Good Honest Dollar $$

In last week’s post, I outlined what I felt to be a range of core fundamental rights to which every worker should be entitled, regardless of the country, industry or culture in which they are employed.

But with rights come responsibilities, and today, I would like to outline what I feel should be the key responsibilities of each and every employee.

 
Key responsibilities of employees
Listed below are what I feel should be the key responsibilities of every employee. This list is by no means exhaustive and readers are encouraged to add their own suggestions:

 
• Strive to maximize their contribution.

This point summarizes the overriding responsibility of an employee in a nutshell.

Employees must at all times strive to maximize the value of their contribution to their contribution, both to their employer and also the key stakeholders to whom their employer is accountable.

This must be the overriding focal point, and the foundation upon which staff base their whole approach toward the fulfillment of their responsibilities.

The bare minimum is not acceptable. Workers must go all-out for excellence.

 
• Adopt an attitude of service.

An employment relationship should be one of mutual respect. But it is not a relationship of equals – the employee is the servant and the employer is the master.

Let me stress, I am not talking about any form of slavery. Instead, what I am talking about is that workers must accept that they are in a position of service, and that this has two fundamental consequences in terms of the manner in which they should approach their responsibilities.

The first such consequence relates to an employee’s interaction with those to whom he or she is accountable. Staff must seek to adopt an attitude of personal humility, particularly in the presence of superiors, owners or shareholders, as well as other relevant stakeholders. In addition, workers should demonstrate an appropriate degree of courtesy and respect toward those to whom they are accountable.

The second consequence relates to the manner in which employees approach their responsibilities. Workers must seek to serve in a manner which is dutiful, loyal and trustworthy at all times – regardless of whether his or her superiors are watching.  

 
• Do whatever it takes.

Staff must always be willing and prepared to do whatever is necessary in order to complete their responsibilities in a satisfactory manner.

Whilst excessive amounts of overtime should not be encouraged, employees must be willing to put in time outside of standard office hours where necessary in order to get the job done. In addition, workers must be willing to assist with projects which are not normally within their job description where necessary.

 
• Be a team player.

The attitude of “not my department, not my responsibility,” has no place within the modern workplace environment.

Employees owe a position of service to the entire company and the key stakeholders that the company serves, not simply the department to which they are allocated, and staff must be willing to work in a cooperative manner with those outside of their department and contribute toward projects which fall outside the scope of their regular duties.

 
• Act with integrity.

Employees should seek to act in a manner of complete honesty and integrity at all times.

Prior to commencing employment, prospective employees must refrain from making any form of misrepresentation in terms of their qualifications or suitability for the position.

Whilst in employment, any form of theft, misappropriation or unauthorized of company money, property or data is unacceptable, as is any misuse of position for personal gain.

In addition, staff must refrain from participation in any form of conduct which is illegal, unethical, or in breach of any applicable industry or professional codes of conduct – regardless of any pressure applied by colleagues or superiors.

Finally, upon becoming aware of any form of improper conduct of others, employees must report such conduct to an appropriate authority – whether this be to an appropriate manager within the organization, or potentially to regulatory authorities or other parties outside the organization.

 
• Observe all health and safety procedures.

Whilst the employer has an obligation to provide a safe working environment, every employee within an organization has the responsibility to take a proactive approach toward ensuring not only their own personal safety, but also that of their colleagues.

This includes following all occupational health and safety procedures, wearing all required safety equipment, and either taking immediate preventative action or brining the matter to the attention of appropriate personnel in the event of identification of potential hazards.

 
• Refuse to engage in conduct which harmful to their employer.

At no stage should an employee engage in any form of conduct which could in any way cause harm to their employer, whether during or outside office hours.

Employees must refrain from participation in any form of employment or business activities outside the scope of their regular job which either represent any form of competition to their employer’s business or result in any form of conflict of interest which has the potential to in any way compromise their ability to serve their employer in a satisfactory manner.

In addition, staff must at all times refrain from any form of conduct which has the potential to bring the reputation of their employer into disrepute.

 
• Be a good ambassador for their employer.

The behavior of staff, both during and outside office hours, has an impact upon the reputation of their employer.

Accordingly, staff should seek to act in a manner which is honorable to their employer at all times.

During work hours, staff must adopt a thoroughly courteous and professional approach in their dealings with all relevant stakeholders.

