Work – Place Ethics
In the nowadays society, individuals recognize legal rights, guaranteed by the state’s constitution. The state constitutes the legal framework under which the rights, liberties and obligations of citizens are formed and expressed (Workler, 1995). This is a political philosophy concept that elaborates on the social contract principle, which brings together the individual and the state as the actors involved in a social communication act, which involves negotiation processes and respecting one another. This implies moral and ethical discussions, which also makes the topic of the current essay.
In the working environment, the relationship between the employee and the employer would ideally translate, from an ethical point of view, through the classical adage: “You Do Your Job Well, and You get to Keep It.” This is, however, an adage that implies an ideal society, with an ideal working system, from an ethical consideration, focused on the benefits of the employee and the employer, grouped in a symbiosis relationship of evolving together.
In an ideal social contract context, the individual should respect the rules (within a given setting, in this case within the work – place), while the state should protect and guarantee his/her rights and freedoms. In other words, in the work related context, individuals should respect the norms, procedures and the ethical code of conduct of the institution/organization that they work for, and in exchange, the state should guarantee that they employers keep them at their jobs in good conditions. However, this is not the case in the real world context.
In the nowadays economy, the working system has become very instable, following the trends in economy, which affect the society as a whole. In the current social system, the individual is outside the philosophical considerations of the social contract, as the state cannot guarantee that if the individual properly accomplishes his/her duties and respects the ethical conduct imposed by the company that he/she works for, he/she will continue to work for that company. The insecurity of the working system and of the entire society has generated this shift, which leads to further discussions about the nowadays ethics between the individual and the work place and about a renegotiation of the social contract, between the individual and the state.
The current society determines, as Deckop observes, a “normative myopia and poor social performance” (2006, p. 7), which defines the value neglect theory. This theory discusses about the organizations’ ability to neglect the rights and liberties of individuals, of employees, because the social context allows this attitude. The social contract is neglected under this sort of society, or within the organizations that adopt this behavior, as the primary purpose is to properly administer the organizations’ budgets, cutting costs as much as possible (Deckop, 2006).
For the employers this is an acute situation, which puts them in a stringent position, as they are situated in a social negotiation process with the employers, wherein the advantages are on the employers’ side. From an ethical consideration, this contradicts the utilitarianism principle and the normative ethics, which sustains the value of the best possible good for the largest amount of individuals (Mill, 1871).
Elaborating on the nowadays situation, Ciulla, Martin and Solomon present the facts that lead to the current social contract, wherein there is no longer available the adage “You Do Your Job Well, and You get to Keep It”. The authors discuss about the capitalist society, wherein the labor is profit – focused and the employees must produce and deliver services, but in the same time they must be aware of the “ethics of the corporate downsizing”, which implies new business strategies, such as renouncing at some employees for the benefit of others. They also reflect the global business world, wherein both employers and employees must be aware of their competition, adjusting to the market’s needs and whoever cannot demonstrate competitive advantages, although properly effectuates his/her duties, might no longer keep his/her position within the company. In this context, telling lies, or biased truth, although far from being ethical, are blindly accepted. In the same time, understanding the pressure of the financial needs, the market’s risks and becoming more efficient by targeting ingenuity, is what is appreciated and keeps employees closer to keeping their positions (Ciulla, Martin & Solomon, 2010).
In the context where being aware of the laying off, or the employee reduction policy, individuals are also aware of the absolute and relative poverty (Ciulla, Martin & Solomon, 2010). For mitigating the risk of falling into any form of poverty, individuals must follow their relationship with their employers and stand up for their rights, despite the current economic and social standards.
References
Cuilla, J., Martin, C., Solomon, R., Honest work, 2nd Edition, Oxford: New York.
Deckop, J., R. (2006) Human resource management ethics. Information Age Publishing Inc.: United States of America.
Workler, R. (1995), Rousseau and liberty. Manchester University Press: Manchester.
