Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Scandal in Penn State!


Our story starts here: Former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky, once considered Joe Paterno's (photo above) heir apparent, was charged with sexually assaulting eight boys over a 15-year period. Among the allegations was a 2002 incident in which a graduate assistant for the team said he saw Sandusky assault a boy in the shower at the Nittany Lions' practice center.

Update: Two Penn State officials surrendered Monday on charges that they failed to report suspected child-sexual abuse by a former coach and committed perjury in their related grand jury testimony.
The pair are accused of failing to alert police to complaints that former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky had sexually abused eight boys. They are also charged with lying to a state grand jury investigating the former defensive coordinator. Schultz, 62, and Curley, 57, are innocent and will seek to have the charges dismissed, their lawyers said. Curley's lawyer, Caroline Roberto, called the case weak while Schultz's lawyer, Tom Farrell, said the men did what they were supposed to do by informing their superiors of the accusations.
Why did they not report the complaints?  

How about Paterno? The NYTimes reports the fate of the famous coach: 
The Board of Trustees has yet to determine the precise timing of Mr. Paterno’s exit, but it is clear that the man who has more victories than any other coach at college football’s top level and who made Penn State a prestigious national brand will not coach another season. Discussions about how to manage his departure have begun, according to the two people. The board is scheduled to meet on Friday, and Gov. Tom Corbett will attend.
What's the problem with Paterno? He told his boss about the complaints -as he should have. But there is this perception:  
Mr. Paterno has been widely criticized for failing to involve the police when he learned of the 2002 incident involving the young boy. Additionally, two top university officials — Gary Schultz, the senior vice president for finance and business, and Tim Curley, the athletic director — were charged with perjury and failure to report to the authorities what they knew of the allegations, as required by state law.
In other words, though Paterno has not been charged in the matter, it is his failure to report to the authorities what he knew about the 2002 incident has become a flashpoint, stirring anger on the board and an outpouring of public criticism about his handling of the matter.

Who is responsible in this affair? The management? Sandusky?  Are Schultz and Curley responsible of wrongdoing? Should Paterno be terminated? If so, why? Go ahead!

I'm closing this post next Tuesday, November 15, at 11pm. 

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Autopsies, body parts & whistle blowers

Check out this news on NPR. Apparently the e Air Force mortuary that receives America's war dead and prepares them for burial lost portions of human remains twice in 2009, prompting the Air Force to discipline three senior officials for "gross mismanagement."
A year-long Air Force investigation reviewed 14 sets of allegations of improper handling of war remains as reported by three whistleblower workers at Dover Air Force Base, Del. That is where all war dead are received from foreign battlefields to be identified, autopsied and prepared for transfer to their families.
What is it?
In addition to the two cases of lost body pieces, the Air Force reviewed allegations that mortuary officials acted improperly in sawing off an arm bone that protruded from the body of a Marine in a way that prevented his body from being placed in his uniform for viewing before burial. The Marine's family had requested seeing him in his uniform but was not consulted about or told of the decision to remove the bone.

Monday, November 7, 2011

Why is education important?

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Topics for review (Chapters 9 & 10)

Chapter 9

Assumption of risk and to refuse dangerous work, p. 486 
Legitimate and Illegitimate influence, p. 476, 477
Drug testing, (4-point issues),  p. 484
Hawthorne effect, p. 494
Informed consent, p. 479
Job satisfaction
Management styles, p. 489
Maternity leave, p. 481
OSHA, p. 4
off-the-job-conduct,
Personality tests, p. 482
Polygraph Tests (assumptions), 3 point evaluation for taking them, p. 480, 481

Chapter 10

Abuse of official position, p. 542
Bribes, p. 546
Gifts and entertainment, p. 550 (look at the 6-point criteria for gifts)
Company loyalty, p. 538
Conflict of interest, p. 539
Grease payment
Insider trade, p. 542
Kickbacks, p. 546
Proprietary data, p. 544
Self-interest
Trade secrets: 3 arguments for legally protecting trade secrets, p. 544, 545
U.S. vs O'Hagan, p. 543
Whistle blowing: (5 factors to consider), p. 555, 556
_______
Here is the link for your textbook.