Outside office hours, employers need not observe all of the rules of regular office etiquette, but should nevertheless refrain from any form of conduct which could in any way bring the reputation of their company into disrepute, as noted above. This particularly applies whilst participating in any form of out of office functions or activities which are related to their employment.

Dear readers,

Today I would like to start a new series of discussions which will focus upon the rights and responsibilities of employees at work. Although the majority of the discussions will focus predominately upon employee rights, the responsibilities of workers will be alluded to also, particularly I do not feel that it would be appropriate for me to focus solely upon employee rights whilst neglecting the other side of the equation.

Also, I intend to discuss the issue at a very broad level, so as to ensure that the discussions are relevant across both the developed and the developing world as much as possible.

I have not yet made a final decision about which specific areas the discussions will cover, and readers are more than welcome to suggest any particular topics.

I thoroughly hope all readers enjoy this series.

Cheers

Andrew

Contrary to the opinions expressed from certain quarters within the business world, the U.S. government is right on the money in seeking to place limits upon executive compensation in firms who receive government assistance as part any bailout of financial institutions.

American taxpayers should not have to subsidize mass exit packages for executives whose firms have failed to deliver acceptable results.

An in-depth examination of specific proposals is beyond the scope of this discussion. However, I do wish to comment today on the general issue of whether the American Congress should seek to intervene in relation to executive compensation at firms which participate in any taxpayer-funded bailout.

  
Generally, the government should stay out of it …
In general, governments should not intervene in the process of determining appropriate compensation arrangements for executives in private sector firms.

The process of determining fair and appropriate structures for executive remuneration is extremely complex, and a high degree of flexibility is required for corporate boards, acting on behalf of shareholders, and the executives concerned to negotiate compensation packages which are appropriate in the context of the individual firm concerned.

Governments are in no position to intervene in this process. Indeed, any significant level of government intervention would most likely entail unintended consequences, and could, in many cases, be detrimental to the objective of achieving reasonable and fair compensation arrangements. This is particularly the case particularly if the intervention resulted in an overly prescriptive, one size fits all approach.

Moreover, any intervention should be limited strictly to firms participating in the bailout. Under no circumstances should it apply to any other firms. Nor should it be used as part of any wider plan to increase the level of government intervention in relation to the broader issue of executive compensation structures.

  
… but not when taxpayer money is involved
But things are different where taxpayer money is involved.

Governments, as custodians of taxpayer funds, are obligated to ensure that such funds are allocated in an appropriate manner. Support for the financial system may or may not be an appropriate use for taxpayer funds, but the payment of grossly excessive compensation packages is not.

Wall Street should accept this. Taxpayer bailouts should, and do, involve consequences. One such consequence is a significant increase in the importance of the general public as a key stakeholder, and this necessitates a much greater degree of public scrutiny and accountability. This includes the area of executive compensation, which must not exceed levels which are considered to be fair and appropriate from a public viewpoint.

Firms cannot expect taxpayer help without accepting the associated consequences.

To be fair, I have no doubt that each of the individual executives concerned devoted considerable effort toward their employment responsibilities. But compensation should be proportional to outcomes, and given the extent to which negative outcomes have had an adverse impact on American taxpayers, limits on compensation are more than fair.

  
In short
In cases where firms receive taxpayer assistance as part of any Wall Street bailouts, sensible government intervention to prevent excessive remuneration is justified.

American taxpayers should not fund mass exit packages at firms which have failed to deliver acceptable financial outcomes.

This is the final part of a three-part discussion relating to the ethical rights and obligations of a range of parties, from an ethical standpoint, whereby the following situation occurs:

• a prospective employer wishes to make an offer of employment to a prospective employee; but
• acceptance of the offer would constitute a breach or violation of the employee’s current employment contract.

This situation would typically occur where the prospective employee was currently employed on a fixed term contract basis, with no provisions for early termination. It could also arise in cases where other contractual conditions, such as non-compete clauses, prevent the employee from accepting employment with rival firms.

The previous discussions examined the rights and obligations of the prospective employer and the employee concerned in the above situation. Today, I would like to discuss the issue from the viewpoint of the current employer. Should the current employer take action to prevent the employee concerned from accepting the alternative offer?

