Do Corporations Have an Ethical Obligation to Pay their Fair Shar.docx

Do Corporations Have an Ethical Obligation to Pay their 'Fair
Share' of Taxes?
You say you have a U.S. corporation and want to reduce
corporate income taxes? Agree to be acquired by an Irish
company and re-incorporate in Ireland. You’ll only pay 12.5%
corporate income taxes rather than the 35% rate in the U.S. But
wait. There’s more. Ireland recently announced that it reduced
the rate to 6.5% on business activity arising from research and
development that takes place in Ireland to get the high value
jobs in R&D located in the country.
Tax inversions have helped drive mergers-and-acquisitions
activity to record highs as companies, particularly those in
health care, have looked to foreign deal making for tax savings.
Tax inversions are legal so long as they comply with U.S.
Treasury rules. But, just because it’s legal does that make it
ethical? Do U.S. corporations have an ethical obligation to pay
their “fair share?” Do U.S. companies that take advantage of so-
called tax inversions by moving their headquarters to a low-tax
country violate the norms of corporate social responsibility?
Ethically speaking we might ask: Just because a U.S.
corporation has a right to engage in a tax inversion is it
ethically right to do so?
Under recently revised U.S. Treasury Rules, so long as U.S.
shareholders own less than 80 percent of the combined
company, tax inversions are permissible. The U.S. company
must also merge with the foreign company. Pfizer is the latest
U.S. company to disclose it plans to merge with a foreign
company. In this case it is Botox maker Allergan Plc in a deal
worth $160 billion. The acquisition, which would shift Pfizer's
headquarters to Ireland, would be the biggest-ever tax
inversion.
Pfizer follows a growing list of U.S. companies taking
advantage of tax inversions by incorporating overseas. It’s not
the only way to lower taxes. A U.S. company operating overseas

can avoid taxes by not repatriating profits back to the U.S. Just
keep the profits overseas and they will be tax deferred. The
problem is that means more jobs may go to foreigners rather
than U.S. workers and economic development in the U.S. may
lag as well. Now, even R&D may be stifled.
So what’s the answer to the problem of the U.S. government not
getting its fair share of taxes? In this political cycle some
suggest lowering the corporate tax rate to be more competitive.
Others suggest a tax holiday whereby U.S. companies can
repatriate profits tax free for a limited period of time. These are
Republican solutions. The Democrats want to prohibit
inversions entirely.
The morality of tax inversion policies is linked to the criteria
used to make such determinations. Milton Friedman long ago
contended that from a shareholder point of view the company
should maximize profits to enhance shareholder wealth. This is
more likely to occur when tax inversion policies are followed.
I believe the issue of social responsibility is a relevant moral
consideration in examining tax inversion policies. Friedman’s
point of view notwithstanding, just imagine if all corporations
acted to shield corporate income and pay lower or no taxes to
the U.S. government.
My suggestion is to institute a lower rate of 15% to be
competitive with other industrialized countries, and keep it in
place for two years. If this leads to repatriated profits, higher
taxes paid to the government, and the in-sourcing of jobs, then
the 15% rate should be made permanent. If, however, U.S.
businesses continue to shift their profits overseas and continue
to outsource jobs, it means one or more of three things: (1) they
are motivated by lower wage rates outside the U.S.; (2) they
may feel stifled by the excessive regulatory system in the U.S.;
and (3) they may truly want to be closer to their expanding
overseas markets.
Corporate America reacts to incentives to maximize profits that
can lead to higher personal income through bonus and other
incentive compensation, and rising stock prices. There is

nothing wrong with it. It is a part of our system. However, we
must begin to initiate policies to reduce the growing number of
people in poverty, bring more into the middle class, and do what
is necessary to reverse years of stagnant growth. In my view
this is an ethical issue. Corporations have an ethical obligation
and social responsibility to do what it takes to improve the
economic circumstances of all members of its community. A
society cannot prosper without an ever-expanding middle class
and lowering of the poverty rate in this country.
Blog posted by Dr. Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on December
1, 2015. Professor Mintz is on the faculty of the Orfalea College
of Business at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. He also blogs at:
www.workplaceethicsadvice.com.
12/01/2015 in Business ethics, Ethical business practices,
Ethical standards in business, Workplace ethics | Permalink |
Comments (0)
Technorati Tags: business ethics, corporate social
responsibility, CSR, ethical business practices, ethics sage,
Pfizer, Steven Mintz, tax inversions, workplace ethics
Reblog (0) | | Digg This | Save to del.icio.us | | 11/24/2015
An Exploration of the “Rightness’ of Today’s College Student
Protests
The Role of University Administration in Student Dissent
Racial tensions at the University of Missouri that started back
in October have sparked a series of demonstrations against
discrimination and intolerance on college campuses throughout
the United States.
Since the resignation of Mizzou’s president and chancellor
November 9, protesters have organized at more than 100
colleges and universities nationwide. Social media sites have
lighted up with voices of dissent, and what began as a grievance
has evolved into a movement.
Inspired by the marches in Ferguson, Mo., and Black Lives