Saturday, October 29, 2011

PHI 2604 Chapter 10

1. Elucidate “conflict of interest” in the workplace.
2. Come up with one example of a conflict of interest you’ve recently witnessed.
3. What constitute “insider trading”?
4. How about downloading music or videos one doesn’t pay for? What’s a trade secret?
5. Define “bribe.”
6. Define “kickback.”Comment the case of some American executives at Honda.
7. Go over the seven rules on “gifts.”
8. Define “whistle blowing.”
9. Is self-interest more important than the interests of the public?

Goldman Sachs an example of fraud

The fraudulent practices of Wall Street exposed:
A new lawsuit accuses Goldman Sachs of purposely unloading $93 million in mortgage-backed securities it knew to be junk onto a client, then betting against those same securities in the lead-up to the financial crisis. Basis Yield Alpha Fund, an Australian hedge fund, filed the lawsuit against Goldman Sachs on Thursday, asking for more than $1 billion in damages. The lawsuit alleges that Goldman Sachs overcharged for two sets of mortgage-backed securities that it sold to Basis; lied about the securities' expected performance; did not provide timely, accurate information about the securities' true value; and failed to disclose that the firm was actively betting against the securities at the time of the transaction -- all which the hedge fund says contributed to its collapse.

Thursday, October 27, 2011

What is Occupy Miami all about?

What is Ocupy Miami all about? Pedro Santana, a young member of the movement speaks.

What do you think?

Monday, October 24, 2011

Should we thank corporations for the air we breathe?


The above illustration, which is getting wide circulation in market-oriented blogs is posted by a John Hinderaker. Each arrow points to a distinctive well-known brand product. The illustration has the pedagogic aim of exhibiting the protesters' bad faith, which consists of wearing products made by the corporations they criticize. Hinderaker relishes the following platitude:
I've always wondered: where do people who don't like corporations work? Do they seriously want to turn the clock back by centuries –it would take some research to figure to how many– to a world in which the only forms of business organization are sole proprietorships and partnerships? And who do they think designs, manufactures and distributes the products they use? Elves? 
Hinderaker confounds "work," an essential productive human activity with "wage-labor," an economic category, as if the former was a sufficient condition of the latter. A more perverse conclusion of his argument is that since we're all consumers, we are forced to accept -even justify- corporative excess as a blessing. We should fall on our knees & thank Gap for the opportunity to purchase a pair of jeans at fair market price!

Additionally, we should be grateful for Gap's being-there, as it were, for as long it exists people will hold jobs. Is Hinderaker referring to those in the production-line in China or Indonesia, making $7 for a 12-hour day, or America's retail, where being a manager earns you $7.50 an hour without commission? In Hinderaker's bureaucratic paradise, people hold jobs not because they are competent at doing something. Rather, work becomes an undeserved gift bestowed on individuals by a corporate superstructure.  

Hinderaker's corporate genuflection is not surprising, but he distorts the real aim of this movement, which is not to denounce corporations for just being corporations, which is vapid, but to denounce corporate excess, i.e., unethical corporate-friendly legislation, unfair corporate tax breaks, irresponsible corporate deregulation and its dramatic aftermath: lack of opportunities, unemployment, the crumbling of American manufacturing and organized labor, urban blight, etc, etc.

(Hypothetically speaking, I don't have to thank Gap for the jeans I paid for, nor wearing Gap jeans renders me impotent to denounce Gap's unethical corporate practices).

 Occupying what?

To "occupy" may show a group's determination to seize possession of, and/or maintain control over a place. This is not done by force. It's a right enacted by the force of consensus. To put it simply: There is the real, public space where protesters camp (Zucotti Park, Miami's Government Center, etc), and there is an ideal space of freedom. One needs the other. "To camp" in the physical space happens because one already dwells in this ideal space. "To occupy" is to do both. Occupy Wall Street or Occupy Miami protesters redefine the rules of dwelling: 1- They now live "outside" for the sake of all of us. 2- Their place takes over and opposes Wall Street's "center." 3-  Their "occupation" makes for a primal political happening. What is it?

