All fifty states operate under the guise of “at-will ” employment to some extent. This essentially means that an employer may discharge an employee without cause. It was originally designed to protect both the employer and employee on several levels but has not really lived up to its intent. The theory is that both the employer and employee can get out of a situation without recourse, but in reality only the employer has that capability while the employee has the unspoken responsibility to not leave the employer “high and dry.” Why? Because if they do there will surely be no glowing employment references.
When you consider the implications it essentially gives employers carte blanche to dismiss employees on a whim. This was not much of a problem when the odds were in the worker’s favor due to it being an “employee market”, but in times of economic crisis it becomes less and less ethical. No one is ever going to ask employers about their record of giving advance notice to employees, but if an employee wants that job on their resume they had better give plenty of notice and leave on the best of terms. So, while the law is intended to protect both parties it is decidedly one sided.
Aside from the ethical question of whether or not this law should be changed perhaps we should be looking at the bigger picture. Our workforce is overworked, burnt out, stressed out, and just generally mistreated. We ask the world of our personnel in unpaid overtime, little to no vacation time, and dedication all in the hopes that they might someday climb the corporate ladder and see a payoff only to get tossed out with the trash in favor of someone younger, less expensive, and equally as expendable. Loyalty is expected from employees with very little offered in return; most often in the name of increasing the bottom line and C level bonuses.
Wake up corporate America and earn the loyalty and respect of your workforce before it is too late. You’ll be glad you did.

It is very important for vendors and consumers to have a clear understanding of the companies they deal with or purchase from. There are three distinct ways one can do this by way of looking at how a company treats its customers, vendors (partners), and employees.
CUSTOMERS
1. Does the company ignore customers?
2. Does the customer have the perception that they are being given the benefit of the doubt, which is sometimes mislabeled “the customer is always right?”
3. Is the company guilty of poor customer service?
4. Are customers passed off to an overseas call center with no authority to problem solve?

VENDORS
1. Does the company treat its vendors with honesty?
2. Does the company treat its vendors with fairness? (ex: selling fair trade products)
3. Does the company pay vendors in a timely manner

EMPLOYEES
1. Do employees feel undervalued?
2. Do employees feel over scrutinized? (not trusted to do their jobs)
3. Do employees feel expendable?
4. Do employees feel underpaid for the level of work they are doing?
5. Is there high turnover in the company?
6. Is there a consistent pattern of using employees to gain contact lists or knowledge and then letting them go?

If a company fails in one or more of these areas it could be a clear indicator that you would not want to deal with them on any level. The greater implication here is that the business is operating in an unethical manner. Aligning yourself with a company such as this will undoubtedly place a black mark on your reputation in business or have you suffering as a consumer. Additionally, it could also be an indicator of a misuse of company funds, but that will be saved for the next time……

The California courts have recently determined that the right to privacy does not extend beyond death in the case of Nikki Catsourus. While this gets escalated to the appeals level, and then most likely on to the Supreme court, we have to wonder why. Perhaps more importantly, we should ponder as to why we feel the need to be so voyeuristic. This is a tragedy beyond compare, and the family must be suffering in unimaginable ways. This young lady was not famous and should therefore not be subject to the same rules of privacy.

What is our obsession with the gruesome details? Why is human nature such that we just cannot look away? And why in the world would a California Highway patrolman find it necessary to send these pictures to friends and then have them end up all over the internet? Can we say common decency?

As this story unfolds, and the case winds its way through the court system let us accept that this behavior, while not currently illegal, is unethical to say the least. Surely there must be something else for people to obsess about that is not quite so vile. It is bad enough that people read the rag magazines about the famous and infamous, but leave this poor child and her family alone. Haven’t they suffered enough?

Okay, so I am going to go out on another limb with something controversial here, but I just feel that it is time to chime in as it is becoming an ethical issue. For years now I have been hearing, and understanding, how everyone has a right to their “opinion.” This is true, and freedom of speech and expression are two of the factors that make this country great. Now, let’s go a little deeper into the idea of “opinion.”

