Abhiroop Mukherjee

G042
6 November 2015

Business Ethics
Summary: Employer responsibilities and employee rights

This chapter explores those areas of ethical decision-making in the workplace where
the law remains relatively fluid and where answers are not easily found by simply calling the
lawyer. Issues may also arise where the law does seem clear but, for one reason or another, it
is insufficient to protect the interests of all stakeholders. Issues at work depends on our
relationship with others which are further guided by or ethics. Also talking organisation wise,
inclusion of employees at the core of the organisation strategies deliver higher long term
results than in indifferent organisation. So employee may threat others either to improve
workplace harmony or out of sense of duties.

In legal contexts, due process refers to the procedures that police and courts must
follow in exercising their authority over citizens. Few dispute that the state, through its police
and courts, has the authority to punish citizens. This authority creates a safe and orderly
society in which we all can live, work and do business. But that authority is not unlimited; it
can be exercised only in certain ways and under certain conditions. Due process rights specify
these conditions. Similarly, due process in the workplace acknowledges an employers
authority over employees. Employers can tell employees what to do and when and how to do
it. They can exercise such control because they retain the ability to discipline or fire an
employee who does not comply with their authority. Because of the immense value that work
holds for most people, the threat of losing ones job is a powerful motivation to comply.
However, basic fairnessimplemented through due processdemands that this power be
used justly.

Ironically, the law has not always clearly supported this mandate of justice. Much
employment law within the United States instead evolved in a context of a legal doctrine
known as Employment at Will. Employment at Will (EAW) holds that, absent a
particular contractual or other legal obligation that specifies the length or conditions of
employment, all employees are employed at will. This means that, unless an agreement
specifies otherwise, employers are free to fire an employee at any time and for any reason.

BUSINESS ETHICS

"1

Emotional issues may emerge due to single termination i.e. downsizing. Terminating workers
whether one or one hundred is not necessarily an unethical decision. However, the
decision itself raises ethical quandaries since there may be alternatives available to an
organisation in financial difficulty.

Within the United States and throughout many other countries with developed
economies, there is a wide consensus that employees have a fundamental right to a safe and
healthy workplace. In some other regions, employees lack even the most basic health and
safety protections, such as in working environments that are often termed sweatshops. Even
within the United States, this issue becomes quite complicated upon closer examination. Not
only is the very extent of an employers responsibility for workplace health and safety in
dispute; there is also significant disagreement concerning the best policies to protect worker
health and safety. Discussions in ethics about employee health and safety will tend to focus on
the relative risks faced by workers and the level of acceptable workplace risk. With respect to
government regulated ethics, the dominant question has concerned the appropriateness of
using cost-benefit analysis to set health and safety standards. Regulations are aimed at
achieving the safest feasible standards, allowing a balancing approach between health and
economics industries are required to meet the highest standards attainable within
technological and economic reason.

With regard to diversity, the focus is on those subtle areas where perhaps the law has
not yet become so settled, where it remains open to diverse cultural interpretations, strong
minority opinions, and value judgments. Though the courts are often forced to render
judgment, their decisions might result from a non-unanimous vote or through the reversal of
a strong lower court opinion representing a contrary perspective. From a Kantian,
deontological perspective, there is not yet universal agreement on the fundamental rights that
are implicated by these issues, nor on their appropriate prioritisation. From a utilitarian
viewpoint, neither do these reasonable minds always agree on which resolution might lead
toward the greatest common good, or even what that good should be ultimately.

With respect to discrimination a few particular zones of sensitive and unobtrusive
areas remain, a significant number of the first lawful and moral level headed discussions have
taken place, offering business chiefs ostensibly clear direction on suitable conduct in the work
environment. Segregation continues in the United States with respect to race, and in addition
sex. Women regularly face challenges that are unmistakable from those confronted by men.

Affirmative action is an approach that tries to react to cases where there has been
some past segregation by doing proactive measures to ensure equal opportunity today. With
respect to affirmative action in workplace it applies to only 20% of the workforce or may be
voluntary affirmative action undertaken by employees in order overcome barriers.

