Hiring a convict

How should companies and professionals treat people who have a past criminal history but who have paid their debts to society by serving out sentences? Is it fair to dismiss someone’s ability to be a good employee solely on the basis of a prior criminal background? How can these people ever have a chance to turn their lives around and become reintegrated back into society, if no employer will give them a chance?

As a professional vocalist and musical entertainer, a number of years ago I formed a partnership with the leader of a band who had an outstanding reputation playing large nightclubs, festivals and private events. This band leader was one of the most gifted musicians and entertainers I had ever worked with, and he and I built a very successful following during the two years we performed together. As a team we both enjoyed many professional opportunities that never would have happened if we had not worked together. Our partnership ended, however, when I was tipped off that he was a convicted felon.

On a personal level, the nature of the crime made it difficult for me to continue to interact with him in the same way. I also felt that he had violated my trust by not disclosing the information. Indeed, the reason he had not disclosed the information to me from the beginning was because he thought I never would have worked with him, and he would have been right. On a professional level, I was concerned that my reputation would be damaged if others found out about his past and I continued to closely associate with him. But I also had to consider that the crime was committed 12 years earlier and he had served his criminal sentence.

At the time this information came to me, we had existing contracts to play many upcoming large and prestigious events. Given the financial and professional opportunities those events presented, I considered whether I could just continue as if I had never learned about the crime. If I disclosed his background to the companies who had contracted us to play, or if these companies found out on their own, many of them may have tried to cancel our performances. Our ability to perform and entertain had nothing to do with his criminal past, but still, I understood why people would be uneasy having a convicted felon entertaining at their party or event. Ultimately I decided that I could not work closely with someone who had violated my trust and engaged in activities that were so contrary to my expectations about tolerable behavior. I made the painful decision to terminate the partnership, and I sacrificed opportunities and earnings, as well as personal friendships because of this decision. It became a significant setback for my music career.

This person may well have been rehabilitated from his past behavior, and he continues to be a superb entertainer for venues that are willing to hire him or that are unaware of his criminal background. Did I make the right decision to discontinue working with him? If everyone reacted the way I did, then no formerly convicted felons would ever be able to work again or become productive members of society. However, I found the nature of his crime so despicable that I don’t know how I could have continued sharing the stage and interacting with him.

Contributed by KS.

To comment on this dilemma, leave a response.  For anonymity, omit your email address and website, and use a screen name.

Concealing layoff infomation

As an engineer, I developed a good working relationship with subordinates (who were union members) by earning their respect and trust over time. I told them that I would always be upfront and honest with them… In one instance I was scoping out a capital project that was very attractive to management because it had a really nice ROI. While the capital costs were large, this project would save the company over $800,000 annually through staff elimination. At one point I was measuring the location layout when a few employees approached me and asked what I was doing. I explained that we were looking to replace several old manual machines with a new fully automated system. One worker asked me if this project would eliminate any positions (specifically his position). I had to lie and say that no, management was just looking to free up employees to do “more value-added tasks.” Although I was uncertain the project would be approved, it would undoubtedly eliminate 8 positions if implemented. However, there was simply no way I could release that information. This was 2008, when the economy was performing poorly, layoffs were prevalent, and unions were on edge. If I told the employees that the main goal of this project was to eliminate their jobs, not only would there have been some sort of mutiny, but I’m pretty certain management would have fired me for divulging that confidential information. Was it unethical for me to lie to protect my job and the company from a hostile situation?

Contributed by Adam

To comment on this dilemma, leave a response.  For anonymity, omit your email address and website, and use a screen name.

Ethics of war

Is going to war and killing humans ethical?

Contributed by DH.

To comment on this dilemma, leave a response.  For anonymity, omit your email address and website, and use a screen name.

Manipulate the school ranking?

Several publications rank MBA programs and, as part of the ranking, ask MBA students to respond to a student satisfaction survey. Students are frequently urged not to air their grievances in the survey, because it hurts the school ranking and therefore the value of their degree. The question: is it ethical to provide rose-tinted responses to the survey to boost the ranking?

Contributed by an MBA student.

To comment on this dilemma, leave a response.  For anonymity, omit your email address and website, and use a screen name.

Switching water and soda

Suppose you are at a restaurant and order your food, but no drink. However, you ask for a cup for water. When you go to the soda machine to get water, the water dispenser doesn’t work. Is it ethical to take some soda instead?

Contributed by Nakul.

To comment on this dilemma, leave a response.  For anonymity, omit your email address and website, and use a screen name.

Descartes and animal suffering

The famous philosopher René Descartes advocated the vivisection of animals (dissection while the animal is alive) and practiced it himself.  He argued that this is ethical because animals are biological machines and therefore suffer no pain, even if they seem to scream in agony.  Human beings are different, because our bodily mechanisms are linked to a nonmaterial substance we call the mind or soul (a view known as Cartesian dualism).  The soul can experience pain when the human body is assaulted, but we need have no ethical concern about animal suffering.  Is Descartes right?

Dilemma 11 in 101 Ethical Dilemmas by Martin Cohen.

To comment on this dilemma, leave a response.  For anonymity, omit your email address and website, and use a screen name.

Murder for organs

Doctor D operates an organ transplant shop.  Four of his current patients require a heart, kidney, lung, and stomach, which cannot be obtained quickly enough to save their lives.  However, another patient, whom Dr. D has just cured, lies sleeping.  If the patient were, let’s say, to take a sudden turn for the worse, his organs would save four lives.  It seems like a reasonable trade, no?

Dilemma 8 in 101 Ethical Dilemmas by Martin Cohen.

To comment on this dilemma, leave a response.  For anonymity, omit your email address and website, and use a screen name.

Lying about an affair

Zjamel’s boyfriend Bernard seems to be spending more time with Ethel than with her.  Finally, Zjamel asks the question: “Are you having an affair with Ethel?”

Bernard is, in fact, having an affair with Ethel but doesn’t regard it as “serious.”  Ethel is married, and Bernard sees himself as committed to Zjamel over the long term.  He doesn’t want to upset Zjamel, who has been depressed lately, and so he answers, “Of course not, darling.”

Zjamel now feels much better.  After a few months, Bernard and Ethel get tired of each other, and everyone forgets about their little fling.

Was Bernard’s lie ethical?

Dilemma 7 in 101 Ethical Dilemmas by Martin Cohen.

To comment on this dilemma, leave a response.  For anonymity, omit your email address and website, and use a screen name.

Hiding the mail

Sam’s live-in partner Leslie has a taste for expensive gadgets, such as a toaster that burns today’s weather report on each slice (but ruins the toast), or a solar-powered outdoor fountain (that stopped working the first day).  An unsolicited catalog arrives in the mail, addressed to Leslie.  Seeing that it is chock-full of similarly expensive contraptions, Sam quietly get rids of it before Leslie gets home.  Is this OK?

Dilemma 6 in 101 Ethical Dilemmas by Martin Cohen.

To comment on this dilemma, leave a response.  For anonymity, omit your email address and website, and use a screen name.

The internet bargain

You buy a computer online, selecting an option to pay by mailing a check.  However, you forget to send the check.  When the computer arrives, the invoice says “paid.”  Is it OK to let it ride?  Isn’t this what most people would do?  Besides, if the seller catches the mistake at some point, you can always send a check.

Dilemma 5 in 101 Ethical Dilemmas by Martin Cohen

To comment on this dilemma, leave a response.  For anonymity, omit your email address and website, and use a screen name.