Your professional ethics

UCDVet

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Would anyone who has a "so long as it's not illegal to do business with them" approach to ethics, have ethical issues doing business with the chemical company Bayer, who used slave labour from Auschwitz in WWII, and at the time was part of the same company that manufactured Zyklon B, which was used to kill prisoners in the Holocaust? (plus, they also invented Heroin)

Found that with just a couple minutes Googling - probably more interesting stuff to find, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_the_Holocaust

I can only speak for myself but....I wouldn't mind working for Bayer now

I mean, that's kind of like saying everyone who has a job in Germany and pays taxes is supporting the German government/German army. And the German Army killed millions, tried to exterminate entire races, and was just all sorts of crazy....

While those things did happen, it doesn't mean it reflects the current goals of the country/company.

Maybe I'm just naive, or greedy or both...but I can't really imagine a case where I'd quit or not take a job because of ethical concerns over legal activities. Maybe there are a few cases where I'd be like, 'No - that's too much, I'd quit' but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

KomradeBishop

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Would anyone who has a "so long as it's not illegal to do business with them" approach to ethics, have ethical issues doing business with the chemical company Bayer, who used slave labour from Auschwitz in WWII, and at the time was part of the same company that manufactured Zyklon B, which was used to kill prisoners in the Holocaust? (plus, they also invented Heroin)

Found that with just a couple minutes Googling - probably more interesting stuff to find, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_the_Holocaust

If they had a job that suited me I wouldn't hesitate in applying and working for them. It's nonsensical refusing to do business with a company over something that happened decades ago. Hugo Boss made nazi uniforms but that doesn't bother me when I buy a nice t-shirt they make today.

On the topic of the op I've never faced anything at work that I had to think twice about so I don't know if or what would test my ethics. Working on something military I would see as being kind of cool rather than something to turn down.

anncoates

c_man wrote: »

Whilst I get your point, I feel it's pretty short sighted. Kids aren't brought up on food alone (and let's be honest this is Ireland, your kids won't starve). Would you work on something which you think would lead to a poorer future world (something like environmental damage etc.) in which your children would live?

To be fair, I sounded like I'd work at anything which isn't true.

Id see refusing to do something like working on a concentration camp or a tabloid journalist destroying people's lives as an ethical issue. I'd see working for a company, whose products might include munitions, as more a lifestyle choice, much the same as boycotting a country like Israel.

I don't disagree with the production of weapons per se, just with some of the people that use them.

c_man

Jawgap wrote: »

But you post using the internet

I think most people can see the difference between technology born under military investment research and development, which has long since entered the civilian sector and matured under same, and working on current products designed to kill.

I'm pretty sure a hell of a lot of what I take for granted these days originated in use for armies, from medical stuff and techniques to technologies to ways and means of running logistics. That doesn't mean I'm a hypocrite for not working on some software guidance system for a missile for instance.

I'm not some fanatic for gods sake, I just don't think that I personally would feel right about working on it.

KomradeBishop

UCDVet wrote: »

I dunno - I work in finance now and I feel like it's the MOST ethical job I've ever had.

Maybe it's because we don't deal with other people's money - we don't have any fast-talking salesmen trying to get your life savings so we can invest it for you.

Each day we try to make money by buying and selling things. We trade with other firms like us (I don't know that we've ever traded with an actual person, just other companies) or we trade on exchanges. In any case, the rules are all there, a combination of legal requirements and rules set by the exchanges. Everyone playing has to meet the rules. Anything not expressly disallowed, is fair game.

No lying, no cheating. We make money because we do a good job of buying and selling things. The people we buy from are happy, the people we sell to are happy, and we make money. Anyone could do the same thing.

The entire financial industry today, is basically receiving massively subsidized profits/wages, due to Quantitative Easing, and how that is pumping enormous amounts of money into commodities that the financial industry is making an absolute killing on - at the expense of the rest of society. Ethical my arse tbh.