Matter, students are taking to social media to question the
institutions they once approached for answers. Calling for racial
and social reforms on their campuses, they are borrowing tactics
of the past — hunger strikes, sit-ins and lists of demands — and
have found a collective voice to address their frustrations, hurt
and rage.
About two weeks ago, the dean of students at Claremont
McKenna College left the university after students protested her
comments to a Latina student with the offer to work for those
who "don't fit our CMC mold."
These comments by the dean of students demonstrate
insensitivity and go beyond the normal protest triggers, which
are unequal treatment of minority students on campus,
marginalization of minorities. The comments reflect a basic lack
of respect for who the student protesters are, where they have
come from, how hard they have worked and how long it has
taken them to get to where they are today. The CMC dean’s
remarks are incredibly stupid. To say a group of students “don’t
fit the CMC mold” is the same as saying they are not like us
and/or don’t have the qualifications we have to be admitted to
the prestigious CMC.
The sad part for me is I taught at CMC for six years back in the
late 1990s and early 2000s. It is a remarkable campus with
respect for the depth of academic thought and leadership.
Perhaps what has happened at CMC is it has become an insular
institution devoid of real life experiences. However, let me add
that it may be an overreach to condemn an entire institution for
the insensitive comments of one person. Unfortunately, that is
exactly what has been going on in all too many colleges
campuses recently.
There are other examples of the unrest on college campuses.
About 300 students angry over what they regard as racial
insensitivity on the Occidental University campus protested
racial policies. Jonathan Veitch, the president of Occidental
College, said he and other administrators were open to
considering a list of 14 reforms, including the creation of a

black studies major and more diversity training, that student
protesters had drawn up. I am amazed that any college in the
U.S., no less in California, which is a beacon for racial
tolerance, still doesn’t have a black studies major at Occidental.
In 2014-2015, 42% of non-international Occidental students
reported that they were minorities or multiracial, according to
school statistics.
Nationwide, complaints of racism and micro-aggression are
feeding Facebook pages and websites at Harvard, Brown,
Columbia and Willamette universities, as well as at Oberlin,
Dartmouth and Swarthmore colleges. Peter Salovey, president
of Yale University, announced a number of steps, including the
appointment of a deputy dean of diversity, to work toward "a
better, more diverse, and more inclusive Yale."
For decades, students have helped drive social change in
America, if not the world. Campuses, said University of
California President Janet Napolitano, have "historically been
places where social issues in the U.S. are raised and where
many voices are heard."
Over the decades, student protests have shifted attitudes in the
country on civil rights and the Vietnam War, nuclear
proliferation and apartheid, and some of today's actions are
borrowing from tactics of the past. Although some of the
strategies may seem familiar, it is the speed and the urgency of
today's protests that are different.
"What is unique about these issues is how social media has
changed the way protests take place on college campuses," said
Tyrone Howard, associate dean of equity, diversity and
inclusion at UCLA. "A protest goes viral in no time flat. With
Instagram and Twitter, you're in an immediate news cycle. This
was not how it was 20 or 30 years ago."
Although the targets of these protests are the blatant and subtle
forms of racism and inequity that affect the students' lives, the
message of the protests resonates with the recent incidents of
intolerance and racial inequity on the streets of America.
So, what is the root cause of the unrest? Is it just immature

students acting out? Is it a bunch of spoiled kids protesting
things they feel entitled to receive and not getting it? At first
glance many will say this is, indeed, the cause. It’s easy to
dismiss student protests but it misses the underlying conditions
in society that have motivated so many campus protests.
Latino and African American students are often under the belief
if they leave their community and go to colleges, that it will be
better. They believe it will be an upgrade over the challenges
that they saw in underserved and understaffed schools. But if
the colleges and universities are the same as those schools, then
there is disappointment and frustration.
Dean Howard at UCLA has said, “when these students leave
their community to go to a university, they often feel conflicted.
So when injustice comes up, they are quick to respond because
it is what they saw in their community. On some level, it is
their chance to let their parents and peers know that they have
not forgotten the struggle in the community."
To think racial insensitivity does not exist on college campuses
today is to be blinded to the obvious. Many in our society still
judge minorities on the basis of the judger’s values; their goals;
what they are trying to achieve in life and why. We have to
realize people are different. Students are looking for different
things in their college education. Minorities want to be heard
and understood.
There is nothing inherently wrong with students protesting
perceived unequal treatment or a university leadership that is
insensitive to their demands. We have free speech in America
after all and what better place to live it out than a college
campus? Demanding action be taken by the administration is not
what is offensive. What is offensive is when students impinge
on the rights of other students to get the kind of education they
expect at their universities. So, student protesters have to be
sensitive to these students’ needs just as they expect university
administrators to be respectful of their needs.
In 1852 John Cardinal Henry Newman wrote his classic text,
The Idea of a University. He eloquently stated the purpose in a

way that should not be forgotten in the fog of today’s student
protests. “If one must assign a practical end to a College
education, I say it is to train good members of society. Its art is
the art of social life, and its end is fitness for the world.”
In this context, we could say that universities are laboratories to
try new things; to think new thoughts; to challenge the status
quo; and to seek to change the world for the better. From an
ethical perspective, it is to impart the tools to live a principled,
significant and meaningful life and thereby to ultimately and
collectively improve our society. Today’s students should
internalize these ideals as they seek to be heard and understood.
Blog posted by Dr. Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on
November 24, 2015. Professor Mintz is on the faculty of the
Orfalea College of Business at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. He
also blogs at: www.workplaceethicsadvice.com.
11/24/2015 in Business ethics, Education, Ethical business
practices, Social media, Societal ethics, Workplace conflict |
Permalink | Comments (0)
Technorati Tags: academic freedom, black studies, campus
intolerance, discrimination in colleges, ethics sage, racial
tension, social media, Steven Mintz, student protest
The Lost Art of Respect for Authority
The Challenges for Respect, Civility and Morality in Society
It used to be that we respected police, teachers, legislators and
our parents. We respected people in authority positions because
they had just that – authority to keep our streets safe, show us
the way to a better life – a moral life; pass laws that improve
our lot in society and give us the chance to better ourselves; and
teach us right from wrong.
In today’s society in seems uncivil behavior is the rule rather
than the exception. Some people make derisive comments
towards police; teachers are shoved and even punched in the
classroom; legislators barely register on the respect scale; and