BUSINESS ETHICS

"2

Summary: Technology and privacy in workplace

We can define privacy as the right to be let alone, i.e. the right to make decisions for
oneself or as the right to control information about oneself. Clearest case of an invasion of
privacy occurs when others come to know personal information about us. Informational sense
of privacy involves relationship between two parties. Privacy is important because it creates
an invisible demarcation among individuals, thus defining ones individuality. Ethical sources
of Privacy includes, Universal right to Autonomy, i.e. ones right to make decisions about his
personal existence without any external control, Reciprocal obligation, i.e. the same person
has to respect others privacy as well, Hyper-norms and moral free space (Donaldson &
Dunfee) which may include freedom of speech, right to personal freedom, right to physical
movement and informed consent and lastly Property Rights which involves determination of
who controls the tangibles and intangibles involving all the non procreative derivatives of her
life or thoughts and ideas, and personal info (intangibles).

In this era of technology, privacy is be highly dependent on technology. This brings us
to Ethical Implications of Technology. Technology creates challenges for individuals privacy
which can be combated by technology and ethics. Technology makes our jobs easier but
allows employers to ask more of each employee. New technology provides new ways to gather
information on which to base our value judgment. Firms often experience unanticipated
challenges stemming from new technology.

Employers may try to acquire certain information about employees personal decisions
which has no relevance with respect to work. Thus there is a need for employee privacy.
Organisations collate data by workforce monitoring by making use of new technologies. They
check the internet history, email scanning, drug testing and medical data by medical benefits.
The real underlying issue being the threats that stop employees from pressing suits. We are
also becoming more careless with so many modes of communication, and now information
can be found freely from variety of sources. Monitoring creates suspicion and hostile work
environment and it may constrain effective performance. So there needs to be a balance in
monitoring by making it more ethical.

In conclusion, without question, the technologies that threaten privacy have brought
us many benefits. Finding the right means is a great challenge to business firms which must
meet many business ethics problems, protecting privacy requires a coordinated solution
involving many parties. Until a solution is found, though, the focus of businesses will remain
on developing and implementing privacy policies.

BUSINESS ETHICS

"3

Whistle blowing
Introduction

Whistleblowing is officially defined as making a disclosure that is in the public
interest. It will usually occur when an employee discloses to a public body, usually the police
or a regulatory commission that their employer is partaking in unlawful practices. A
whistleblower as defined by this policy is an employee who reports an activity that he
considers to be illegal or dishonest to one or more of the parties specified in this Policy. The
whistleblower is not responsible for investigating the activity or for determining fault or
corrective measures; appropriate management officials are charged with these responsibilities.
Whistleblower can be generally categorised internal whistleblower and external whistleblower.
Internal whistleblower is a person or an employee who report misconduct on a fellow
employee or superior within their company to a source within the organisation that can pass
necessary judgment.
External whistleblowing is a type of whistle blowing whereby a wrongful or illegal act is
reported to sources outside the organisation. In these cases, depending on the informations
severity and nature, whistleblowers may report the wrongdoing to lawyers, the media,law
enforcement or watchdog agencies, or other local, state, or federal agencies.

Whistle Blowing Problems

Westin, stated some of the problems in whistle blowing as follows:
The problems of ineffectual performing employees are likely to blow the whistle in order to
keep away from being sanctioned.
The issues some whistleblowers are protesting about are not the unlawful /wrongdoings
activities, but social policies by management that employees sees as foolish.
The unclear of legal definitions of what comprises of a safe products, unacceptable
treatments of employees or products dangerous to health.
Employees who blow the whistle can be chosen in some ways that would been acceptably
disturbing, in spite of the merits of their complaints.

Examples of whistle blowing

There are many examples of whistleblowing, some leading to extensive fines and some
have toppled governments. In the Watergate scandal that toppled the presidency of Richard

BUSINESS ETHICS

"4

Nixon, Mark Felt, an FBI agent, was the secret informant known as Deep Throat who helped

Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Though Deep Throat
became a symbol of shadowy Washington sources dishing out information in clandestine
meetings, his identity was kept secret until 2005.

Jeffrey Wigand, a former employee of Brown and Williamson Tobacco Company
spoke out against the third largest American tobacco company at that time, during a 60
Minutes exclusive interview with Mike Wallace that aired on Feb. 4, 1996. He blew the
whistle on the tobaccos company attempt to enhance nicotines effect on people by boosting
it with ammonia that caused a more rapid absorption of nicotine into the lungs, and
ultimately affecting the brain and central nervous system. His work with the U.S. Justice
Department and state attorney generals led to several injunctions against those in the tobacco
industry and helped prompt the Tobacco Master Settlement in 1998 between 46 states and
the countrys four biggest tobacco companies.