Wall Street is the center of the 1% that rules the remaining 99%. This brutal gap exposes financial capitalism's unfairness. Acting as a gate of capital flowmation into the periphery, Wall Street's inflowence visibly erodes region, place and borders. The "occupying" movement counters this engineering kinematics of globalization with a "political place," which reclaims what's rightfully theirs, ours. This interconnectedness between material and symbolic brings forth possible new couplings:

We've dwelt in the wrong place for too long!

I'm closing this post this post on Thursday, October 27.

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Homework Chapter 9

1. Define: Legitimate and illegitimate influence.
2. What is "informed consent."
3. Why do companies use polygraph tests? Mention the three most common assumptions.
4. What's the purpose of personality tests?
5. How do companies monitor employees on the job?
6. Define "assumption of risk" and "right to refuse dangerous work."
7. What's a "Hawthorne effect"?
8. What's OHA

Saturday, October 1, 2011

Link to "Moral Issues in Business"

This is the link to your texbook. It contains flashcards, quizzes, etc. Play with it.

Chapter 8: Homework

1- Why do corporations use screening?
2- Explain the difference between "job description" and "job specification."
3- What does "test reliability" mean?
4- In "qualification" vs "seniority", which, you think should take precedence?
5- Define: (a) inbreeding, (b) nepotism, (c) termination, (d) position elimination, (e) layoff.
6- Go over the 7-point guideline to help minimize the chance of unfair wages and salaries.
7- Briefly describe the history of the Union Movement.
8. In light of the developments in Wisconsin Why is collective bargaining important?
9- Explain (a) Direct strike, (b) Sympathetic strike, (c) Boycott and campaigns.

Check out this link on Testing Job Applicants
Job satisfaction: oxymoron?

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Can capitalism be moral?



"One can make a decent profit and still respect people," you may say. How about corporations? Is dumping toxic trash to underdeveloped countries moral? Some say Sodom and Gomorrah are here on earth. Was not BP's oil spill in the Golf of Mexico preventable? 

Which brings us to the next question: Should corporations treat the environment as persons? Obviously, they should. Why? Because the environment is our milieu: it's bigger and encompassing, the total of earth, vegetation and animals and thus, it directly includes us. In fact one can say that the environment is much more than a means to an end because it was here before us! So, corporations have responsibilities towards the environment, which is exactly Kant's idea of reversibility now between business ---> life. If profit is gained by deceit, manipulation, or by pollution, that's wrong (you wouldn't like anyone dumping trash on your backyard).

Some say that capitalism is just a tool to use, and that's independent from morality. You do your business and that's it. The problem is that capitalism today is everywhere! We live in a global society, corporations have an amazing power (think of Wal Mart). For example, recently the Supreme Court has redefined that when it comes to political contributions, a corporation counts as much as a single person! In addition to economic influence, corporations now are legally entitled to buy political influence!

Wasn't Ayn Rand the one that exulted the virtues of Homo Economicus? There needs to be a balance. Remember the prudent egoist? I'd assume that's the kind of egoist that Rand defends. But what if everybody is running for easy profits and you feel pushed by the system? Imagine a man that walks in an office with his wife. He has saved 30,000 for years for a down-payment. You are a mortgage representative, and you need to sell a mortgage and your boss is a borderline sociopath. This is your chance! The problem is that you have to lie and that is going to cost this man his 30,000 savings. Would you sell this man this toxic mortgage just to reap a profit? Why not approach the issue from the view point of Homo Reciprocans?