A frequent comment you hear, is that the various bank bailouts that countries performed, was one of the most massive redistributions of wealth ever - almost like the redistribution is a done thing - except it's not over yet, we're still undergoing an enormous redistribution of wealth, from the rest of society to the wealthy - and the financial industry + QE is the focal point of the 'upward' part of this redistribution.

We have budget-balancing + austerity policies, removing money from economies when aggregate demand requires it more than ever - causing a huge removal of wealth from everyday society - and we have Quantitative Easing dumping huge amounts of money into commodities, which the financial industry are effectively receiving a gigantic subsidy from.


Every single person working in a financial company that is profiting from QE's effects on commodities, is benefiting through wages, from one of the most massive redistributions of wealth from rest of society to the wealthy, in history; nothing ethical about that.

People need not quit their jobs, but they should at the very least, be aware of what they're profiting from.

fannymagee

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Would anyone who has a "so long as it's not illegal to do business with them" approach to ethics, have ethical issues doing business with the chemical company Bayer, who used slave labour from Auschwitz in WWII, and at the time was part of the same company that manufactured Zyklon B, which was used to kill prisoners in the Holocaust? (plus, they also invented Heroin)

Found that with just a couple minutes Googling - probably more interesting stuff to find, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_the_Holocaust

I used to work for that company. One day somebody told me over a cup of tea, that Bayer used to supply gas to the Nazis. That was it- I couldn't work for them any more, and I had a new job within the month. I've also refused to work on projects involving psychiatric drugs, and I refuse to work anywhere that encourages the use of electroconvulsive therapy for patients.

My ethical stance has cost me money, but it means I can sleep at night ;-)

Jawgap

c_man wrote: »

I think most people can see the difference between technology born under military investment research and development, which has long since entered the civilian sector and matured under same, and working on current products designed to kill.

I'm pretty sure a hell of a lot of what I take for granted these days originated in use for armies, from medical stuff and techniques to technologies to ways and means of running logistics. That doesn't mean I'm a hypocrite for not working on some software guidance system for a missile for instance.

I'm not some fanatic for gods sake, I just don't think that I personally would feel right about working on it.

The amount of dual use technology floating around combined with hybridisation of war, means it's almost impossible to not be working on something that has actual or potential military utility.

c_man

Jawgap wrote: »

The amount of dual use technology floating around combined with hybridisation of war, means it's almost impossible to not be working on something that has actual or potential military utility.

To be fair, that's complete bollox. I can 100% guarantee you that what I work on, does not operate on any direct killing machine*. Which is all I've said. Honestly, why are people so fixated on this?

I think I should have amended the story to be about an engineer and some dodgy, bribed through government environmentally disastrous project. You say 'military' and you can already hear the cries of 'internet', 'pentium chips' etc.



*if it did run on them it might be better for the world, none of the bloody things would work

Jawgap

c_man wrote: »

To be fair, that's complete bollox. I can 100% guarantee you that what I work on, does not operate on any direct killing machine*. Which is all I've said. Honestly, why are people so fixated on this?

I think I should have amended the story to be about an engineer and some dodgy, bribed through government environmentally disastrous project. You say 'military' and you can already hear the cries of 'internet', 'pentium chips' etc.



*if it did run on them it might be better for the world, none of the bloody things would work

Because ethics is not absolute - any job can be situated in an ethical framework that highlights a downside.

RDM_83 again

fannymagee wrote: »

I used to work for that company. One day somebody told me over a cup of tea, that Bayer used to supply gas to the Nazis. That was it- I couldn't work for them any more, and I had a new job within the month. I've also refused to work on projects involving psychiatric drugs, and I refuse to work anywhere that encourages the use of electroconvulsive therapy for patients.

My ethical stance has cost me money, but it means I can sleep at night ;-)

All psychiatric drugs and all electroconvulsive therapy? Things can be positive if used correctly

c_man

Jawgap wrote: »

Because ethics is not absolute - any job can be situated in an ethical framework that highlights a downside.

Yes... which is what the thread is about... Where do you in your job/career draw the line, or even do you, and why. As Omar said, every man's gotta have a code.

fannymagee

RDM_83 again wrote: »

All psychiatric drugs and all electroconvulsive therapy? Things can be positive if used correctly

Yes I agree, but in practice they're often not used correctly, so they're definitely not for me. Plus I find it really disturbing to watch ECT.

