Business Ethics Unit II

BBA 4751, Business Ethics 1

Course Learning Outcomes for Unit II Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to:

4. Examine the role of leadership in corporate culture, leadership styles, and how they affect ethical decision making. 4.1 Analyze what a leader should consider while facing the ethics of drug testing in the employment

setting.

Reading Assignment In order to access the following resource(s), click the link(s) below: Cranford, M. (1998). Drug testing and right to privacy: Arguing the ethics of workplace drug testing. Journal of

Business Ethics, 17(16), 1805-1815. Retrieved from https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direc t=true&db=bth&AN=12146315&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Ford, J., Willey, L., White, B. J., & Domagalski, T. (2015). New concerns in electronic employee monitoring:

Have you checked your policies lately? Journal of Legal, Ethical & Regulatory Issues, 18(1), 51-70. Retrieved from https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direc t=true&db=bth&AN=108523278&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Simms, M. (1994). Defining privacy in employee health screening cases: Ethical ramifications concerning

employee/employer relationship. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(5), 315-325. Retrieved from https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direc t=true&db=bth&AN=12134933&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Navigate to and read the following sources on the Internet: Steingold, F. (n.d.). Monitoring employees’ off-duty conduct. Retrieved from http://www.nolo.com/legal-

encyclopedia/monitoring-employees-off-duty-conduct-29994.html The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d.). The ADA: Your employment rights as an

individual with a disability. Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/ada18.html

Unit Lesson

Click here to access an introduction video.

Click here to access the introduction video transcript.

UNIT II STUDY GUIDE

Ethics in Employment

BBA 4751, Business Ethics 2

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE

Title

Click here to access a video that briefly introduces topics in this unit.

Click here to access the video transcript. In the small North Carolina town of Mayberry, Sheriff Andy Taylor serves as the primary law enforcement officer. He leads a quiet, humble life with his son and his Aunt Bea. Sheriff Taylor oversees the legal matters of Mayberry—along with the county jail—with the assistance of Deputy Barney Fife. Deputy Fife is a very active law enforcement officer, ready and willing to confront any issue that may arise in Mayberry. His overzealous enthusiasm requires much of Sheriff Taylor’s time, as he seems to end up on the wrong side of most situations. The long-standing relationship between the sheriff and his deputy creates numerous ethical dilemmas for Sheriff Taylor, as Sheriff Taylor feels a strong responsibility to protect his deputy from a disapproving public and from the deputy himself. Sheriff Taylor resorts to manipulation of the facts to rescue Deputy Fife from circumstances primarily created by the deputy. Half-truths or outright falsehoods are used to restore his deputy to the community’s favor and his place as second-in-command at the sheriff’s office. Although Sheriff Taylor would not knowingly break the law, he uses questionable tactics and strategies to cover for Deputy Fife’s mistakes, inappropriate behavior, and problematic solutions to community concerns. As a law enforcement officer, Sheriff Taylor should be an example before the community; however, loyalty to his friend leads him down a path of unethical actions, debatable decisions, and undue influence. Businesses and public entities must evaluate all actions against an ethical measure, ensuring equitable treatment for all involved. The situations Sheriff Taylor finds himself facing beg a few questions: Are all of Sheriff Taylor’s actions and behaviors ethical? Are all of Sheriff Taylor’s actions and behaviors legal? Is there a difference? If so, how do they relate to each other, and do they overlap? In this unit, we will investigate the answer to these and other questions. If we are to advance a better world, both personally and societally, then investigations into ethics must be made, just as recorded by Plato. Socrates implored during his apology more than 2,000 years ago that “…the unexamined life is not worth living…” (as cited in Plato, trans. 1996). At its most basic level, ethics is concerned with how we as individuals act and live our lives. An evaluation of personal ethics is the most central and important query that we can pose to ourselves: How should we live? In turn, how we should live and operate must be asked on both a personal and collective level (i.e., societal level). Therefore, how should employers, leaders, and institutions act, and on that basis, how should they be structured? The scenario involving Deputy Fife and Sheriff Taylor makes it plain that legal and ethical norms are not necessarily identical, and sometimes they are in direct conflict. We will delve into the differences between the intersections of the norms in these areas and why strictly legal compliance can be insufficient. Note that some laws can be considered unethical, and discharging one’s legal duties could possibly run counter to ethical precepts. For example, some believe that certain kinds of practices involving employee monitoring are overly invasive and not related to a necessary and clearly articulated business need, such as when employers require employee passwords to access and monitor personal social media accounts. When does legitimate and legal employee monitoring become unethical? How do we decide and on what basis? We will explore the legal and ethical landscape of the employee-employer relationship. We will learn about monitoring employees on and off work, including state and federal protections of employees. We will look in- depth at the areas of drug testing, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and monitoring employee calls and e-mails, as well as off-work acts, such as moonlighting. In addition, we will look specifically at the newest area of employee monitoring: monitoring social media both before and during employment.