Thus this chapter reading of E. F. Schumacher's Buddhist Economics. Schumacher makes three important points, 1- work needs to be creative: 
(...) there are two types of mechanization which must be clearly distinguished: one that enhances a man’s skill and power and one that turns the work of man over to a mechanical slave, leaving man in a position of having to serve the slave.
2- real needs are not fake needs:
(...) since consumption is merely a means to human well-being, the aim should be to obtain the maximum of well-being with the minimum of consumption. Thus, if the purpose of clothing is a certain amount of temperature comfort and an attractive appearance, the task is to attain this purpose with the smallest possible effort, that is, with the smallest annual destruction of cloth and with the help of designs that involve the smallest possible input of toil.
and 3- local instead of global.
From the point of view of Buddhist economics, therefore, production from local resources for local needs is the most rational way of economic life, while dependence on imports from afar and the consequent need to produce for export to unknown and distant peoples is highly uneconomic and justifiable only in exceptional cases and on a small scale. Just as the modern economist would admit that a high rate of consumption of transport services between a man’s home and his place of work signifies a misfortune and not a high standard of life, so the Buddhist would hold that to satisfy human wants from faraway sources rather than from sources nearby signifies failure rather than success.
So, do you think we can use capitalism and still be moral?

I'll close this post next Wednesday  Sep. 28 at 11pm.

Monday, September 19, 2011

How to spot a "bad" co-worker

5 signs that you're pushing your co-workers over the limit:

What is sexting?

The potential risks of sexting in the New York Times: 
One day last winter Margarite posed naked before her bathroom mirror, held up her cellphone and took a picture. Then she sent the full-length frontal photo to Isaiah, her new boyfriend. An interesting Both were in eighth grade. They broke up soon after. A few weeks later, Isaiah forwarded the photo to another eighth-grade girl, once a friend of Margarite’s. Around 11 o’clock at night, that girl slapped a text message on it. “Ho Alert!” she typed. “If you think this girl is a whore, then text this to all your friends.” Then she clicked open the long list of contacts on her phone and pressed “send.” In less than 24 hours, the effect was as if Margarite, 14, had sauntered naked down the hallways of the four middle schools in this racially and economically diverse suburb of the state capital, Olympia. Hundreds, possibly thousands, of students had received her photo and forwarded it.
Sexting has an entry in Wikipedia!

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Justice is fairness

Remember what we were talking about last class?  As of 2007, in the USA, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). Is that fair?

Monday, September 12, 2011

PHI 2604 TOPICS FOR QUIZ #1

Chapter 1
1. Moral vs. non-moral standards standards: Human behavior of fundamental consequence for human welfare.
2. Morality and etiquette (codes of polite behavior in society).
3. Morality and Law (not everything that is legal is moral (slavery was legal and is not moral).
4. Are there moral standards? Where do they come from? Click here for more information,
5. Ethical relativism, Cultural Relativism. Relativism is the view that the rightness (or wrongness) of an action is relative to the individual, culture, perspective, etc. Regarding cultural relativism, there's a difference between "deep" (moral behavior) and "superficial" (fashion, etiquette, etc) cultural values. Actually, most cultures share similar fundamental values (such as killing your own, stealing from the group, adultery, respecting the elders, incest, etc).
7. Critiques: (a) Ethical relativism is logically contradictory (a view cannot be right and wrong at the same time), (b) Ethical relativism makes moral disagreements impossible
8. Defensible Moral Judgments. MJ = Moral norms + facts (what this means is that we'd like our moral judgements to be defensible. We want to be able to give reasons for why we believe what we believe.

