Workplace Ethics?  Is that a Thing?

New Orleans       I was interested in visiting with Dr. Steven Mintz, emeritus professor of philosophy from California Poly at San Luis Obispo, California, on Wade’s World when I saw he was an expert on workplace ethics.  These days, is that even a thing given the daily reports of exactly the opposite way in which corporations operate?

The heart of Mintz’s argument when it comes to corporations was straightforward.  Since corporations have won from the courts the privilege of being dealt with legally as a person, then they should have to practice the ethics expected of people as well.  In his book, Beyond Happiness and Meaning:  Transforming Your Life Through Ethical Behavior, he has trouble finding a lot of evidence of ethical corporate behavior.  He starts by taking on economist Milton Friedman, the idol of neo-cons and neoliberals, and his dictum that the business of companies is profit, pure and simple, by underlining the limits that even Friedman conceded to his license to robber barons.

Mintz had some difficulty avoiding all of the examples of unethical behavior from companies.  Wells Fargo has become an example of a bank as a criminal enterprise from its creation of fake accounts in recent years to the latest story of its computer system continuing to pile up overdrafts after customers have closed their accounts.  VW’s attempts to trick the EPA and others on its pollution controls is another case in point.  Looking at the old Ford Pinto case, it was shocking to talk about the cold blooded cost-benefit calculations that rationalized not spending $11 to fix the problems that would cause gas tank explosions and save the lives of hundreds, because they felt it was cheaper to pay a little piece of money for the loss of a human life than a measly couple of bucks on a fix.  Same for Takata’s air bags.  The litany of horror at how these corporate “people” act defies any notion of ethics it would seem.

When it got to the personal side of ethics in the workplace, #MeToo, was front and center.  Mintz had written about the “bystander” rationale exercised by victims in some cases and many who knew of the abuse but didn’t speak up, because they hoped someone else would stand up or were afraid of repercussions to themselves.  In these days of anonymous trolls on the internet, it would seem like anyone could create a new Gmail account and send a message to the powers-that-be about abuse from some coffeeshop, but what do I know.

When it comes to whistleblowing, Mintz had no qualms.  It is always worth the risks and living with the consequences, because that is the ethical thing to do.  He applied this rule whether it was sexual abuse or state secrets.  Interestingly in dissecting the Edward Snowden case, he was not a fan of Snowden not going the last mile through internal channels, but his final verdict was simple:  Snowden did the right thing the wrong way but for the right and good results.

Even white lies meant to not offend end up creating a web that only truth can resolve, leading Mintz to advocate “gentle” honesty.  Workplaces could use more ethical practice and gentleness as well, both for workers and their customers, and that is absolutely the truth.


More Greenwashing by the Rich

New Orleans     Cases continue to mount, marching forward on an almost daily basis, where we watch the rich attempt to greenwash their wealth and reputations for their private interests and tax benefits and distort the privileges that are claimed by philanthropy.

Ghislaine Maxwell, sometime consort and alleged pimp for Jeffrey Epstein and perhaps an heir to a controversial British publishing fiasco owned by her father until irregularities cropped up after his death, headed a US foundation briefly as she tried to distance herself publicly from Epstein after he did time in 2008 for soliciting underage women for prostitution. The foundation TerraMar, whose name signaled an interest in land and sea, claimed to want to advance the health of the ocean, given Maxwell’s love of yachts. IRS filings indicate that the foundation made no grants during its first five years from 2013 to 2017 according to its 990s, as reviewed by The New York Times. One of her friends was quoted as saying it seemed in one case to be “reputation management,” and another seemed to indicate that the foundation was perhaps more about conserving Maxwell’s reputation as it was conserving the ocean. Of course she may have also been taking a page from his book, since he was a big donor to various scientific efforts and Harvard for his own reputational whitewashing campaign forcing some big whoops to apologize for hanging with him.

Admittedly, these are sordid examples of perverse philanthropy perhaps, but I wonder how different than the usual, and for many of these self-proclaimed philanthropists, how much is ever in the public interest?

Make no mistake. The Internal Revenue Services provides its most favorable ruling of a 501c3 public charity providing a tax exemption for donations for organizations operating in the public, rather than private interest, involving public health, education, and community benefits.

All of this greenwashing of the rich and elite has gotten more attention thanks to the infamous Sackler family that pulled billions out of Purdue Pharma, the notorious manufacturer and hawker of opioids that have killed thousands. Various world-class museums including the Louvre in Paris and the Tate in London, have pulled back from the family or taken their names off the door, so to speak, though few have returned any of the millions they received. Now a fellow was pushed off the board of the Whitney Museum because he made his pile partially by manufacturing tear gas used on protestors around the world. The notorious rightwing, anti-democratic Koch family has their names on many of these cultural institutions for their contributions and does so with impunity, so this is all more window washing, rather than a deep clean.

Now the rich are whining because a boycott was announced of SoulCycle and some other investments by billionaire Steven Ross a primary investor there, real estate mogul, and owner of the Miami Dolphins, because he was hosting a $250,000 a ticket fundraiser for Donald Trump at his place in the Hamptons. Some of their board buddies defend him and others of the tribe loudly for their interest in education, art, opera or whatever, claiming that politics is getting muddled into philanthropy.

Wow, what a specious argument! As the Times’ “Wealth Matters” columnist was forced to admit, “Their resources and connections can influence the decisions of institutions managed for the public good….” Well, yeah! And, it’s not “can,” but DO influence the decisions. Why mince words. The public good is not their private interest or, heaven forbid, that of their elite friends who are also enamored of the opera, arts, or wherever they are claiming social capital and a tax exemption for greenwashing their personal reputation and cleaning up the damage they do to the public in minting their money. You could count on Ross to threaten his football players when Kaepernick was kneeling, and he did. You can count on the Koch’s to do everything they can to damage the climate, if it pads their pockets, and to destroy democracy at every opportunity.

As the superrich club bemoans the lack of gratitude from hoi polloi, whether it’s donor-directed funds or their tax-exempt think tanks or their general buddy-buddy greenwashing efforts with their fellow rich elites, there’s no question that whether it’s the Whitney or some small nonprofit, when are they going to admit that they are the piper playing the tunes, and they expect all these people to dance. It’s all transactional for them, so why not stop pretending it has anything to do with benefiting the public.

Let the protests continue!