BBA 4751, Business Ethics 3

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE

Title

The Constitutional basis of privacy is usually traced to the Constitution’s guarantee regarding the pursuit of happiness along with natural rights. Privacy is often defined as “the rightful claim of the individual to determine the extent to which he wishes to share himself with others and his control over time, place and circumstances to communicate with others” (Breckenridge, 1970, p. 1). This “privacy” is at the center of the hotly debated topics that we will study in detail. Several sources address privacy protection, including the Fourth Amendment. Another source is the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), which protects employees’ privacy while communicating through any form of technology. One major exception to the ECPA is the consent exception. Under the exception, the employer requires only consent, implied or express, to avoid ECPA violations (ECPA, 1986). As long as an employee has knowledge of his or her employer’s policy, the exception is complete. In most cases, employers routinely require employees to acknowledge, if not explicitly waive, any rights that the employee may have in pursuing monitoring Internet and e-mail usage. Lawsuits against employers for tortious invasion of privacy are common; however, these suits tend to fail because employees lack any reasonable expectation of privacy at work. Employees’ claims fail as courts employ a balancing test weighing employee privacy concerns against the legitimate interests of companies to prevent fraud and illegality. While companies enjoy certain legal protections over these invasion of privacy suits, the law in this area is still evolving. Currently, courts overwhelmingly side with companies and leave it up to their judgment as to whether and how they will monitor employees. The general thinking is that since companies own the equipment, they may monitor it at their discretion. To avoid liability, employers also have strong reasons to monitor employees. For example, employers are generally held liable, in common law, for acts done by their employees over which they have supervisory control, in harassment and discrimination cases, regardless of whether the employer was aware of the misconduct. In 1995, Chevron Corporation settled a lawsuit brought by four women and paid $2.2 million (Sims, 2001). E-mail evidence was relied upon in establishing sexual harassment. The legal theory was that, had the company closely monitored its employees’ e-mails, it likely would have discovered the tortious conduct and prevented liability. The ECPA limits an employer's right to monitor its employees' telephones at work. Under the act, an employer may not monitor an employee's personal phone calls, including those made from telephones on work property (ECPA, 1986). An employee’s personal calls may be monitored if the employee (1) knows he or she is being monitored and (2) agrees to it (ECPA, 1986). The ECPA also provides protection for an employee's voicemail messages. Employers are legally liable if they read, disclose, delete, or prevent access to an employee's voicemail messages. Based upon this backdrop, employees appear to have few legal protections compared to employers’ rights, but should they have legal protections on an ethical basis? We will read one author’s theory that the Supreme Court, in formulating constitutional employee rights, failed to fully understand and address the psychological components of the right to privacy and freedom to disclose one’s personal information (Simms, 1994). Cranford (1998) suggests, although drug abuse is not specifically tied to individual productivity, employers should have the right, without probable cause or suspicion, to test all employees in non-safety-related employment. He argues these off-work acts have been proven related closely enough to worker’s compensation and illness among other factors to be monitored. If drugs have been consumed on an employee’s own time, he does not come to work impaired, and he does not have a safety-related job, is it ethical to monitor his private behavior? If so, on what basis? More and more employers are asking prospective employees for their usernames and passwords for their social media accounts. Employers wish to know as much as possible about their potential new employees, including how they conduct themselves during off-hours. Some employers continue this monitoring even after employees are hired. Because of the rise of such monitoring, some states are beginning to protect employees in this area. Do you think this type of monitoring is ethical or necessary? What purpose does it serve, and how do we decide whose interests are paramount?

BBA 4751, Business Ethics 4

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE

Title

This will be an exciting and interesting unit in which many ethical issues will be explored and debated.

References Breckenridge, A. (1970). The right to privacy. Lincoln, NE: University of Arkansas Press. Cranford, M. (1998). Drug testing and the right to privacy: Arguing the ethics of workplace drug testing.

Journal of Business Ethics, 17(16), 1805-1815. Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, 18 U.S.C. § 2510-2522 (1986). Simms, M. (1994). Defining privacy in employee health screening cases: Ethical ramifications concerning the

employee/employer relationship. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(5), 315-325. Sims, R. R. (2001) The challenge of front-line management: Flattened organizations in the new economy.

Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Suggested Reading Access the following links to read more about cases involving harassment: Beth Ann Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7009. (1998). Retrieved from

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/privacy/faragher_v_cityofbocaraton.htm Burlington Industries Inc. v. Kimberly B. Ellerth, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6991. (1998). Retrieved from

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/privacy/burlington_v_ellerth.htm