Once “opinion” crosses over into “action” it is no longer a “point of view.” I always see both sides to an argument and value people’s differing opinions, and this subject has been no different until now. With states like Maine legalizing gay marriage day by day and public figures such as Miss California joining organizations to prevent the legalization of gay marriage the debate is heating up, but it is now more than a debate. I understand that there are many people in this country that oppose gay marriage primarily on the foundation of religious reasons, and that is to be respected to a degree, but we also have laws in this country that protect a person’s civil liberties. In this case we are left arguing based on the Principle of Rights, i.e. one person’s rights versus another’s. Allowing a gay couple to marry is not infringing on the rights of those with strong religious beliefs, however, the campaign to prevent them from marrying does infringe on another group’s rights.

Our civil judicial system operates under this very principle of rights and so it is doing in this case. The courts are deciding whether or not gay couples should be allowed to marry. The courts are where cases of rights are adjudicated not by public vote. If this were not the case then there would be many things in this country that would never have changed. It is not, in any situation, appropriate or ethical for the majority to dictate to a minority on basic human rights.

It wasn’t that far back in recent history that African Americans and Caucasians were not allowed to marry. The “majority” felt it should be prevented based on religious moral convictions. Sound familiar? We look back on this today as ridiculous, but the fight for this right was long and arduous. The majority’s moral, religious conviction against the allowing of multiracial marriage was deemed unethical and a violation of rights of another.

Our system is designed to protect the rights of the minority against the whims of the majority. It is our ethical duty as Americans to address this. Not to pick on this one person, but if Miss California had stood on the Miss USA stage and ranted about taking away the rights of multicultural partners to marry we would be outraged. We would be quick to call her and others like her racists and un American. Why then is it “okay” to do the same to another group of tax paying Americans?

Now I am going to jump on the bandwagon. About a week or so ago I witnessed a minor accident on a main thoroughfare and without missing a beat I automatically stopped to give my business card to the non-responsible party. I was in between meetings so I really did not have time to chat, but I could see the shocked look on his face as I handed it to him and briskly got back in my car to zoom away to my next appointment.

I stopped for many reasons. Foremost, it is the right thing to do, despite the fact it is rarely done. Secondly, although it would have appeared to be a rear end/right rear quadrant collision, the party that was hit was actually one hundred percent at fault. She decided to cut across four lanes of busy traffic to grab a parking spot and the poor sod in front of me had nowhere to go. Third, I firmly believe in random acts of kindness, and I knew the unfortunate fellow was going to get blamed when he was in no way at fault, and lastly, it could just as easily have been me in his position had I been two minutes earlier for my appointment.

So I felt good about being a Good Samaritan and doing the right thing, but my moral to the story is exactly why people rarely stop in the first place. Later the same day the victim’s insurance company, AAA, called me and asked for a recorded statement. I was more than happy to accommodate and was done swiftly. Now, two weeks later I get a cryptic letter from Mercury Insurance, which I despise for their business practices to begin with, asking me to type out a statement and mail it back to them. I have two problems with this approach. To begin with, I am extremely busy and do not have the time to type out random statements. More importantly, they expected me to put my own stamp on the envelope and take the time to mail it out. This was really not a big deal, but remember, I was just being a good citizen and this was the insurance company of the guilty party, who by the way was trying to say it was not her fault. It was the principle of the matter. They could have at least provided the stamp!

This is exactly the reason people do not take the time out of their busy day to “do the right thing.” The Good Samaritan seems to always get bitten somehow. How many times have we all heard stories of a caring citizen coming to the rescue only to get sued in the end themselves, etc. Remember Richard Jewell, the hero of the Atlanta Olympic bombing? He died last year a broken man and all he did was the “right thing.” As for me, I will continue to pay it forward as often as possible, but I most certainly understand why people are reluctant to do so.

Reprinted from my blog at a national travel magazine April 10, 2008