Where I work there are only a handful of employees. We have to work side by side and get along fairly well in order for the day to be productive. For the most part it is one of the better places where I have ever worked because we would all rather get along than fight, however some issues, and differences of opinions, come to the front at social events such as the "Staff Christmas Party".

For a few days following these events some feathers remain ruffled but we go back to getting along very shortly. I am well aware, however that in some work places the staff are not so tolerant of each others beliefs. In fact in some places they form up into sides based on political opinion or religion.

If people work together, they will be more productive if they want to help each other, rather than harbor any feeling of hatred or wanting the other person to look bad.

image source

What are your employees talking about or fighting over when they gather at the water cooler?

Not everyone is passionate about politics or has strong political views, but for those that do, their opinions are more than just political ones. If you support a party that is high on supporting environmental causes, chances are you are too. Therefore you are not going to want to be working with a bunch of people who drive Hummers two blocks to work, and who are generally wasteful people. If you support a political party that believes wealth should be shared equally among the people, you are not going to want to work with people who think that rich people deserve more or are more important than everyone else. You get the picture.

People cannot help the way they believe, or how they feel on certain issues pertaining to everyday life. Those issues are then put forth into our political views. This goes hand in hand with how we think in our daily lives. Most of us have friends with similar views.

Again, having co-workers who get along is very important to the running of any business, particularly a small business where people are often working along side of one another in, what should be, a co-operative manner.

While maybe it is illegal to ask a person what there political views are, and illegal to hire based on this, it might be something we should be aware of when staffing. Similar minded people will get along better. People of opposing views might just try to sabotage each other, and thereby hurt the company in the long run.

Of course, one just needs to read the daily papers or watch news over the television to know that in business, as in other "departments" of life, cheating seems to have become the rule. To date, the milk and other dairy products that are tainted by melamine, an industrial component, from China highlights unethical business practice. This chemical for making plastic is mixed with milk to project an appearance that the product has lots of protein. This business scandal, especially if the number of affected babies is considered, is in itself appalling. But, as if the injury still begs for insult, there was also a news report that an attempt to assemble a class suit against the culprits was muzzled by a concerted effort to instill fear among the lawyers who were prospected to fight for the rights of the victims.

See, cheating is attempted to be covered by "another form of cheating..." Given this "rule" in the business world (as -- already indicated in the preceding -- in life), to fight for morality is all the more a daunting task.

But to me one also needs to consider "thinking out of the box." Our ethical schooling has been very much limited to the consideration of the extreme poles of good, on the one hand, and bad, on the other hand. But, of course, we knew that life is not black-and-white; and between the polarities of good and bad are so many shades of gray.

Now, the discipline of ethics has more than adequately taught us to with ease and confidence distinguish human acts into positive or negative. But how shall we label the "grays"? How shall we pass ethical judgment on the grays? Can we even recognize an instance of gray shade -- that which is neither good nor bad?

The article that I refer to at the inception of this writing provides an example by talking about a realistic approach in making sense out of the seeming triumph of the cheats. The author says should one devote all his time going after the cheats, then he's self-defeating. That means, he will not end up a sure loser. Thus, what one could do is simply to celebrate each and every instance of good that one finds in the world. A mere celebration? At least, one celebrates because ethics is still far from being passe.

The author admits that this could appear or seem like an unprincipled stance. But, being principled does not mean taking the hardline.

In 1980, the Sherman Act was instated to protect both businesses and consumers. This economic legislation ensures fair pricing while still allowing for open competition through the restriction of price fixing. Price fixing is defined as “an agreement among competitors to raise, fix, or otherwise maintain the price at which their goods or services are sold” (Price Fixing, Bid Rigging, and Market Allocation Schemes 2). Some examples of price fixing include the holding of prices, eliminating discounts, adopting a standard formula for computing prices, and not advertising prices.

Price fixing can also be used to discriminate against other small businesses. Setting a price only within a certain area in order to eliminate competition or create a monopoly is illegal. Many states have also adopted a “Below Sales Cost” law. This law states that they may not sell goods below their cost with an anti-competitive intent. Price fixing is harmful to individuals, small businesses, and corporations (Price Fixing: What is it? 2).

I agree with the current laws that are in effect against price fixing. If price fixing were allowed to take place in the marketplace, there would be a dramatic rise in prices in various products. Gas stations would collaborate, causing the price per gallon to rise overnight. If the local market was flooded with price fixing in products such as gas and food, there would be no choice but to purchase products at an inflated price. If large companies sold products at a price lower than cost, smaller family owned businesses would fail within weeks. Thanks to the Sherman Act, there is still fair competition in the marketplace, but it is not so fierce that newly developing businesses crumble under the pressure.

