Conference thebay::joyoflex

    I would probably change
    
    	"... nor can mangement abrogate it through failure to inform
    	themselves."
    
    to
    
    	"nor can mangement abrogate it through failure to inform itself."
    
    However, there is probably a better way to word this that avoids this
    problem.
    
Lew Lasher

    While the statement you provide doesn't use these words, it implies a
    sense of "never" and "always;"  that is, it seems to say that a binary,
    black/white rule exists that must never be violated, always enforced.  
    
    It has been my experience that there are always exceptions to
    generalized statements -- including this one.
    
    It has also been my experience that trying to force reality into the
    mold of a rigid moral framework causes major upheaval in the participants.

    You might want to argue that the "stakeholder" idea is morally flawed.
    Businesses are owned by the stock-holders.  Everyone else is related
    by contracts and has no ownership rights.  So you could say:
    
    	It is unethical (given the assumption of ownership and private
    	property) for managers to enrich themselves at the expense of
    	stockholders.  It is not only ethical for them to enrich the
    	stockholders at the expense of the rest, it is their legal duty
    	as employees of the stockholders.
    
    The paragraph is full of undefined terms and implicit argument (e.g.
    "any reasonable definition" is a blatent attempt to force the reader
    to accept the writer's definition).  Attack those points.  Why so
    many emotionally loaded words?  What's being covered up?  What's
    "fair"?
    
    		-John Bishop
    

    Following up on John's statement (attack the paragraph):
    
    Under any reasonable definition of "business ethics"  [whose?}
    
    ...businesses must make full, fair and timely disclosure of the current
    and prospective state of their business to all stakeholders
    (shareholders, employees, vendors, etc.).  [why?]
    
    This responsibility can not be mitigated by the adverse nature of any
    such disclosure nor can mangement abrogate it through failure to inform
    themselves. [restate in English, please]
    
    Deniability is not an ethical strategy.  It is inherently [why?]
    unethical for management to enrich themselves and harm their
    stakeholders through failure to meet this responsibility. [which
    responsibility?]
    
    					andrew
                                              

re .4, restatement:
        
    This responsibility [to report]
    
    o	can not be mitigated by the adverse nature of any
	such disclosure
    
    	"Even if reporting hurts you, you still have to report"
    
    o	nor can mangement abrogate it through failure to inform
    	themselves.
    
    	"Even if you don't know, you are still obligated to report"
    	(ignorance, real or feigned, is no defense).
    
    Note: trade secrets, company confidential material, internal
    	  data and so on are all recognized by US law as things
    	  that are not part of the state of the business which must
    	  be reported.
    
    			-John Bishop

    	If you want a debate on morality or legality rather than the
    sentence structure and semantics of .0 then you could probably find a
    better forum.
    
    	I suspect our resident expert on Japanese culture (Norman?) could
    confirm that "moral" treatment of employees varies widely from culture
    to culture, and laws certainly do. Those DEC employees that are not
    native English speakers tend to find this conference a little
    intimidating, but would probably make a valuable contribution in some
    other forum.

    >I suspect our resident expert on Japanese culture (Norman?)
    
    I am hardly as much of an expert as most of my co-workers are :-)
    
    >could confirm that "moral" treatment of employees varies widely from
    >culture to culture,
    
    As a matter of fact, I doubt it.  "Moral" treatment of employees seems
    to be uniformly absent in every culture.
    
    >and laws certainly do.
    
    Yup.
    
    
    I also wondered about .0; did the person want to disagree on whether
    business ethics requires some ethics or on the wording of the requirement.
    Hmm, maybe we should add "business ethics" to the oxymoron note.
    
    -- Norman Diamond

    >Hmm, maybe we should add "business ethics" to the oxymoron note.
    
    	Second!

    re .8
    
    I suppose what I am really trying to ask is what logical reasons are
    there for businesses not disclosing information to their stakeholders.
    
     

    re .8
    
    Sure (but as noted, it's not Joy-of-lex material):
    
    o	Plans and strategies need to be kept secret or
    	competitive advantage will be lost, e.g.:
    
    	- New products
    	- New processes
    	- New markets
    	- New marketing techniques
    	- Plans for same
    
    o	Contractual obligations may prevent disclosure
    	(e.g. Company A uses company B's process to do X;
    	Company B protects this with trade secret, so company
    	A may not legally expose the secret of the X process).
    
    o	Financial results may not be partially released
    	(contractual obligation with most securites exchanges),
    	thus Q4 results can't be leaked to some persons and not
    	to others (note this is a ban on partial releases, not
    	on release in general).
    
    o	Employee-private data (e.g. records of medical expenses)
    	should not be released.
    
    		-John Bishop
    

    With regard to contractual obligations, Digital's SI organization
    frequently finds itself doing working for clients under a
    non-disclosure agreement.  On occasion, disclosure of the very
    existence of the project has been a prohibited act.
    
    \dave

    "This employee didn't do her job.  She needs to be fired."
    
    -- "And what job was that?"
    
    "I can't tell you.  But she violated the contract."
    
    -- "And what contract was that?"
    
    "I can't tell you.  You have to believe me."
    
    -- "But you're sure she was bound by the contract?"
    
    "I can't tell you."
    
    -- "But there was a contract?"
    
    "I can't tell you."
    
    -- "But you already told me she violated it, so it must have existed.
        Sounds like you have to fire yourself."
    
    "Nope.  Logic is no longer permitted in this company."

re. .7

}    >could confirm that "moral" treatment of employees varies widely from
}    >culture to culture,
}    
}    As a matter of fact, I doubt it.  "Moral" treatment of employees seems
}    to be uniformly absent in every culture.
}    
    
Thus establishing Norman as a noter whose entries are worthy of attention.

Well said and worth repeating.

Lew Gulick

    G'day, 
    In my course, we too have been told "full disclosure" is the way
    to go - and for many of the reasons in the last note of two...
    
    But also, for example, by putting what should be financial leases as
    expense leases, the actual inherent liability is shielded from the
    prying eyes of the company balance sheet and financialreports. This
    gives an incorrect picture of the state of the company.
    
    (an australian company shielded a multi million $$ lease this way and
    got found out....  caused a real stink. 
    
    So ethically, one must be fair to investors and creditors alike to
    enable them to make reasoned judgements to invest, or to withhold
    demanding payments...Hard to refute, I fear.
    
    Onthe other hand, if one wants to indulge in sharp practices, hide and
    distort figures to make the folk who take your evidence on trust happy
    (or happier than they should be) then full disclosure is out. 
    
    
    *****Full disclosure is not meant to cover matters of commercial
    confidence, merely those of public knowledge and available from the
    company's published reports.****
    
    
    Similarly, we are told, employees should be made aware of a company's
    situation, so as to evoke an understanding of why say overtime is not
    available, but the work is there and needing doing.... or somesuch.
    
    I am interested to know why (and how) you disagree with the
    sentiments...
    
    
  derek