parents want to be friends to their kids rather than role models
who teach respect and help their sons and daughters to become
well-adjusted and contributing members of society.
Looking at other cultures, in Japan, respect is earned. Honor is
owed. Respect is based on how a person performs. Honor is
based on a person’s position. I go along with that because it
emphasizes the moral dimension of honor. After all, if we honor
another person we can say that we respect that person as well.
In our society we should honor police, teachers, leaders, and
parents because of their positions. Whether or not we respect
them is based on their attitudes and actions – but whether or not
we respect them, we must honor them.
I don’t typically quote the Bible in my blogs but in this case it
is instructive. The Bible tells us to honor our father and mother
– not because we think they deserve respect or honor – but
because of their position. The Bible tells us to treat others the
way we want to be treated, and treating them with respect
should be a given.
Turning now to morality, moral value comes from our
obligations towards others and the rightness of our acts. Moral
values or things that are morally good are reflected in our traits
of character, dispositions, emotions, motives, and intentions --
in short, persons, groups of persons, and elements of
personality. The distinction between judgments of moral and
nonmoral value is a matter of the difference in the grounds on
or reasons for which they are made.
Love of fellow man is a morally good disposition or emotion; it
is normally also a source of happiness. Consider also the
expressions "a good life" and "the good life." We sometimes say
of a man that he "had a good life"; we also sometimes say that
he "led a good life." In both cases we are saying that his life
was good; but in the second case we are saying that it was
morally good, or useful, or virtuous, while in the first we are
saying, in effect, that it was happy or satisfying, that is, that it
was good but in a nonmoral sense (i.e. accumulates wealth,
power or prestige in life). In the latter case it is because of

respect for the rights of others.
So, what does it all mean? That’s like saying what is the
meaning of life. Here are some of my thoughts. We should give
respect to others and honor them because it is the right thing to
do. We want to be respected and honored so we should treat
others this way. Unfortunately, all too often in society respect
and honor fall by the waist side.
Today we watch as political candidates make disparaging
comments about their competitors. We hear offensive epithets
hurled at police. We watch and witness teachers being beaten up
in the classroom. And then we read offensive comments
sometimes in reaction to such behaviors on Twitter. Some
people use that anonymous way of communicating to vent their
own frustrations.
The ever-increasing violence in society is a by-product of the
breakdown of respect, civility, and moral behavior in society.
We can blame social media but we also need to look at the way
we, as a society, are serving as that proverbial village to raise
our children. We need to look deep inside ourselves and ask
whether we are doing all that we can to better our society –
make it more civil and promote respect for others.
Respect and position are key ingredients in promoting a more
ethical society and in the workplace as I have blogged about
many times before. I think one of the greatest leadership
challenges for today's leaders is earning respect. In generations
past, at least a certain level of respect was shown for positional
authority. If you were an elder or a superior in some way,
showing respect was a cultural norm. In today's culture, respect
has to be earned. It's rarely a given based on your position in
the hierarchy. In fact, our culture fights hierarchy at every turn.
I understand why it is that way but also believe we should begin
with a certain level of respect for those in authority positions
and then see where we go from there based on their words and
actions.
In conclusion, let me leave you with these thoughts:
Whether or not I respect a person says something about their

life, values and character.
Whether or not I honor a person says something about my life,
values and character.
also blogs at: www.workplaceethicsadvice.com
practices, Social media, Societal ethics, Workplace ethics |
Technorati Tags: business ethics, civility, dispositions, ethics
sage, morality, respect for society, societal ethics, Steven Mintz
Big Pharma: Where is the corporate social responsibility in
High Drug Prices?
Are Big Pharma Drug Prices Out of Control?
Imagine you just went to your local pharmacy and were told that
the cost of a life-saving drug was $22,500 for 30 tablets to treat
AIDS or another infectious disease. Well, if you needed the
drug Daraprim that is what you would have to pay. Turing
Pharmaceuticals purchased the right to Darprim this past August
and CEO Martin Shkreli decided a price increase of 5500% was
needed. You heard me right – from $13.50 per dose to $750.00
per pill. But, hope is on the way because San Diego-based
Imprimis Pharmaceuticals announced in October that it will be
providing an alternative to Darprim that costs a fraction of the
pill’s pre-Shkreli price -- $99 for a 100-pill supply or about $1
per pill. In the meantime, how many patients that take Daraprim
might get sicker or die because they can’t afford the potential
life-saving medication?
Unjustified increases in drug prices include the drug naloxone
that reverses overdoses of opioids. In September, Amphaster,