The Sherman Act is strictly enforced today under the Federal Antitrust Enforcement Department. In 2000, a settlement was made with three of the United States' largest music retailers. These retailers followed a practice known as “minimum-advertised pricing” (or MAP). Through MAP, these retailers subsidized ads by retailers. In return for this, the stores agreed to sell CD's at or above a certain price, providing them with an unfair advantage over consumers. The companies agreed to pay $67.4 million and distribute $75.7 million in CD's to public and non-profit groups to settle the lawsuit (USAToday.com 2).

Ensuring fair competition is essential to maintaining low prices in the marketplace. Although competition itself is not unethical, it is unethical when companies work together to intentionally and unnecessarily increase profits at the expense of the consumer. Without the Sherman Act, prices would skyrocket in every industry. Thanks to the Sherman Act, we can be sure that we are being charged fair prices in our local market.

The Bible has been considered the foundation of American culture. However, it might be hard to prove that this is still the case at this point in American society. With the separation of church and state being brought to the forefront more and more, situational ethics probably are having a greater influence on business ethics than scripture. That would seem to be true of any book considered holy by its proponents, not just the Bible.

The Bible has a considerable amount to say about interest on loans, but this has not stopped modern lending institutions from raising credit card rates above the 30% mark. It makes significant statements about being fair with weights and measures, but companies work hard to make it appear that they have not reduced the amount of product that they are selling you. This is done with creative packaging. A one pound can of coffee still looks about the same size, but inside it will only have from 12 to 14 ounces of coffee. This holds true for candy and many other goods in cans and packages.

The Bible discusses sex and lust to great length encouraging modesty and chastity. However, the vast majority of advertisements not only use sex to sell a product, would also seem to say that lust and sex with someone other than a spouse is the way to live. It does not take a genius to realize that this type of advertising is a mockery of the commandment against adultery.

Greed is considered one of the seven deadly sins. Yet, the American business model of capitalism only really works because of greed. For over two centuries, greed has been the unseen hand that guides the U. S. economy. Without it, our economic system would collapse.

This greed has caused many businesses to defraud investors, customers, and employees. Executives have spent time in jail because of this fraud and various other forms of manifested greed, such as, income tax evasion.

When businesses perform according to any type of biblical ethics, it is always because they believe that to do so would be detrimental to business. Even most so-called Christian businesses have problems adhering to the ethics of the Bible when a profit is to be made. Many such businessmen have been heard to say that religion and business do not mix.

Why is ingratiation the only means of acceptance? Why must there be a Napoleon within all of us, deemed with the responsibility of power. A manager should know all aspects of the job; they should have every answer when you come to them. They are your support branch when all else fails.

Not in America, the land of the free and the home of dominance over subordinates. We work out of fear on most jobsites throughout our lifetimes. Don’t step on any toes, and why? I know why, it is because our “leaders” cannot muster up the nuts to be an adult man or woman about the facts.

Placing blame on others just as long as it is not on their shoulders. Do our leaders care? I think not. How can they when they do not think about what they are doing to others, how will it affect their lives? Constantly stepping on our fellow man, for our own selfish pride, and wants.

When will management take the roles that they are given, and accept the responsibility of not just supervisors, administrators, and managers? When will I see what we all need for a stable lifestyle? When will I see a leader?

Marketing was a new science in the 1950's and few even had any concept of what it would bring about. It basically incorporated new methods of advertising in its simplest form and grew from there to branch into large scale prime time ads that would run into the millions for even short TV ads. Of course, they were strategically aired to return the greatest marketing impact. The quick sessions would employ the latest in ad conveying methods including some of the greatest fantasy content. Each message would be short but to the point and destined to create the greatest earnings return. It becomes fairly obvious that only the few top revenue earners could afford the extravagant costs to air their dedicated commercials.

Some Deceptive Practices Used In Marketing Products Have Gone Too Far

The art of advertising is fairly well based on persuasion of an audience and this group today is generally the TV viewer, which basically began in the early 1950's, at the time the idea of Marketing was conceived. In its infancy, these ads were fairly infrequent and conveyed a fair amount of “truth in advertising”. As time went on, some abuses of the sponsored messages began to arise and sexual overtones began to ensue. They figured this would attract more viewers. As time went on, the original message seemed to create the needed results of increasing profits, so these methods were incorporated into future ads.

We are finding that advertising proliferation is having a negative effect on our society. In many cases some advertising messages lead the listener astray into actually making a purchase of something that is not of the value advertised.

Advertising holds far too much persuasive power to be considered a mere tool for communication. By promising some unrealistic expectation, for example, advertisements that manipulate people to buy products they do not need, or free gifts that require purchase commitment prior to receiving their "free gift", so it is not free, but is misled to believe that you are "receiving something for nothing".

What Are Some Of The Latest Incidents Concerning Ethics In Advertising?

It is believed by most Americans that the recent voting by the FDA to let pharmaceutical ads air without being controlled in their excessive quantity and in many cases using unethical and highly persuasive methods as they have been over the past few years should have been turned down. Many Americans hope that the FDA gives some future study into this very important matter.