Chapter 2
1. Consequentialist and non-Consequentialist Theories. Consequentialism is the theory that the moral rightness of an action is in function of its results. Is the consequences are good, the action is good. Non-consequentialists look at the form of the action, i.e, killing is wrong independently of the results.
2. Egoism is a consequentialist moral theory. It equates morality with self-interest.  Misconceptions about Egoism (that an egoist cannot be a moral person); Psychological Egoism;
2a. Problems with Egoism (3 arguments). Psychological egoism is not a sound theory. Ethical egoism is not really a moral theory at all because it can ignore blatant wrongs.
3. Utilitarianism; (Six points about Utilitarianism). Utilitarianism is the view that an action is right if it brings the greatest happiness for the greatest majority of people.
4. Critical Inquiries of Utilitarianism (3 arguments). p. 65, 66.
5. Kantian Ethics: Good Will, The Categorical Imperative; An action is right if it is universal and reversible.
Kant's second Formulation: Treat people as ends never as means to an end.
6. Critical Inquiries of Kant’s Ethics (2 arguments): The theory doesn't allow for exceptions and it avoids sentiments.
7. W.D. Ross’s Prima Facie Duties (you must know all and in the said hierarchy): An action is right if if falls under the highest ranked duty in a given situation. Remember the different duties studied in class: justice, fidelity, reparation, gratitude, beneficence, non-maleficence, self-improvement.
8. Rule Utilitarianism: The view that what makes an action right is that it falls under a rule, which if followed would bring the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people.

Chapter 3
Comparative table of justice, equality and rights (positive and negative), and how each fairs in the possible distribution arrangements studied in class (Communism, Liberalism and Libertarianism).


You must bring the 48 TSM scantron to the exam. It is for sale at the bookstore. 

Friday, September 2, 2011

Human Trafficking and moral imperatives


A recent article in the NYTimes shows how human trafficking has become a problem of global problem.
If 200 years ago slavery showed a ruthless side of humanity, it seems that today the problem returns, only now, the trade is not in the open, but hidden, fed by drugs, deception, even kidnapping. How could anyone deceive a young girl knowing she will end up in a brothel in a European capital with no passport, beaten, drugged & exploited?

Today, millions of people move away from home to work for little or no money, often under abusive conditions. Since 1994, has been working against the practice. Confronting issues like illegal mining in South America and the forced prostitution of women from the former Yugoslavia, the former Soviet Union and North Africa, the the International Organization for Migration has conceived awareness campaigns tailored to particular countries and cultures. Here are just three examples amongst many:

Vietnam: Many Vietnamese women and girls are trafficked through Dong Tham, An Giang, and Kien Giang to Cambodia for sexual exploitation. In 2004, Cambodian police estimated that more than 50,000 girls were in brothels through Cambodia, many of whom were Vietnamese.

Philippines: Philippine men, women, and girls were trafficked for labor  and sexual exploitation to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, South Africa, North America, and Europe. The government and NGO estimates on the number of women trafficked range from 300,000 to 400,000 and the number of children trafficked range from 60,000 to 100,000.

China: Chinese women and children are trafficked for sexual and labor exploitation in Malaysia, Thailand, the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Europe, Canada, Japan, Italy, Burma, Singapore, South Africa, and Taiwan. Many Chinese are recruited by false promises of employment and are later coerced into prostitution or forced labor. Children are sometimes recruited by traffickers who promise their parents that their children can send remittances back home.

The common denominator of human trafficking is that people are lured into this trap by the promise of a better future. 

The issue has ramifications for our own backyard. This article in the New Times exposes how a 15 year old girl is abducted to work as a prostitute in Miami (check out the list of 9 individuals arrested which were involved in the ring). Take this is a bizarre story, a former Miami Beach police officer and his friend arrested for drugging women and then filming them in sex acts. Here is another story.

In light of the theories we've studied in Chapter 2, which is in your opinion the best moral theories that can deal with this problem? Egoism, Utilitarianism or Kant's Categorical Imperative?

I'll close this post next week, Thursday, @ 11pm.

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Topics for Final Exam

Chapter 10: : Moral Choices Facing Employees 

1- Company Loyalty, Conflict of interest. p. 539.
2- Abuse of Official Position. p. 541.
3- Insider Trading (conflicting perspectives) p. 544.
4- Proprietary Data.
5- Trade Secrets, Economic Espionage Act of 1996. p. 545.
6- Bribes and Kickback (What's the FCPA?).
 7- Gifts and Entertainment: 7-point suggestion. p. 551.
8- Conflicting Obligations. Take a look at the two points in favor of moral deliberation that the book suggests (when weighing moral decisions), p. 553.
9- Whistle Blowing. When is it justified? p. 556.

