The modern society assigns a number of roles to people. A very important one is the role of an employee. Work constitutes a significant part of the adult life of most humans. It is natural that certain rights and responsibilities come with it.
I would like to comment on a part of Prof. Joseph DesJardins’* book “An Introduction to Business Ethics”. Chapters 5 and 6 of this work analyze employee rights and responsibilities respectively. The focus is on the ethical, not the legal/contractual framework.
Employee rights
First the author discusses the concept of a right to work and its meaning and extent. Later on, the ideas of employment at will and due rights are being contrasted against each other. The chapter also asks about the extent of employee participation rights.
In my opinion an employee does not have the right to get job he or she would like to obtain, but only those that correspond their skills and abilities. Whereas the inequality of power and means makes a good case for justifying the concept of due rights, it does just the contrary for the idea of participation. Corporations are not democratic institutions and they need hierarchy to be economically viable. An employee cannot expect same decision-making rights as the agent appointed by the owner of the corporation.
I acknowledge that in an optimal situation an employee gets both extrinsic (salary, benefits etc.) and intrinsic (job satisfaction, sense of fulfillment etc.) compensation from his or hers employment. It is clear to me that in exchange for that, employees should adhere to certain employer rules, which might sacrifice some of the employee privacy. The corporations have a goal to achieve a profit and an implicit obligation to act for the good of their employees. If this means screening for people abusing illegal substances or alcohol it just serves the greater good of all employees and the business entity itself.
Employee responsibilities
DesJardins opens this chapter covering employee responsibilities with a case study about Enron, which discusses the behavior of various Enron agents’ right before and during the fall of the energy-trading giant.
The principles of the agent theory are discussed subsequently. Employees are defined as agent hired by the principal (employer) to fulfill certain of the principal goals. The author makes a crucial distinction between regular employees and managers. It is pointed out that the manager’s expertise and the resulting information asymmetry in favor of the agent may result in abusing of the trust of the employer and lead to the question what is the extent of employee responsibilities.
Furthermore, the role and responsibilities of certain established professions which are holding particular social importance, or even the gatekeeper function, are discussed. Joseph DesJardins also writes about managerial responsibility and the conflicts of interests between managers’ goals and organizational goals are presented next. The author does a very good job in contrasting the Enron executives selling of their shares versus the employees that they have deliberately misinformed. That leads to the section employee loyalty, which presents a view point that employees should not have the moral obligation to be loyal to the company. This made me ask myself the question – if the employees do not have such a responsibility, does this mean, the company does not need to be loyal towards its employees and how does it affect the agents’ rights’?
The chapter is concluded with questions about responsibilities of employees towards outside parties. Such issues as honesty, whistleblowing and insider trading are mentioned.
The conclusion I have reached after analyzing the mentioned above readings is that employees have certain moral obligations towards their employers, as well as certain rights. If the organization is hurting the employee’s autonomy or dignity by deceit or any other kind of abuse, the right of the employee to be treated ethically overrides the possible loyalty. Another aspect of these responsibilities is that agent may feel compelled to have responsibilities towards third parties, or the society as a whole and in certain cases they might be more important than the employee responsibilities towards their principals.
I do not agree with Prof. DesJardins at certain points in his book, but it provides an inresting material for analysis. Sometimes I feel that the ethical aspect of an issue such as employee rights/responsibilities is overlooked…
I would like to comment on a part of Prof. Joseph DesJardins’* book “An Introduction to Business Ethics”. Chapters 5 and 6 of this work analyze employee rights and responsibilities respectively. The focus is on the ethical, not the legal/contractual framework.
Employee rights
First the author discusses the concept of a right to work and its meaning and extent. Later on, the ideas of employment at will and due rights are being contrasted against each other. The chapter also asks about the extent of employee participation rights.
In my opinion an employee does not have the right to get job he or she would like to obtain, but only those that correspond their skills and abilities. Whereas the inequality of power and means makes a good case for justifying the concept of due rights, it does just the contrary for the idea of participation. Corporations are not democratic institutions and they need hierarchy to be economically viable. An employee cannot expect same decision-making rights as the agent appointed by the owner of the corporation.
I acknowledge that in an optimal situation an employee gets both extrinsic (salary, benefits etc.) and intrinsic (job satisfaction, sense of fulfillment etc.) compensation from his or hers employment. It is clear to me that in exchange for that, employees should adhere to certain employer rules, which might sacrifice some of the employee privacy. The corporations have a goal to achieve a profit and an implicit obligation to act for the good of their employees. If this means screening for people abusing illegal substances or alcohol it just serves the greater good of all employees and the business entity itself.
Employee responsibilities
DesJardins opens this chapter covering employee responsibilities with a case study about Enron, which discusses the behavior of various Enron agents’ right before and during the fall of the energy-trading giant.
The principles of the agent theory are discussed subsequently. Employees are defined as agent hired by the principal (employer) to fulfill certain of the principal goals. The author makes a crucial distinction between regular employees and managers. It is pointed out that the manager’s expertise and the resulting information asymmetry in favor of the agent may result in abusing of the trust of the employer and lead to the question what is the extent of employee responsibilities.
Furthermore, the role and responsibilities of certain established professions which are holding particular social importance, or even the gatekeeper function, are discussed. Joseph DesJardins also writes about managerial responsibility and the conflicts of interests between managers’ goals and organizational goals are presented next. The author does a very good job in contrasting the Enron executives selling of their shares versus the employees that they have deliberately misinformed. That leads to the section employee loyalty, which presents a view point that employees should not have the moral obligation to be loyal to the company. This made me ask myself the question – if the employees do not have such a responsibility, does this mean, the company does not need to be loyal towards its employees and how does it affect the agents’ rights’?
The chapter is concluded with questions about responsibilities of employees towards outside parties. Such issues as honesty, whistleblowing and insider trading are mentioned.
The conclusion I have reached after analyzing the mentioned above readings is that employees have certain moral obligations towards their employers, as well as certain rights. If the organization is hurting the employee’s autonomy or dignity by deceit or any other kind of abuse, the right of the employee to be treated ethically overrides the possible loyalty. Another aspect of these responsibilities is that agent may feel compelled to have responsibilities towards third parties, or the society as a whole and in certain cases they might be more important than the employee responsibilities towards their principals.
I do not agree with Prof. DesJardins at certain points in his book, but it provides an inresting material for analysis. Sometimes I feel that the ethical aspect of an issue such as employee rights/responsibilities is overlooked…
* - Joseph DesJardins An Introduction To Business Ethics, McGraw Hill, second edition, 2006
No comments:
Post a Comment