My work is guided by a strict code of conduct and is subject to pre-emptive and continuous scrutiny by an ethics committee. Wouldn't have it any other way, in accord as it is with my personal principles.

Merrion

c_man wrote: »

Apparently he got a lot of flak

Literally or metaphorically?

osarusan

One thing I can remember is from a few years ago. There was a student who had reached his time limit at the university - if he didn't get the credits needed from my course, he would simply not be able to graduate and have to leave.

So he did what he'd been doing the previous 7 years, which was next to nothing, if he even turned up. At the end I failed him, and was called in to be 'persuaded' that I should pass him. I was happy to do so, but only if I was able to write something like 'administrative reasons' as the reason for changing. The department wanted me to make the change for 'academic reason', meaning that he actually deserved to pass the course.

It developed into something of a impasse, until finally they relented.

It was funny though - a different time I failed somebody by mistake (mistook the name for another student in a class). That student rightly appealed the decision, and I went to change the grade, but it was quite difficult because the same people in the same department were insisting that it could only be done if there was a valid academic reason for doing so, and wanted to ensure that I wasn't doing it just to make life easier for myself/the student.

pushkii

No matter how much money perks etc I would receive I would never work for a company who makes baby formula or any job that promotes the use of same.

DoYouEvenLift

Personally, I'd love to get involved in anything that gets lots of money easily from fools. Nothing more satisfying than getting paid by the average idiot who just throws away their money without thought. Marketing something sh!t but successful like magazines or websites about celebrities would be a good laugh, I'd honestly have total satisfaction just from the knowledge that there are actually fukin idiots buying the sh!t we put out.

Online personal training/diet plans is also good. Just charge a ridiculous fee, which idiots seriously pay for, and just copy and paste the same general plans for everyone. This happens as well, a guy in NZ just bought a Lamborghini because of this lmao.

pushkii

pushkii wrote: »

No matter how much money perks etc I would receive I would never work for a company who makes baby formula or any job that promotes the use of same.

Why on earth not? Ireland is one of the worlds biggest baby formula makers, we make more the 20% of the worlds formula and it's something to be proud of. Shows how good our dairy industry is.

Baby formula is also vital.

DoYouEvenLift

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Personally, I'd love to get involved in anything that gets lots of money easily from fools. Nothing more satisfying than getting paid by the average idiot who just throws away their money without thought. Marketing something sh!t but successful like magazines or websites about celebrities would be a good laugh, I'd honestly have total satisfaction just from the knowledge that there are actually fukin idiots buying the sh!t we put out.

Online personal training/diet plans is also good. Just charge a ridiculous fee, which idiots seriously pay for, and just copy and paste the same general plans for everyone. This happens as well, a guy in NZ just bought a Lamborghini because of this lmao.

So basically, ethics aren't a big concern of yours?

minidazzler

I'm under a legal obligation to not over serve people alcohol in my job, and I strictly won't. To the point that I've taken a drink off of people and refunded their money because I thought a coworker shouldn't have served them... The co worker, young and stupid, thought I was just trying to undermine him, but the customer could barely talk.

It sounds like something mpnormal, but it's surprising the amount of people you work with who don't care that they are putting peoples health at risk when they just transfer a drink from a broken or cracked glass to a fresh one... I've had full arguments with people about this. Who couldn't see that they were wrong because "the glass broke outward".

pushkii

pushkii wrote: »

No matter how much money perks etc I would receive I would never work for a company who makes baby formula or any job that promotes the use of same.

Formula is a necessary evil. Mothers in the developing world with a Hiv infection (and access to clean water) use formula to prevent breastmilk transmission. There are other valid health and infection reduction reasons why formula is sometimes preferable.

In the western world, sometimes milk supply is too little, or the mother gets an infection like mastitis that may require the use of formula. Sometimes mothers are on medication that can be transmitted in breastmilk. And of course, sometimes there is no living lactating mother, and the baby's got to drink something.