Chapter 11: Job Discrimination

1- Difference between statistical and attitudinal evidence. pp. 610-612.
2- A brief historic summary of Affirmative Action (Brown vs. Board of Education, Civil Rights of 1964). The Supreme Court's position. Bakke v. Regents of the University of California. pp. 615-617.
3 Arguments in favor and against Affirmative Action.
4- Comparable worth p. 623.
5- Sexual Harassment: quid pro quo harassment, hostile work-environment harassment. Sexual favoritism. p. 627. Dealing with sexual harassment 4-point advice for potential victims.

I'm leaving this post open in case you have questions.

Topics for the Final Exam (chapters 6, 10 & 11)

Chapter 6

Caveat emptor: Literally, "let the buyer beware," an outdated doctrine now dismissed in most legal policy, it was no longer the guiding principle as the concept of due care spread.

MacPherson v. Buick Motor Car: The landmark 1916 case that expanded the liability of manufacturers for injuries caused by defective products. Previously, injured consumers could recover damages only from the retailer of the defective product—that is, from the party with whom they had actually done business.

Ambiguity (in advertising): The confusion and deception that results when advertisements can be understood in two or more ways, misleading consumers and allowing them to assume inaccurate claims or attributes about a product.

Concealment of facts (in advertising): The suppression of information that is unflattering to a product; the process by which advertisers fail to mention certain issues, or distract consumers’ attention away from certain information, the knowledge of which would probably make their product less desirable.

Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC): An agency created by Congress in 1972 to protect the public “against unreasonable risks of injury associated with consumer products.’’ A five-member commission sets standards for products, bans products presenting undue risk of injury, and makes policy for the entire consumer-product marketing process from manufacture to final sale.

Consumer sovereignty The idea that consumers should and do control the market through their purchases.

Exaggeration (in advertising): The process by which advertisers can mislead their audience by making claims unsupported by evidence.

Express warranties: Those claims that sellers explicitly state; this may include assertions about the product’s character, assurances of product durability, and other statements on warranty cards, labels, wrappers, and packages, or in the advertising of the product (e.g., that a product is “shrinkproof’’ or will require no maintenance for two years).

Federal Trade Commission (FTC): The government organization created in 1914 as an antitrust weapon, though its mandate was expanded to include protecting consumers against deceptive advertising and fraudulent commercial practices. Although not the only regulatory body monitoring advertisements, its efforts have spared Americans the most blatant abuses of advertising.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA): An agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services responsible for the safety regulation of most types of foods, dietary supplements, drugs, vaccines, biological medical products, blood products, medical devices, radiation-emitting devices, veterinary products, and cosmetics.

Horizontal price fixing: The unethical and illegal agreement among competitors to adhere to a set price schedule, not to cut prices below a certain minimum, or to restrict price advertising or the terms of sales, discounts, or rebates. This eliminates open and fair price competition and is against the law.

Implied warranties: Those claims, implicit in any sale, that a product is fit for its ordinary, intended use.

Legal paternalism: The idea that the law may justifiably be used to restrict the freedom of individuals for their own good; refers to those laws that attempt to prevent people from running risks that affect only themselves.

Merchantability: Also called the "implied warranty of merchantability," the law that makes it implicit in any sale that a product is fit for its ordinary, intended use. This is not a promise that the product will be perfect, but that it will be of passable quality or suitable for the ordinary purpose for which it is used.

Price fixing: A violation of the business "rules of the game" in which certain price levels are decided upon among competitors, thereby suppressing open and fair price competition. (See horizontal price fixing and vertical price fixing.)

Price gouging: A seller’s exploitation, by raising prices substantially, during a short-term situation in which buyers have few purchase options for a much-needed product.
psychological appeal (in advertising) A persuasive effort aimed primarily at emotion, not reason; potentially the advertising technique of greatest moral concern.

