Guy Fawkes' Post; IS IT ETHICAL TO WITHHOLD THE TRUTH? IS THAT BETTER THAN LYING?
Thanks to that mass e mail on 2-28, now I understand some things, and thanks to someone for getting me in this blog.
Sonnschein’s words on 9-11-05 tell a complete story, and there is good perception from 77Morpheus about the way some real criminals were treated and the worthlessness of company loyalty and the uselessness of the hotline when the company makes a bad decision and has to protect it.
I have some perception too and this is what I see happening, and its real obvious and it violates all ethical handling of a matter and a person by the company.
He won't be told, but Bob is gradually being removed from any jobs of importance and visibility, but still will have the grunt jobs of auditing and writing and invisible solving problems. It would be "inconvevient" for the company to have a convict in a visible position even though it was a false conviction. Is it ethical to withhold the truth? Is that better than lying?
He won't be told, but he will not be allowed to achieve anything because he is held to a different standard. Anything that would be recognized as an achievement in anybody else will be declared unimportant or kept invisible if achieved by him. It would be "uncomfortable" for the company to let a convicted criminal have that kind of visibility even if wrongly convicted. He will be just a resource to be exploited, but the only recognition and appreciation will come from his peers, and they are discouraged from doing it openly. He is the best we have when it comes to knowing things, but not when it comes to recognition except by his peers. Is it ethical to withhold the truth? Is that better than lying?
He won't be told, but he will not go to hq again. You know that management trick, to put a stain on somebody and then keep them out of sight because they are stained. To let him go to hq would require somebody to do something, but to keep him away nobody has to do anything. It is easier to do nothing than something, and doing nothing allows the company to stay in denial and rationalize that he brought something on himself. The company can't have Rose claim that she is "uncomfortable." In fact, doesn't management in head office try to avoid saying his name openly?. Is it ethical to withhold the truth? Is that better than lying?
Graham never stood up for anybody and now wants to put as much distance from Bob as possible. They would like nothing as much as to have Bob resign.
His bitterness does not show and that's good because he would be slammed for a bad attitude. You know that management trick, cause a person to have a bad attitude and then criticise them for having it.
His melancholy shows and sooner or later the the company can call that a bad attitude too. Is it ethical to damage somebody and then blame them for looking damaged?
They tell him to let it go and put it behind him, but you can not put something behind you today when you have to wake up to it tomorrow can you.
The company answer to another compliance report about this is scary
“The matters referred to in the callers allegation are closed. The Company can make no further comment on these issues without disclosing information that is confidential.”
You know how to make all this go away
Its not by doing anything worse to Bob its by reopening the matter and making the right decision. Doing something worse to Bob would make it all worse.
Sonnschein’s words on 9-11-05 tell a complete story, and there is good perception from 77Morpheus about the way some real criminals were treated and the worthlessness of company loyalty and the uselessness of the hotline when the company makes a bad decision and has to protect it.
I have some perception too and this is what I see happening, and its real obvious and it violates all ethical handling of a matter and a person by the company.
He won't be told, but Bob is gradually being removed from any jobs of importance and visibility, but still will have the grunt jobs of auditing and writing and invisible solving problems. It would be "inconvevient" for the company to have a convict in a visible position even though it was a false conviction. Is it ethical to withhold the truth? Is that better than lying?
He won't be told, but he will not be allowed to achieve anything because he is held to a different standard. Anything that would be recognized as an achievement in anybody else will be declared unimportant or kept invisible if achieved by him. It would be "uncomfortable" for the company to let a convicted criminal have that kind of visibility even if wrongly convicted. He will be just a resource to be exploited, but the only recognition and appreciation will come from his peers, and they are discouraged from doing it openly. He is the best we have when it comes to knowing things, but not when it comes to recognition except by his peers. Is it ethical to withhold the truth? Is that better than lying?
He won't be told, but he will not go to hq again. You know that management trick, to put a stain on somebody and then keep them out of sight because they are stained. To let him go to hq would require somebody to do something, but to keep him away nobody has to do anything. It is easier to do nothing than something, and doing nothing allows the company to stay in denial and rationalize that he brought something on himself. The company can't have Rose claim that she is "uncomfortable." In fact, doesn't management in head office try to avoid saying his name openly?. Is it ethical to withhold the truth? Is that better than lying?
Graham never stood up for anybody and now wants to put as much distance from Bob as possible. They would like nothing as much as to have Bob resign.
His bitterness does not show and that's good because he would be slammed for a bad attitude. You know that management trick, cause a person to have a bad attitude and then criticise them for having it.
His melancholy shows and sooner or later the the company can call that a bad attitude too. Is it ethical to damage somebody and then blame them for looking damaged?
They tell him to let it go and put it behind him, but you can not put something behind you today when you have to wake up to it tomorrow can you.
The company answer to another compliance report about this is scary
“The matters referred to in the callers allegation are closed. The Company can make no further comment on these issues without disclosing information that is confidential.”
You know how to make all this go away
Its not by doing anything worse to Bob its by reopening the matter and making the right decision. Doing something worse to Bob would make it all worse.
posted by Anonymous | 7:57 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home