the manufacturer of the drug, more than doubled its price. This
one is hard to understand because the drug has been on the
market since 2010. Why double the price now? Is the
manufacturer seeking to cash in on the drug before its 20-year
patent protection runs out and generic drugs come out?
A troubling trend comes from a report by Elsevier, a drug
product and pricing information provider, that out of a research
sample of 4,421 drug groups, 222 increased in price by 100%
between November 2013 and November 2014. One such product
is tetracycline, which is commonly prescribed for bacterial
infections. During the same period it’s per tablet price increased
from $0.0345 to $2.3632, a 67-fold increase in one year. Is the
possibility of price controls to blame because drug companies
seek to profit before drug prices fall under price controls?
We can blame, at least in part, drug price increases on overpaid
CEOs of big-Pharma who look to satisfy their own self-interest
first and that of their companies, and relegate corporate social
responsibility and public health issues to the back of the bus.
To be fair, there is some rationale for the positions of big
Pharma CEOs that high drug prices are needed because the cost
of research and development of new, more advanced
medications is ever-increasing. With an aging population, the
need to fight off diseases that can be life-threatening is acute.
Do we really want to cut off the supply of essential medications
that might cure cancer?
So, what can be done about the extraordinarily high prices of
medications? Bernie Sanders wants to make it legal for all
Americans to buy drugs from Canada where they are
significantly cheaper. This sounds like a good idea to me as it
relies on free market competition to reign in out of control drug
prices. Hillary Clinton proposes that there should be a $250-a-
month cap on out-of-pocket drug costs for patients with chronic
diseases such as cancer. This idea sounds good but it introduces
price controls in a roundabout way, which goes against our free
market system and: Do we really want the government to
become involved in another activity given it consistently shows

it can’t manage existing ones? Will price controls open the door
to more fraud – in Medicare or elsewhere?
Price controls do exist in Europe and Australia because those
countries believe – unlike phones or cars – the unique aspect of
drug prices is if consumers can’t afford the product, they could
have worse odds of living or face certain death. [I don’t think
anyone has died from not being able to buy an iPhone -- at least
not yet].
The European argument identifies the humane element and
seems to me to be an ethical position to take. But is it fair to
drug companies to control prices of a product they developed
and don’t they have a right to set whatever price the market will
bear?
Economic guru Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow at the Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities, believes creative solutions are
needed and suggests a new way to reward originality in drug
research and development by offering a generous cash prize for
inventing new medicines, and growing the National Institutes of
Health to subsidize the expensive stages of early research for
pharmaceutical companies. I’m skeptical of Bernstein’s plan
because it, too, provides a greater role for government in
prescription drug policy.
Recently a group of 118 oncologists came out in an editorial in
the Mayo Clinic medical journal to support a grassroots patient
effort to push for fairer prices from drug companies. According
to the editorial, many cancer patients are bankrupted by the high
cost of care even for insured patients for treatment that costs
$120,000 a year. The proposal is to get it down to $30,000 in
out-of-pocket expenses – more than half the average U.S.
household income. According to the editorial, the drugs are so
high that as many as 20% of oncology patients don’t take their
medication as prescribed. I believe it may be better to mandate
catastrophic insurance coverage. Under Obamacare, if you are
under 30 or obtained a “hardship exemption” you qualify for a
high deductible, low premium, catastrophic plan. What about
those over 30 who are more in need?

Greed is good. Greed is right. Greed works. These are the words
spoken by Gordon Gekko in Wall Street. We could say this is
the mantra of greedy CEOs of pharmaceutical companies. In a
2014 survey by Fierce Pharma, a news outlet for the industry,
the average pay of the 10 top CEOs of big Pharma was about
$30 million. None of the companies were in the Fortune top
100. Celgene was number 369, the highest in the industry. The
CEO of Celgene earned $36.61 million. This seems out of line
given the relatively small size of most pharmaceutical
manufacturing companies.
There seems to be no easy answer to the growing problem of
high drug prices. We can’t expect CEOs to control their own
compensation. It rarely occurs that a CEO gains a conscience
and looks to the public good rather than his or her own desires.
Some intervention is required in the best interests of consumers.
As with most things the devil is in the details.
11/10/2015 in Business ethics, Ethical standards in business,
Fraud, Government ethics, Societal ethics, Workplace ethics |
Technorati Tags: big ethical business practices, business ethics,
corporate social responsibility, Darprim, drug price controls,
drug prices, ethics sage, Pharma, Steven Mintz
How should we deal with disruptive students in schools?
Parents: Get with it. Teachers: Use it as a teachable moment.
Students: Wise up before it is too late
Last Friday about 100 students at Spring Valley High School in
South Carolina walked out of class briefly to show support for
Ben Fields, a school resource officer, after he was fired because
of his actions caught on video showing him throwing an