Puffery: The supposedly harmless use of lavish superlatives and subjective praise in advertisements, sometimes innocuous and sometimes misleading, but permitted by law on the grounds that such claims do not deceive people.

Reasonable-consumer standard: A standard which, if used by the FTC, would prohibit only advertising claims that would deceive reasonable people, thereby failing to protect people who are more gullible, less intelligent, or less perceptive or aware regarding the marketplace.

Strict product liability: A doctrine that holds that the manufacturer of a product has legal responsibilities to compensate the user of that product for injuries suffered because the product’s defective condition made it unreasonably dangerous, even though the manufacturer has not been negligent in permitting that defect to occur.

Subliminal advertising: Advertising that communicates at a level beneath conscious awareness, where, some psychologists claim, the vast reservoir of human motivation primarily resides.

Vertical price fixing: The unethical and sometimes illegal agreement among manufacturers and retailers—as opposed to direct competitors—to set certain prices on certain goods, thereby eliminating open and fair price competition. This was unquestionably against the law until 2007, when courts were advised to rule on a case-by-case basis.

Warranties: All factual affirmations or statements about the goods being sold, as dictated by the Uniform Commercial code of 1968. (See express warranties and implied warranties.)
weasel words Language used to evade or retreat from a direct or forthright statement, alluding to vague claims while aiding and abetting ambiguity.

Chapter 10

Abuse of official position: The use of one’s employment situation for personal gain, often raising moral concerns and ethical questions due to the likelihood that one is violating one’s obligations to the firm or organization. Examples range from misusing expense accounts to billing the company for unnecessary travel, from using subordinates for non-organization-related work to abusing a position to enhance one’s own financial leverage and holdings.

Bribes: Remuneration (money, gifts, entertainment, or preferential treatment) for the performance of an act that is inconsistent with the work contract or the nature of the work one has been hired to perform; often the exchange of money for violating job responsibilities or for failing to report irregularities. (See kickbacks.)

Business gifts and entertainment: Familiar parts (or perks) of the business world, given to clients and business associates, including meals, tickets, hotel stays, etc. as well as goods and services; both categories can raise conflict-of-interest problems and even border on bribery. The parameters are more strictly regulated for federal and state jobs, but less defined in the business world.

Company loyalty: An important value that may include employees' sacrifices for the organization above and beyond their job descriptions. It is a two-way street, however, and most employees believe it is up to the company to earn and retain their loyalty. Although some deny that employees owe loyalty to the company, most people find company loyalty a coherent and legitimate principle.

Conflict of interest: The situation that arises when employees at any level have special or private interests that are substantial enough to interfere with their job duties (i.e., when their personal interests lead them, or might reasonably be expected to lead them, to make decisions or to act in ways that are detrimental to their employer’s interests).
Economic Espionage Act The law against the theft of trade secrets, usually involving confidential company procedures or product formulas, passed in 1996 (and upheld by most states as a federal crime).

Grease payment: A type of corruption in which additional payments are sometimes considered necessary to ensure that the recipients carry out their normal job duties. These are not prohibited by the FCPA when paid to employees of foreign governments who have primarily clerical or ministerial responsibilities. However, the act makes no distinction between such sanctioned bribery and extortion.

Insider trading: Abusing one’s official position through the buying or selling of stocks (or other financial securities) on the basis of privileged or otherwise internal information that has not yet been made public and is likely to affect the price of the stock.
kickbacks The types of bribery that involve percentage payments to people who are able to influence or control a source of income.

OECD Anti-Bribery: Convention Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Anti-Bribery Convention, a formal treaty of 1997 that outlawed bribing public officials in foreign business transactions and set up reviewing and monitoring mechanisms.
Thirty-seven countries, including all the world’s industrialized nations, have passed domestic legislation implementing the OECD standards.

Proprietary data: Internally generated data or documents that contain technical or other types of information controlled by a firm to safeguard its competitive edge.
prudential reasons Based on the word "prudence," refers in business ethics to considerations of self-interest, reasons that are opposed to “moral” considerations of the interests of others and the demands of morality. If prudential concerns outweigh moral ones, then employees may do what is in their own best interest. If moral reasons override prudential ones, then workers should honor their obligations to others. Some theorists believe that prudential concerns at times do outweigh moral ones.