And sometimes it's the parents choice to formula feed.

Of all the atrocities in the world that I would take an ethical stance on, formula would be fairly low on that list.

fannymagee

pushkii wrote: »

No matter how much money perks etc I would receive I would never work for a company who makes baby formula or any job that promotes the use of same.

I'm with you on that! Those campaigns make my skin crawl...

pushkii

Baby formula is not vital nor is it the normal way for a baby to be fed. Formula causes a lot of health problems for babies and toddlers. If you knew what ingredients went into formula and the amount of processing needed to make it you wouldn't even give it to your dog not to mind your own baby.
Formula is formulated from milk intended for a calf, another species. Human milk is tailored for humans and provides essential nutrients, antibodies for baby and child.

pushkii

pushkii wrote: »

Baby formula is not vital nor is it the normal way for a baby to be fed. Formula causes a lot of health problems for babies and toddlers. If you knew what ingredients went into formula and the amount of processing needed to make it you wouldn't even give it to your dog not to mind your own baby.
Formula is formulated from milk intended for a calf, another species. Human milk is tailored for humans and provides essential nutrients, antibodies for baby and child.

And when human milk is not available or carries terminal disease, what do you propose we do? Let the babies die?

What about the babies on malnutrition wards all over the developing world? Let them die?

You have a very narrow view of the role of formula. Breast milk is the best possible food for babies but is not always available. Without formula, babies would die.

DoYouEvenLift

Candie wrote: »

So basically, ethics aren't a big concern of yours?

They are and they aren't. I'd never work for a company with tie-ins to actually horrible things like Bayer that's been pointed out ITT. But when it comes to certain markets where there are fools willing to pretty much throw away their money on rubbish (magazines, overpriced electronics like beats, fizzy drinks like coke etc.) I'd happily be the one to basically walk around with a bucket collecting it. I've a strong admiration for the geniuses behind certain marketing campaigns and a strong disdain for the clueless sheep at the other end of it swallowing it whole, I'd just rather being on the winning side and benefiting from it.

pushkii

There has been recent studies proving that mothers infected with HIV that breastfeed their babies deliver antibodies to their babies which in fact makes the baby immune from the disease. In parts of the developing world where water is unsanitary it would be 100% safer to breastfeed rather than to mix the formula with contaminated water.
What formula companies have done to women in developing countries is exploitation

fannymagee

Candie wrote: »

And when human milk is not available or carries terminal disease, what do you propose we do? Let the babies die?

What about the babies on malnutrition wards all over the developing world? Let them die?

You have a very narrow view of the role of formula. Breast milk is the best possible food for babies but is not always available. Without formula, babies would die.

Yes but this isn't a thread about baby feeding, it's a thread about taking an ethical stance in relation to work. Obviously formula has it's place, but I'd still never sell it

DoYouEvenLift

pushkii wrote: »

There has been recent studies proving that mothers infected with HIV that breastfeed their babies deliver antibodies to their babies which in fact makes the baby immune from the disease. In parts of the developing world where water is unsanitary it would be 100% safer to breastfeed rather than to mix the formula with contaminated water.
What formula companies have done to women in developing countries is exploitation

Link

pushkii

pushkii wrote: »

There has been recent studies proving that mothers infected with HIV that breastfeed their babies deliver antibodies to their babies which in fact makes the baby immune from the disease. In parts of the developing world where water is unsanitary it would be 100% safer to breastfeed rather than to mix the formula with contaminated water.
What formula companies have done to women in developing countries is exploitation

Jesus H Christ.

Please provide me with a link to this study.

pushkii

I do agree that in some cases that formula needs to be used but first option should be donated human milk.

A lot of breastfeeding problems can be resolved with support and help from lactation counsellors .

Most drug companies are legally obliged to state that their medications are not suitable for pregnant or lactating women.

There are guides by which drugs are classed when breastfeeding. I know some drugs and treatments are incompatible with breastfeeding such as chemotherapy but a there is alternatives to most medications which are proven to be safe to take if mother is breastfeeding.