uncooperative black female student across the floor.
The students walked out of classes and gathered in the atrium to
express their views on the firing of Fields. Some in the crowd
— which included both black and white students — wore T-
shirts reading "Free Fields" or "#BringBackFields."
Spring Valley High Principal Jeff Temoney sent a letter to
parents afterward saying that the students were back in class
within 10 minutes and that class continued in a "safe and
productive manner." "I addressed the students to let them know
that we understood their need to make their voices heard,"
Temoney wrote. "Then I reminded them that Spring Valley High
is all about the business of teaching and learning, so it's time to
go back to class."
It seems like the Principal handled the situation well but the
real question is was Ben Fields’ actions justified? The footage
of the original incident sparked a national debate on the
officer's actions. In the original confrontation two Monday’s
ago, Fields can be heard telling the student to get up. A few
moments later, he grabbed the student as she was in her seat,
which caused the girl and the chair to flip over onto the floor.
Fields was then seen dragging the girl for several feet and
restraining her on the ground.
The conventional wisdom seems to be that Fields had the right
to put his hands on the student, but that when he threw the girl
across the room that is when he violated resource officer
training because they are taught to deescalate such situations.
The bigger question is what can a school do about a disruptive
student? California is moving in the wrong direction. [No
surprise there as the trend has been to make excuses for uncivil
behavior for the sake of political correctness – thank you Jerry
Brown].
California has become the first state in the nation to prohibit
schools from suspending or expelling students who engage in
“willful defiance” behavior. One reason for the passage of
Assembly Bill 420, according to the sponsors, is that it has been
disproportionately used statewide to discipline African-

American students and, in some districts, Latino students. In
2012-13, African-Americans made up about 6 percent of total
enrollment, but 19 percent of suspensions for defiance. Other
minorities also may be more susceptible to suspension or
expulsion for behavior such as talking back to teachers, fooling
around in class, talking to other students at inappropriate times,
and other disruptive behaviors that make it difficult to provide a
learning environment in K-12.
There is no doubt that students must be treated equal in the
application of the law and any deviation from this standard is
unacceptable. The issue for me is the new law provides no
alternatives to suspension or expulsion for willful defiance.
While I agree in some cases the punishment may exceed the
crime, school kids still have to learn ethical values such as
respect, responsibility for one’s actions, and a work ethic.
Disruptive behaviors fly in the face of developing these values.
Furthermore, it makes the job of a teacher more difficult at a
time when attention span is a big issue, especially for kids at
younger ages, and the lack of clear cut standards for willful
defiance behavior means the implementation of the law can vary
quite a bit from one school district to another. Moreover,
students are supposed to be learning lifetime skills and willful
defiance is not one of them.
I believe the best way to treat willful defiance is by first calling
a meeting with the parents to discuss the improper behaviors.
This should be used as a teachable moment both for the student
and parents, the latter of whom who might take it for granted
that their kid is a model for good behavior. The parents may
very well need a wake-up call as much as the kid does. After
all, discipline begins in the home and should not be left solely
to the school. Disruptive behavior should also be discussed in
class in a general way and linked to ethical behavior.
I recommend that the first offense should lead to a warning that
goes on the kids’ record. Thereafter, the school should
periodically communicate with the parents about the “progress”
of their kid. The second offense should lead to suspension. A

continued pattern of disruptive behavior, even after appropriate
steps have been taken to change those behaviors, should lead to
expulsion.
In commenting about the need for the new law, California
Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, D-Sacramento, who wrote the
legislation, claims one of the reasons for the disproportionate
effects of willful defiance on these students is that teachers and
administrators lack cultural competence. “We see
disproportionate levels of discipline for LGBT-identifying kids,
disabled kids, as well as African American kids and Latino
kids,” he said. “I think it has to do with expectations that
teachers and administrators have about behavioral norms. In
many instances, students may have different expectations of
behavioral norms.” Does that mean teachers should adopt those
expectations rather than what they think, as educators, is right
versus wrong?
Obviously, any discriminatory application of the willful
defiance provision is wrong. Ethics requires fair treatment for
all groups based on the same standard of behavior and equal
application of the law. However, I do take exception to the
remark that teachers and administrators have different
expectations of behavioral norms than students and, therefore,
the willful defiance provision is somehow flawed. This is
ethical relativism at its worst. We [should] have a set of values
based on what is right and what is wrong behavior. If we can’t
even agree on those values, then we’ve already lost the battle
and we wind up with a society where anyone can do whatever
they want as long as it conforms to one’s personal expectations.
November 5, 2015. Professor Mintz teaches in the Orfalea
College of Business at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. He also blogs
at: www.workplaceethicsadvice.com.
practices, Social media, Societal ethics, Workplace conflict,
Workplace ethics | Permalink | Comments (0)
Technorati Tags: Ben Fields, disruptive student, ethics sage,

parental responsibility, school ethics, Spring Valley High
School, Steven Mintz, willful defiance
What is the Difference between Morals and Ethics?
Morality v Ethics in Society
Many people bristle at the word “morality” but are quite
comfortable using the term “ethical”, and insist there’s some
crucial difference between the two. For instance, some people
say ethics are about external, socially imposed norms, while
morality is about individual conscience. Others say ethics is
concrete and practical while morality is more abstract, or is
somehow linked to religion. Among philosophers there’s no
clear agreed distinction, and most philosophers use the two
terms more or less interchangeably.
I like to think about it this way: Morals is about how we deal
with people we know while ethics is about how we deal with
people we do not know. The Golden Rule is instructive and
applies to both: We should treat others the way we want to be
treated. For those we know, we expect to be treated with respect
and with empathy. For those we don’t know we expect to be
treated fairly, a more subjective standard of behavior.
Now, there is no question that morality and ethics cross paths
and intersect at integrity. That is, if we are moral and ethical
people we will act based on principled behavior following
virtues such as honesty, respect, responsibility, and loyalty to
the truth as we see it; not so much to a person who might ask us
to do something we sense is wrong but to an objective sense of
what is right and what is wrong in a particular circumstance.
Moral questions tend to deal with issues such as abortion,
capital punishment, and the like that pertain to how we view
others’ behavior. Our morals are formed by core values such as
how we see the right to life or the right of a woman to choose
what she does with her body.
Ethical questions tend to deal with deciding correct conduct.