Sarbanes-Oxley Act Legislation: passed in 2002 that marked an important advance in assistance to employees who blow the whistle; provided new legal protection for employees who reported possible securities fraud, making it unlawful for companies to “discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or in any other manner discriminate against” such employees.

Self-interest: Actions that best satisfy one's own interests and desires; for many employees, protecting themselves or safeguarding their jobs forms this primary factor in deciding whether to put third-party interests above those of the firm. Concern with self-interest in cases that pit loyalty to the company against other obligations is altogether understandable and even warranted.

Supererogatory actions: Highly moral or charitable actions, often "beyond the call of duty," that are considered good to do, but not required to do in order to be moral. Many moral philosophers draw a related distinction between actions that are morally required as opposed to actions that are supererogatory.

Trade secrets: "Any formula, pattern, device, or compilation of information" used in one's business that "provides an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it," according to the standard legal definition. Unlike patents and copyrights, they do not have to be declared or registered in any way, but they also do not have the same protection as patented or copyrighted information.

Whistle-blowing: The informing of the public by an employee (past or present) regarding the potentially illegal or immoral actions of an employer or an organization; often involves reporting of procedures or policies that are harmful, violate human rights, or pose hazards to workers or the public.

Chapter 11

Bakke case: The 1978 U.S. Supreme Court’s first major ruling on affirmative action. It involved a 5-to-4 decision that rejected explicit racial criteria such as setting rigid quotas and excluding nonpreferred groups from competition.

Brown v. Board of Education: The 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision that helped launch the civil rights movement, holding that racially segregated schooling is unconstitutional; it conclusively overturned the older legal doctrine that “separate but equal’’ facilities were legally permissible. In this way the Court found that the very idea of separating the races inherently led to unequal treatment.

Civil Rights Act of 1964: Legislation of 1964 (later amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972) that prohibits all forms of discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, or national origin. Title VII, the most important section of the act, prohibits discrimination in employment.

Comparable worth: The doctrine that holds women and men should be paid on the same scale not only for doing the same or equivalent jobs, but also for doing different jobs involving equal skill, effort, and responsibility.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: (EEOC) The agency of the U.S. government that enforces the federal employment discrimination laws, including guidelines for affirmative action, standards for balanced representation within the workplace of races and genders, and definitions of sexual harassment.

Hostile-work-environment harassment: A broad and pervasive type of sexual harassment. Behaviors, words, or visual images of a sexual nature that are distressing to workers (almost always, but not exclusively, women) and that interfere with their ability to perform on the job, even when they are not attempts to pressure workers for sexual favors. (See sexual harassment.)

Job discrimination: Procedures and policies that lead to adverse decisions regarding an employee or a job applicant based on his or her membership in a certain group; by legal definition, it occurs when (1) an employment decision in some way harms or disadvantages an employee or a job applicant; (2) the decision is based on the person’s membership in a certain group, rather than on individual merit; and (3) the decision rests on prejudice, false stereotypes, or the assumption that the group in question is in some way inferior and thus does not deserve equal treatment.

Pink-collar occupations: Lower-paying jobs that tend to employ women (such as librarians, nurses, elementary school teachers, salesclerks, secretaries, bank tellers, and waitresses); those positions that generally pay less than traditionally male occupations (such as electrician, plumber, auto mechanic, shipping clerk, and truck driver).

Quid-pro-quo harassment: A form of sexual harassment that occurs when a supervisor makes an employee’s employment opportunities conditional on the employee’s entering into a sexual relationship with, or granting sexual favors to, the supervisor.

Sexual favoritism: Discrimination by a superior when that superior is engaged in sexual relations not with those discriminated against, but with one or more other employees.

Sexual harassment: Within the workplace, unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. (See hostile-work-environment harassment.)

Here is the link to your textbook.