Employer and employee sign working agreements that count for the employee’s working contract, agreements that amongst others, refer to non-disclosure policy, respecting the working norms and regulations, code and conduct and so on. This stands at the basis of the working relationship between employees and employer around the world. Violation of this relationship leads to terminating the working contract and in some cases, to inducing the offender employees on a black list, so that they cannot find employment in the same activity sector, as Clifford and Silver – Greenberg report (“Retailers Tract Employee”).
With these general information one could only agree with the employers’ policy and procedure in the case of employees’ theft, as a measure of protecting their business and the communities they work in from corrupt individuals. However, going further into Clifford and Silver – Greenberg’s article, this first image appears to be like a mask for employers’ use of force and use of executive positions against employees, where, in fact, employees are the victims.
“Retailers Track Employees Thefts in Vast Databases” article points a serious problem that the employees in United States are facing, which generates more than a challenge for them in finding employment. The article reports that workers are obliged to admit to have been stealing, forced to do so actually, even if they did not commit this crime, being deprived by their right to choose what to declare and being pressured and threatened to be sent to jail if they do not admit to something that they did not even commit, in some cases.
This is a first violation of human rights, being forced to admit to something that you did not commit, threatened with severe consequences. From an ethical professional point of view, such an approach means power abuse, as the employer works against the employees and violates the working agreement, which amongst others referred to the workers’ rights and benefits. The right of defending oneself is being violated in the case when the employees are obliged to confess to something that they never did. Such an approach represents a violation of human rights, from a moral point of view also. According to Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, a framework for an ethical conduct in a case of theft suspicion or inappropriate conduct evaluation, should include five steps: “recognizing a moral issue, get the facts, evaluate the alternative actions from various moral perspectives, make a decision, act, then reflect on the decision later” (in “Business Ethics and Social Responsibility” 38).
Employee theft suspicion is of course a moral issue and in a business/working context an ethical one also, which needs to be treated in a professional manner. The point “get the facts” implies discussion with the employee, but not one that oblige the employee to admit that s/he committed the theft, because, in fact, that person could be innocent. Blaming employees for stealing first of all implies a lack of trust in people the employer chose to work with in the first place. Moreover, having as a prove for theft solely a forced testimony for sure does not solve the problem, as the employer does not gather sufficient facts to accuse the employee.
Accusing the employees of stealing without having any prove and forcing them to admit this infraction indicates a treatment of aggressing the employees who have the right to sue the employer for bad treatment.
However, because the employees are afraid of the repercussion of being sent to jail, they admit to whatever the employer is forcing them to admit. More than a bad treatment, this seems to be a torture strategy as in such a situation also, the accused person ends by admitting something s/he did not commit, in some cases, hoping to get rid of the pain and atrocity caused by the torture mechanisms.
Another point of concern in Clifford and Silver – Greenberg’s article is the fact that the employers do not inform the employees about the fact that their forced testimonies of stealing will be used against them, by being inserted in employees theft data bases that compromise them as trustful employees and ruing their chances of landing similar jobs.
This approach indicates more than lack of visibility, it shows disinformation, which, again, contradicts the working relations between employer and employees and violates the moral conduct in a working environment. The right to be informed applies to both consumers and employees, when dealing with retailing companies (“Business Ethics and Social Responsibility”).
Workers like Keesha Goode, who were forced to admit they have been stealing from their employer after a long discussion (two hours process in Goode’s case), being pressured with the retail store’s guard officers and threatened with jail if not admitting and included in a thefts data base are acting in trial against this violation of their rights and morals. Such a working conduct to which Goode and others like her have been exposed to depicts a serious moral issue in business, wherein the employer might jeopardize the career of an innocent man. Challenged to continue searching for a new job, employers like Goode can only choose to find their justice in the court room, although they will be permanently watched suspiciously, as their inclusion in the thefts data base will remain as a professional scar for them.
Works Cited
Business Ethics and Social Responsibility. Accessed on 9 May 2013, retrieved from http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/dl/free/0070921989/226745/ferrell_sampleCH02.pdf. N.d. Web.
Clifford, Stephanie & Silver – Greenberg, Jessica. Retailers Track Employee Thefts in Vast Databases. Accessed on 9 May 2013, retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/03/business/retailers-use-databases-to-track-worker-thefts.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0. 2013. Web.