For example, let’s assume your neighbor is growing organic
vegetables and has more land than the eye can see. You think
about “harvesting” some of these vegetables for your own use.
Now, if you decide to stay off your neighbor’s land, you have
acted ethically. You considered the interests of your neighbor
and acted based on the universal ethical principle known as the
Categorical Imperative. It holds that we should act in a way that
we would want others to act if faced with similar conditions. In
other words, I wouldn’t want my neighbor to use my property
and what I grow for her own selfish needs so I should not do
that to my neighbor. Thus, ethical action takes on a universal
appeal; however we can imagine all kinds of "moral" viewpoints
on the right to life versus a woman’s right to choose.
I like to think of ethics as the rules for deciding correct
conduct. We can turn to philosophers for guidance as discussed
above or the rules may be embodied in codes of ethics such as
those of many professions. The following items are
characteristics of ethics:
· Ethics involves learning what is right and wrong, and then
doing the right thing.
· Most ethical decisions have extended consequences and ethics
requires weighing the consequences of alternative course of
action.
· Most ethical decisions are not black or white but rely on
reasoning through conflict situations using some standard of
guidance.
· Most ethical decisions have personal implications.
· Ethical decisions should respect the rights of those who are
affected by our actions.
Some people believe that most of us know what the right thing
to do is in most of the situations we face in life. That may be
true -- for most of us, but not all --. However, the hard part is
doing it. How do we ward off the pressure that might be
imposed by a boss or friend in trying to make the ethical
choice? This is where a strong moral fiber comes into play.
A strong moral fiber is the capacity to do what is right, no

matter what the circumstance. It all gets back to integrity –
having the courage of our convictions. The problem is ethics is
easier said than done.
In today's society it seems that people do not get that there is a
difference between what we have the right to do and what the
right thing to do is. We have a right to post offensive comments
about another person or our employer on social media. But, is it
the right thing to do? How will we know? The answer is each of
us has a moral compass. Unfortunately, for all too many in
society today their moral compass is pointing due south rather
than up to the heavens in a northerly direction.
Blog posted by Dr. Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on October
27, 2015. Professor Mintz is on the faculty of the Orfalea
10/27/2015 in Business ethics, Education, Ethical standards in
business, Social media, Societal ethics, Workplace conflict,
Technorati Tags: ethical standards in business, ethics, ethics
sage, morals, rights, social media, societal ethics, Steven Mintz
Workplace Values and Expectations of the Millennial
Generation
Hiring and keeping Millennials Happy in the 21st Century
If you want to attract Millennial interest in hiring and retention
on the job, ask how you can accommodate their desire to apply
their social networking skills to their jobs. Beyond that,
Millennials have specific needs and wants that should be
addressed by future employers.
According to a study by the CAA Intelligence Group 86 million
millennials will be in the workplace by 2020—representing a
full 40% of the total working population. Thus, it is in the best
interests of prospective employers to understand what makes

Millennials tick. What motivates them to choose to work for one
organization over another? What keeps them engaged and a
productive worker? What turns them off?
The Intelligence Group studies of millennials have found that:
· 64% of them say it’s a priority for them to make the
world a better place.
· 72% would like to be their own boss. But if they do have
to work for a boss, 79% of them would want that boss to serve
more as a coach or mentor.
· 88% prefer a collaborative work-culture rather than a
competitive one.
· 74% want flexible work schedules.
· And 88% want “work-life integration,” which isn’t the
same as work-life balance, since work and life now blend
together inextricably.
The survey concludes that millennials are looking strategically
at opportunities to invest in a place where they can make a
difference, preferably a place that itself makes a difference.
From my experience Millennials look for different things than
did older generations of workers. They are not bound by a 9-5
working day preferring instead to have time flexibility. The key
to keeping them interested and committed to work is to
understand they’ll get the work done but don’t want to
compartmentalize their time to do it.
Millennials’ use of technology clearly sets them apart. One of
the defining characteristics
of the millennial generation is their affinity with the digital
world. They have grown up
with broadband, smartphones, laptops and social media being
the norm and expect instant
access to information. This is the first generation to enter the
workplace with a better grasp
of a key business tool than more senior workers.
Millennials view the workplace through the same lens of new
technology as any other aspect of their lives: instant, open and
limitless. The era they have grown up in has shown them that

nothing is a guarantee. Instability and rapid change are the
norm. To millennials, time no longer equals money. It is a
limited resource to be spent wisely and actively managed.
Millennials don’t just want to spend their time earning a
paycheck; they want to invest time acquiring the skills and
knowledge they need to grow both personally and
professionally. They know one particular job may be fleeting
and they’ll likely move on a few times during their professional
lives. They seek out an employer who can provide the skills
necessary to get ahead and climb the ladder of corporate
success.
There have been many criticisms of millennials by older
workers including baby-boomers. Some say they are more
interested in their own needs than those of an employer. Others
claim they lack an adequate work ethic. Still others feel the
commitment to the organization is fleeting as they expect to
move on after a few years. These attributes may be different
than ever before, but that doesn’t mean their bad or wrong. It
means employers have to learn to effectively reach out to
millennials; provide a stimulating work environment; allow for
flexibility in work hours; provide consistent feedback so they
know just how well they are doing; and be sensitive to their
need to access social media during the day – within prescribed
limitations.
Of course millennials have to understand what their employers
need and want through the employers’ lens. A committed
employee who is trustworthy in today’s world is a bonus to
employers. My recommendation is for the Millennial and
employer to have a frank discussion about needs, wants,
expectation, evaluations, and social responsibility issues.
Finally, employers should bear in mind that this generation
makes the environment and sustainability a critical component
of their lifestyle choices. Employers need to pay attention to
what they do along these lines and expectations for their
employers. Developing a sustainability program at work attracts
Millennials and keeps them involved. It’s good for society and

