Obama despre etica si politica

Lockheed Martin sued for whistlerblower retaliation

Lockheed Martin has been sued by a former employee because the accuser says she was subject to retaliation from the company's management. 

The interesting aspect is not that a whistleblower has been subject to retaliation, because it is a natural reaction of people to be agressive when they are attacked. Even when the attacker is right. But the interesting part is in the nature of retaliation. 

Andrea Brown says she was forced out of her job after filing an ethics complaint against vice president Wendy Owen in May 2006. 

Brown, who was director of communications for Lockheed Martin technical operations in Colorado Springs, claims she resigned in February 2008 after her working conditions became intolerable. 

At one point, she said, she was told she had to reapply for her job and to move out of her office and go work in a storage space without a phone. 

Source: http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_11547111

In other words, she wasn't fired or beaten, but forced to resign due to intolerable work conditions. This is a general situation, if the case does not end up with the bankruptcy of the company, as in the Enron example. 

This kind of retaliation is preferred because companies, their managers, think a resignation will not give the opportunity to the whistlerblower to ask for compensations. Wrong! The US law, as well as the European laws, offer a sort of protection to whistlerblower because it tends to understand the reasons for which a whistlerblower spills out an unethical or non-compliance aspect exists, i.e., a compelling sentiment that they do the right thing (towards the public interest). 

Second, there are other cases I read about, when judges made clear statements against such behavior from companies. This contributes a lot to a general negative view towards the company. In others words, only the legal suit itself, and the media news, create a kind of general opinion not favorable to the company. The main reason for this (and I think this is also the reason that lies at the heart of the paranoid "conspiracy theory") is the disproportionate relation between the company and the whistleblower.

A video-interview about the current challenges for Romanian market

Video-interview with Mr. Cristian Ducu. He speaks about the Romanian training market, business ethics in Romania and the role of the Ethics and Compliance Officer in organizations.

His main ideea is that the current crisis has been artificially induced in the Romanian market by certain big players which have a huge interest in undermining the Romanian economy. The media in conjunction with several economic institutions created a mass-panic that lead to bankruptcy, to cutting training budgets, to firing without discrimination good and bad employees, to limiting services and so on.

In this situation, those that have an open mind and a dynamic business view will understand that it is the best moment to find better, more qualified working-force. In the same time, they should introduce more strict performance indicators to have a better view over the fluctuations of the business and make the necessary adjustments.

The current economic context is also a good opportunity to separate correct businesses from those breaking the law or treating bad their employees, partners, the environment and other stakeholders. It is the time to add value to the organization through adopting special Ethics and Compliance Management Systems, through adopting an attitude that favors Business Ethics.

And this is the reason for hiring an Ethics and Compliance Officer. His job makes perfect sense when so many internal and external factors threat the health and the performance of the organization.

Although he is not an universal solution, he can make the difference on longer-term between companies that work with devoted customers and companies that have a big flow of clients. In the later case, the performance risk is greater and it may easily lead to bankruptcy. In the former case, the client devotion, given not by the uniqueness of the product or service, but by the way the company treats the customer and how the company does business, will ensure a continuous activity for the company.

Training-urile, sambata si duminica

De foarte multe ori m-am confruntat cu urmatoarea problema: angajatii trimisi de o companie din Romania refuza sa participe la un program de training care se organizeaza sambata sau duminica. Acestia prefera ca training-urile contractate de firma pe bani grei sa se tina in cursul saptamanii, adica in timpul programului de lucru. 

Acesta nu este un caz izolat, ci o practica obisnuita in Romania. 

Intrebarea mea este daca un astfel de comportament este etic, adica daca angajatul se comporta corect fata de firma fiindca refuza sa mearga la un training in weekend sau daca acea companie se comporta corect fata de proprii angajati atunci cand contracteaza un serviciu in cele doua zile libere ale angajatilor. 

In primul rand, avem de-a face cu doua situatii diferite guvernate de aceeasi relatie contractuala intre cele doua parti: angajatorul (firma) si angajatul. Cu alte cuvinte, conditiile contractuale sunt cele care ar trebui sa guverneze relatia dintre cele doua parti, inclusiv asigurarea de training specializat angajatului de catre companie. Dar intr-un contract de munca, oricat de complex ar fi el, nu se mentioneaza niciodata ca respectivele programe de training vor avea loc doar in cursul saptamanii. In acest context, modul cum se comporta cele doua parti nu mai tine de clauzele contractuale, ci de ceea ce fiecare parte considera ca fiind in beneficiul sau ori ca tinand de responsabilitatea sa. 

Astfel ajungem la cele doua situatii. In primul caz, angajatul refuza sa mearga la training in weekend in principal fiindca el considera ca acele doua zile sunt libere, cu alte cuvinte nu sunt prevazute in contract ca fiind lucratoare. Asta inseamna ca pentru acele zile, in cazul in care i s-ar cere sa lucreze, ar trebui remunerat cu mult mai mult decat o zi obisnuita de lucru. Dar el nu ar lucra, ci ar merge la un training - de aici teama ca nu ar primi niste bani care i s-ar cuveni. 

