repricing has the potential to benefit shareholders. However, a survey of empirical research reveals that these benefits do not translate into reality. Repricing does not improve employee retention or firm performance. In addition, managers benefit by opportunistically timing the repricing. Due to weaknesses in corporate governance such as lack of independence and conflicts of interest, the current repricing practice seems to be at odds with the objective of shareholder wealth maximization, and at a more fundamental level, a violation of board's fiduciary duty to shareholders. We offer suggestions that mitigate the ethically undesirable effects of repricing in the wider context of prevailing corporate governance and regulatory environment. We believe that these suggestions, if properly implemented, can transform repricing from a greed-inspired evil to a valuable compensation tool to retain employees, boost their morale, and enhance stockholder wealth.