good for the workplace.
20, 2015. Professor Mintz is on the faculty of the Orfalea
Ethical standards in business, Social media, Societal ethics,
Technorati Tags: business ethics, CSR, ethics sage, ethics sage,
Millennials, social media, social networkers, Steven Mintz,
workplace ethics, workplace values
What is the link between Ethical Leadership and Business
Ethics?
Ethical Leaders lead by Example
According to a Gallup Poll taken in 2013, only 21 percent of
people characterized business executives as having “high”
ethical standards—a little above lawyers (19 percent), but below
bankers (28 percent) and journalists (28 percent). Whether
that’s deserved or not, it’s nevertheless true that executives set
the ethical tone at their companies. But employees have the
power to improve it.
Employees engage in unethical behavior from time to time: an
employee takes home company supplies; a manager submits
personal expenses for reimbursement by the company; a member
of top management pressures accountants to manipulate the
financial results. These are just a few of the violations of
virtually all company codes of ethics. The question is why does
it happen and can anything be done to prevent it?
Ethical behavior must be modeled by the leader of an
organization. For me the issue is not so much a lack of business
ethics but it is a lack of ethical leadership by management.
Underlying all leadership characteristics is the need for a strong
sense of ethics – right and wrong – to help those in the

organization that look for moral guidance when difficult issues
arise or workplace conflicts occur.
Leadership and management go hand in hand. They are not the
same thing. But they are necessarily linked, and complementary.
Any effort to separate the two is likely to cause more problems
than it solves.
Still, much of organizational development writings have been
spent delineating the differences. The manager’s job is to plan,
organize and coordinate. The leader’s job is to inspire and
motivate. In his 1989 book “On Becoming a Leader,” Warren
Bennis composed a list of the differences:
– The manager administers; the leader innovates.
– The manager focuses on systems and structure; the leader
focuses on people.
– The manager relies on control; the leader inspires trust.
– The manager has a short-range view; the leader has a long-
range perspective.
– The manager asks how and when; the leader asks what and
why.
– The manager has his or her eye always on the bottom line; the
leader’s eye is on the horizon.
– The manager is the classic good soldier; the leader is his or
her own person.
– The manager does things right; the leader does the right thing.
In the new economy, where value comes increasingly from the
knowledge of people, and where workers are no longer
undifferentiated parts of an industrial machine, management and
leadership are not easily separated. People look to their
managers, not just to assign them a task, but to define for them
a purpose. And managers must organize workers, not just to
maximize efficiency, but to nurture skills, develop talent and
inspire results.
The late management guru Peter Drucker was one of the first to
recognize this truth, as he was to recognize so many other
management truths. He identified the emergence of the
“knowledge worker,” and the profound differences that would

cause in the way business was organized.
With the rise of the knowledge worker, “one does not ‘manage’
people,” Drucker wrote. “The task is to lead people. And the
goal is to make productive the specific strengths and knowledge
of every individual.”
For businesses to become more ethical and inspire a new
generation of leaders, the manager must share a vision of what
it means to be successful in business. In the end it is not the
bottom line profit, which is fleeting at best. It is the way that
managers interact with people; how they treat their employees;
how they deal with customers and suppliers; and whether they
respect the accounting process and make decisions based on
accurate and complete financial statements, not manipulated
statements for short-term gain and to enhance one’s self-
interests.
Managers and leaders are committed to ethical relationships and
ethical decision making, and such decisions must be ingrained
in the DNA of the organization.
It has been said that character is revealed over time and under
pressure. Nothing could be more true than to observe how a
crisis is handled by the management in an organization and
whether underlying core ethical values are stressed (i.e.,
honesty, integrity, respect and responsibility), and not unethical
values (i.e., profits, individual wealth, power and influence).
6, 2015. Professor Mintz is on the faculty of the Orfalea College
of Business at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. He also blogs at:
www.workplaceethicsadvice.com.
Ethical standards in business, Workplace conflict, Workplace
ethics | Permalink | Comments (0)
Technorati Tags: business ethics, ethical business practices,
ethical leadership, ethical tone at top, ethics sage, Steven
Mintz, workplace ethics