 
My initial view
Under my initial viewpoint, the current employer should not be strict in the enforcement of their contractual rights in the above situation.

Under this viewpoint, the employer should consider the basic principle of reasonableness and fairness. This would involve exercising a degree of leniency in cases where early termination of the contract would not cause significant disruption to their business operations.

 
No ethical problem in enforcing contractual obligations
But my viewpoint has changed – there is no reason why the current employer should not take action to enforce their contractual rights in the above situation.

A contract is a contract – a formalized and binding agreement which confers both rights and obligations on behalf of the parties involved.

Contracts only serve their purpose if all relevant parties fully comply with the terms and conditions of the contract. Moreover, parties to a contract are well within their rights to take whatever measures are necessary to ensure that other parties fulfill their contractual obligations.

Contracts of employment are no exception, and in the above circumstance, the employer has every right to take legal action to prevent the employee from accepting an alternative offer of employment.

I mentioned above the principle of fairness – that an employer should seek to act in a fair and reasonable manner. However, there is nothing unfair about an employer enforcing their contractual rights.

To be sure, some firms may elect not wish to prevent the employee from accepting the offer, either for reasons of goodwill or their reputation as an employer. But that is their own prerogative, and does not arise out of any form of ethical obligation.

The current employer, in the above situation, is well within their rights to take action to prevent the employee concerned from accepting the alternative offer of employment in the above circumstance.

Should employees refrain from accepting alternative offers of employment in cases where acceptance of such offers would constitute a breach of their current employment contract?

From my point of view – yes.

This is the second post in a three part mini series discussing the ethical considerations involved whereby:

• A prospective employer wishes to make an offer of employment to a prospective employee; but
• The act of accepting such an offer would cause the prospective employee to breach his or her contractual obligations under their current employment contract.

The most common type of situation where this could occur is where the prospective employee is currently employed on a fixed term contract basis, with no provisions for early termination. But this can also occur in other situations, for example where non-compete clauses prevent employees from accepting employment with rival firms for a specified time period.

A good example of the latter situation was outlined in last Tuesday’s post, where Microsoft in 2005 attempted to prevent long time senior staffer Dr. Kai Fu Lee from defecting to rival Google. In that case, Dr. Lee was subject to a one year non-complete clause, which Microsoft claimed prevented him from accepting Google’s offer.

Last Tuesday’s post discussed the ethical considerations involved in the situation described above from the prospective employer’s viewpoint.

Today, I would like to focus upon the viewpoint of the prospective employee. In particular, I would like to address the question relating to whether or not the he or she should be obligated to decline alternative offers of employment in the circumstances described above.

 
The employee’s perspective – my initial view
My initial view was that restrictive clauses such as those described above should not be interpreted in an overly strict fashion, and should not be used as a means of unduly restricting the employee concerned from pursuing promising opportunities to advance his or her career.

Under this view, whilst employees are bound to refrain from breaching their contractual obligations in the majority of circumstances, there are exceptions. These exceptions include cases where:

• the time period remaining until the expiration date of the contract or restrictive clause is very short;
• breach of contractual obligations is not anticipated to cause significant disruption or harm to the business operations of the current employer; and
• the employee concerned has served his or her current employer in a loyal and dutiful fashion over a considerable time period (i.e. several years).

 
But a contract is a contract
However, I no longer agree with this view.

A contract is a contract – full stop. As a matter of common integrity, employees must refrain from breaching the terms and conditions of their employment contract under any circumstances. If these means declining alternative offers of employment, then so be it.

There is one exception and one exception only – where the current employer provides their consent for the contractual violation.

In my view, there is no reason why employees who are bound to their current employer by virtue of a fixed term contract or other restrictive cause should not seek leave from their current employer to accept alternative employment offers if they so wish. One possible option is for the employee concerned to agree to some form of financial penalty in order to compensate his or her current employer for losses incurred as a result.

In some circumstances, the current employer may agree to such requests, perhaps as a goodwill gesture or otherwise out of concern for their reputation as an employer.

But they have every right to refuse. If that happens, the employee concerned is bound by an ethical obligation to refrain from breaching his or her contractual obligations.  

In cases where acceptance of such an offer would constitute a violation of contractual conditions under his or her current employment contract, a prospective employee is, in my view, obligated to decline an alternative offer of employment.