In 2009, four former employees of Eli Lilly Pharmaceutical Company brought
individual suit against the company for marketing its anti-psychotic drug Zyprexa for uses not
approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. All four employees individually
discovered discrepancies and unethical doings in the company and hired attorneys to bring
charges against the company. The company was marketing its drug for unapproved use
against dementia in the elderly, generalised sleep disorders and more. The company admitted
to these illegal practices and settled a $1.4 billion lawsuit with the government. The
whistleblowers in this case shared in 18 percent or $78 million dollars of the federal
governments part of the civil settlement.

Moral and ethical issues surrounding whistle blowing

Whistle blowing is basically a ethical work. Consequently, it includes both expenses for
some and advantages for other. Also, given the standard of steadfast office and keeping up
classification in the matters of association by the specialists, i.e. representative, on the one
hand, and inside endorsed system, wherever exists, to manage wrongdoings in the association,
on the other, underline the requirement for and need of whistle blowing in the association.

Whistleblowing strains the employee and employer relationships as the employee
would be revealing confidential and valuable information whereas the employee would be
accusing the employee of ignoring his responsibility. Revealing true information is important
and both the parties are responsible to do so, but the false information needs to be punished.

BUSINESS ETHICS

"5


Usually, the employees choose to whistle blow as the last resort. This is in recognition
of the potential costs that are associated with whistle blowing. Some of these costs include loss
of jobs, difficulty in getting a new job and loss of faith in others such as the government or
the judicial system. Some may experience name-calling like traitors and troublemakers.
Whistleblower may face heavy financial burden as a result of loss of job or they may have to
bear the legal cost if whistle blowing is unsuccessful.

The Pros of Whistleblowing

Improper Behaviour Exposed: Whenever some blows that whistle, a government, an agency
or any type of business gets exposed to the public, which will certainly not approved the
actions that even made someone come out and tell everyone about them. As such, it serves
as a way to keep entities on their toes and to keep them acting according to legal limits, thus
preventing them from taking shortcuts. Alone, one whistleblower might not change the
world, but the combined efforts of whistleblowers throughout time will make companies
understand they can not get away with things they shouldnt be doing in the first place. A
chain reaction is possible, provided whistleblowers dont suffer too much for their actions.
Legal Protection: Luckily, whistleblowers now are protected by the federal governments
Whistleblower Protection Program, allowing employees to report violations and unethical
acts without having to be afraid of any consequences these actions might have. The
program protects, essentially, from retaliation a company might try to enforce against the
employee who blew the whistle . If a company still retaliates and violates this protection, it
can face fines, civil lawsuits and suspension of contracts with the government.

The Cons of whistleblowing

Career Damage: An employee who has the courage to whistle blow against a company is
going to get attention from the corporate world, and it will certainly have a downside on his
career. While the whistleblower is seen as a hero by the outside world and whoever was the
victim of the improper actions the corporation was doing, the corporate world itself is
going to see the whistleblower is someone that cannot be trusted, as a disloyal person that
simply wont keep company secrets. Moreover, is the case gets media attention, the
whistleblower might just lose his career in his industry, and possibly in other industries as
well.
Personal Problems: While the whistleblower takes action for the greater good and for the
well-being of everyone as well as for a better world, both media and corporations will try to
dig deep into his personal life in order to get information about the whistleblower that they
can use to discredit him or to make people hate him. Its also possible that the whistleblower
is threatened from both co-workers and supervisors that are trying to look at the companys
best interests

BUSINESS ETHICS

"6

Protecting the whistle blower

Whistle blowing is a very useful tool that supplements the external measures like
regulation, competition and litigation by acting internally and exposing the offenders. There
are lots of pressure and risk on the whistleblower, he needs to be protected. Many perceive
that there are only slim chances to success in bringing the offenders to justice and resulting
inmost of them choosing to be a free rider, expecting others to blow the whistle.

There have been multiple instances of threatening, harassment and even murder of
various whistleblowers. An engineer, Satyendra Dubey, was murdered in November 2003;
Dubey had blown the whistle in a corruption case in the National Highways Authority of
Indias Golden Quadrilateral project. Two years later, an Indian Oil Corporation officer,
Shanmughan Manjunath, was murdered for sealing a petrol pump that was selling
adulterated fuel. A movie/Film has been made based on the said incident titled
Manjunath(2014).

Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2011 is an Act of the Parliament of India which
provides a mechanism to investigate alleged corruption and misuse of power by public
servants and also protect anyone who exposes alleged wrongdoing in government bodies,
projects and offices. The wrongdoing might take the form of fraud, corruption or
mismanagement.
Whistleblower Protection Act 2011
The Act was approved by the Cabinet of India as part of a drive to eliminate corruption in
the country's bureaucracy and passed by the Lok Sabha on 27 December 2011. The Bill
became an Act when it was passed by the Rajya Sabha on 21 February 2014 and received the
President's assent on 9 May 2014.
The Act seeks to protect whistle blowers, i.e. persons making a public interest disclosure
related to an act of corruption, misuse of power, or criminal offence by a public servant.
Any public servant or any other person including a non-governmental organisation may
make such a disclosure to the Central or State Vigilance Commission.
Every complaint has to include the identity of the complainant.
The Vigilance Commission shall not disclose the identity of the complainant except to the
head of the department if he deems it necessary. The Act penalises any person who has
disclosed the identity of the complainant.
The Act prescribes penalties for knowingly making false complaints.

BUSINESS ETHICS

"7

The Whistle Blowers Protection (Amendment) Bill, 2015

The Bill amends the Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2011 & 2014.
The Act provides a mechanism for receiving and inquiring into public interest disclosures
against acts of corruption, wilful misuse of power or discretion, or criminal offences by
public servants.
The Bill prohibits the reporting of a corruption related disclosure if it falls under any 10
categories of information.
These categories include information related to: (i) economic, scientific interests and the
security of India; (ii) Cabinet proceedings, (iii) intellectual property; (iv) that received in a
fiduciary capacity, etc.
The Act permits disclosures that are prohibited under the Official Secrets Act (OSA), 1923.
The Bill reverses this to disallow disclosures that are covered by the OSA.
Any public interest disclosure received by a Competent Authority will be referred to a
government authorised authority if it falls under any of the above 10 prohibited categories.
This authority will take a decision on the matter, which will be binding.

Key Issues and Analysis

The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill states that the 10 prohibited categories
are modelled on those under the RTI Act, 2005. However, this comparison may not be
appropriate. Unlike the RTI Act, disclosures under the Bill are not made public but in
confidence to a high level constitutional or statutory authority.
With regard to the 10 prohibited categories, the RTI Act allows (i) the public authority to
disclose information if he considers it to be in public interest; and (ii) a two stage appeal
process if information is not made available. The Bill does not contain such provisions.
A Competent Authority is required to refer a prohibited disclosure to a government
authority for a final decision. However, the Bill does not specify the minimum qualifications
required or the process of appointment of this authority.
Whistleblower laws in other countries also prohibit the disclosure of certain types of
information. These include information related to national security and intelligence,
received in a fiduciary capacity, and any disclosure specifically prohibited by a law.

BUSINESS ETHICS

"8

Conclusion

There is no denying the fact that whistle-blowers do a great service to the society at
their great risk and cost, even at the loss of life. Hence, whistle-blowers need to be protected
to ensure the good governance of organisations. The fact is that while trying to protect
whistle-blowers, we are actually trying to protect ourselves. Many employees may be afraid to
speak out even when legal protection exists. But, its very existence will deter government and
corporate wrongdoings to a considerable extent and, in turn, will ensure good governance.
Organisations should develop formal whistle blowing policies as a way to create the
conditions necessary for the effective management of whistle blowing. These policies should
provide standard guidelines within which organisations respond to the ethical or moral
concerns of their employees. Whistle blowing policies should have the following components
as a minimum :
A clear statement that employees who are aware of possible wrongdoing within the
organisation have a responsibility to disclose that information to appropriate parties inside
the organisation;
The designation of specific individuals or groups outside the chain of command as
complaint recipients;
A guarantee that employees who in good faith disclose perceived wrongdoing to the
designated parties inside the organisation will be protected from adverse employment
consequences; and
The establishment of a fair and impartial investigative process. To succeed, policies must
have the commitment of top management and must be adequately communicated to the
employees.

BUSINESS ETHICS

"9