Ethics Sage one of 30 Best CSR Blogs
30 Exceptional CSR Blogs
Published by Market Inspector
30. September 2015
Ethics Sage is published by Dr. Steven M. Mintz, who holds a
PhD and is a professor of accounting specializing in ethics. He
likes to share his valuable knowledge by giving presentations to
professional and academic groups that would like to create a
more ethical organizational environment, as well as providing
tips to improve ethics in financial reporting. Dr. Mintz provides
readers with interesting thoughts about accounting, business
ethics, fraud and workplace ethics issues. If you are interested
in CSR don’t hesitate to visit this blog that provides captivating
weekly posts.
http://www.market-inspector.co.uk/blog/2015/09/30-
exceptional-csr-blogs
09/30/2015 in Accounting ethical standards, Business ethics,
Education, Press, Social media, Societal ethics, Workplace
ethics | Permalink | Comments (0)
Technorati Tags: accounting ethics, CSR blogs, ethics
education, ethics sage, Steven Mintz
VW's Irresponsible Behavior has Consequences
VW joins GM and Toyota in allowing Deficient Cars to be Sold
By now you know that Volkswagen has apologized for selling
hundreds of thousands of diesel cars in the U.S. with software
specifically designed to evade government pollution tests. The
company disclosed that the irregularities on diesel-emission
readings extend to some 11 million vehicles globally. The
company has admitted that it rigged diesel vehicles using a
"defeat device" to pass lab tests, even though they emitted as

much as 40 times the legal limit of pollutants on the road.
At this early stage, putting a precise price tag on the ultimate
cost of pollution penalties, criminal fines, private settlements,
and the like is virtually impossible. I’ve heard an $18 billion
liability figure reflects the maximum per-car clean-air penalty
the Environmental Protection Agency could, in theory, assess.
Some 482,000 four-cylinder VW and Audi cars, sold in the U.S.
since 2008, multiplied by $37,500 for each non-compliant
vehicle. Volkswagen has set aside €6.5 billion ($7.3 billion) to
cover the scandal. That’s a huge amount. However, it’s not
enough, in my view, because this is a case where intent to
deceive is easy to establish making it a slam dunk for fraud. In
fact, early reports indicate that the German government may
have known that VW was rigging its emissions tests.
Satisfying the EPA and Justice Department is not the end of the
liability story for VW. State attorneys general are going to want
in on these settlements using state environmental laws and
pollution emission regulations. Then there are private plaintiff
attorneys who will file lawsuits seeking compensatory and
punitive damages for hundreds of thousands of car owners
whose vehicles are worth thousands of dollars less today than
they were last week. Yet another category of suits will seek
compensation for shareholders who have seen the value of their
VW stock shrink by more than a third since the scandal broke
last week.
The company is not disputing any of the charges. In fact, Chief
Executive Officer Martin Winterkorn said that his company is
“deeply sorry” for the emissions-cheating scandal and will do
“everything necessary in order to reverse the damage this has
caused.” Michael Horn, head of the brand in the U.S.,
elaborated: “Our company was dishonest with the EPA, and the
California Air Resources Board, and with all of you. And in my
German words: We have totally screwed up.”
Well, it didn’t take Winterkorn long to bail out after the
admission. He resigned as CEO last Wednesday, taking
responsibility for an emissions cheating scandal that has gravely

damaged the carmaker’s reputation. “As C.E.O., I accept
responsibility for the irregularities that have been found in
diesel engines,” Mr. Winterkorn, said. He then turned around
and undid all the good by apologizing when he qualified it by
saying that he had personally committed no misconduct. “I am
not aware of any wrongdoing on my part,” he said.
It may be too strong a word to call Winterkorn a “dummkopf.”
He needs to realize that even if he knew nothing about the
missions scam, he should have known and that puts him into the
“bonehead” category. Not knowing about fraud that occurs
under one’s nose and during one’s watch is just as bad (all
right, not quite as bad), as knowing and doing nothing about.
Not knowing the truth when one should know it is not a defense
for irresponsibility.
The worst scandal in VW's 78-year history showed no sign of
abating as Germany’s transport minister said last Thursday it
had manipulated tests in Europe as well as the United States. To
her credit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel showed courage
when she came out and said that VW should act quickly to
restore confidence in a company held up for generations as a
paragon of German engineering prowess.
What is it with the automobile industry? How many times are
we going to stand idly by while another car company issues
another disclosure and, eventually, mea culpa, about ignoring
defects or gaming the system as did Volkswagen? Just a few
days before VW’s admission, General Motors agreed to pay
$900 million to resolve a federal criminal investigation of
ignition-switch flaws linked to at least 124 crash deaths and the
recall of 2.59 million cars. So far, no individuals have been
criminally charged in the GM case, but prosecutors have said
the probe is continuing. In an earlier case concerning cars that
allegedly accelerated spontaneously, Toyota reached a $1.2
billion settlement with the Justice Department, the largest-ever
U.S. criminal penalty for a car company. I could go back to the
1960s and rehash the Ford Pinto debacle when crashing testing
sat low speeds determined that the gas tanks regularly ruptured

and the cars could be engulfed in flames causing accidents or
deaths.
Trust is the basis for good business. If the driving public cannot
trust that their cars will operate safely under all conditions, then
the guilty company’s should be punished. Irresponsible behavior
is unacceptable, especially in an industry where people’s health
and welfare – and very life – is at stake. VW should be ashamed
of itself. It has forfeited the right to be considered an elite car
company. Let’s hope consumers think twice before being any
VWs in the future if for no reason other than to teach the
company a lesson that actions have consequences.
September 28, 2015. Professor Mintz is on the faculty of the

Do Corporations Have an Ethical Obligation to Pay their Fair Shar.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Do Corporations Have an Ethical Obligation to Pay their Fair Shar.docx

Similar to Do Corporations Have an Ethical Obligation to Pay their Fair Shar.docx (8)

More from elinoraudley582231

More from elinoraudley582231 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Do Corporations Have an Ethical Obligation to Pay their Fair Shar.docx