Acest rationament este nu doar eronat, ci el reprezinta un pericol real pentru cultura organizationala a unei companii. Un angajat, fie el si cu contract de munca pe perioada determinata, reprezinta compania care l-a angajat nu doar pe timpul celor 8 ore de lucru zilnic (luni-vineri), ci pe toata perioada contractuala. De exemplu, daca angajatul companiei X ar merge intr-un magazin, dupa orele de program, si ar fura niste lucruri, presa ar putea foarte usor sa asocieze numele sau cu cel al firmei la care lucreaza. In acest caz, firma ar fi indreptatita, spun eu, sa desfaca respectivul contract de munca deoarece acel angajat ii strica reputatia. 

Reformuland: atunci cand cele doua parti intra in relatia contractuala amintita, ele accepta status quo-ul cunoscut al fiecareia la momentul respectiv. Adica firma accepta ca persoana angajata nu are cazier si reputatia sa este de om onest, iar angajatul accepta ca firma respectiva este cunoscuta ca fiind una care-si respecta clientii, angajatii etc. Cand una dintre parti schimba in mod negativ acest status quo nu face altceva decat sa aduca atingere celeilalte parti. 

Revenind la problema noastra, angajatul lucreaza efectiv 8 ore, sau cat a convenit initial, pentru angajatorul sau, dar responsabilitatea sa nu se incheie la finalul programului de lucru. 

Sa ilustrez in alt fel. Sa ne gandim ca angajatul unei banci trece pe langa o sucursala intr-o noapte ploioasa, iar in momentul respectiv el ar observa niste indivizi in sediul acelei sucursale. Responsabilitatea sa este sa se opreasca si, chiar cu pretul de a fi plouat, sa contacteze Politia si reprezentantii acelei sucursale (care, de regula, sunt numiti la intrarea in sediu, intr-o zona vizibila). Daca el nu ar proceda astfel, atunci este foarte probabil ca el sa nu semnaleze nici cazurile de frauda de care el ar lua cunostinta in sediul bancii in care lucreaza. De aceea spunem ca riscurile pentru cultura organizationala sunt foarte mari. 

In al doilea rand, faptul ca angajatul refuza sa participe la un training in weekend este de fapt in dezavantajul sau. Participarea la program l-ar imbogati cu niste cunostinte pe care altfel nu le-ar obtine. Apoi, conform Codului Muncii, orice zi de training (formare profesionala) este echivalata unei zi de munca. Adica 6 ore de training sunt echivalentul a 8 ore de lucru, iar aceste ore trebuie sa se regaseasca in cuantumul orelor de lucru pentru fiecare angajat in parte. Incalcarea acestei dispozitii legale conduce la o sanctionare a firmei angajatoare de catre Inspectoratele Teritoriale de Munca. 

In al treilea rand, angajatul isi produce singur un rau. Argumentul angajatului pentru refuzul de a merge la un training in weekend platit de firma este ca nu-si poate modifica programul personal pentru a obtine un beneficiu. As echivala situatia cu aceea in care un doctor ii spune unui pacient, care nu este bolnav (nu toti pacientii sunt bolnavi, sic!), ca e bine sa manance cat mai multe fructe si legume ca sa-ti mentina starea de sanatate la cote cat mai bune, iar acesta ar raspunde ca nu poate fiindca trebuie sa se plimbe cu masina. La fel, angajatul refuza un training care i-ar putea imbunatatii performantele la locul de munca fiindca trebuie sa mearga la cumparaturi duminica dimineata sau sa se refaca dupa cele 40 de ore lucrate in cursul saptamanii. 

In cel de-al doilea caz, se pune intrebarea daca o companie ar fi incorecta fata de propriul angajat fiindca il trimite la training in weekend? Nu cred ca exista un raspuns pozitiv. De regula, calendarele programelor de training in regim deschis sunt stabilite de firmele de training insele si nu de compania care-si trimite unul, doi sau zece angajati. 

Intr-adevar, daca o companie instituie o politica, scrisa sau nu, prin care toate programele de training trebuie sa se organizeze doar in weekend, atunci o astfel de masura poate fi privita si trebuie sa fie privita ca fiind una discriminatorie. Spun asta fiindca respectiva companie se va lovi de refuzul unei persoane care are o anumita religie si nu poate merge la training sambata dimineata, iar, ca urmare, acea persoana nu va putea niciodata sa beneficieze de vreun program de training. Cu alte cuvinte, acea persoana va fi discriminata in raport cu alti colegi, care nu au nici o restrictie de ordin religios in a participa la training in weekend. 

Pe de alta parte, pot exista cazuri limita, cand compania nu are dreptul de a cere unei persoane sa mearga la training in weekend. De exemplu, daca acea persoana se casatoreste tocmai in weekend-ul in care este programat si training-ul. Din acest motiv, comunicarea interna este esentiala pentru a preveni eventuale situatii neplacute. 

Sunt curios ce argumente contra ar putea fi aduse in discutie.

[Publicat initial pe forumul comunitatii ECO]

Ethics & Compliance Officer training program

4 more places available for the Ethics & Compliance Officer training program, ECO#82 Series (February 13 - April 4, 2009). Apply now and get a 30% discount. You will also benefit of a special waiver for the CECO Certification Exam.

The participants to the ECO#82 Series (March 13 - April 4, 2009) are coming from companies such as Pfizer Romania, Unicredit Tiriac Bank, Banca Transilvania, BCR Erste etc.