New England Patriots

Since we have been talking about ethics all semester and football was one of our topics, I thought that I would bring up the New England Patriots. I think that it is very wrong for the NFL to simply look the other way and forcibly slap a team on the wrist for breaking an official rule. Spying on other teams has never been legal and never will become legal! A fine to a football team is nothing...and the loss of one draft pick for the winningest team in the league isn't a big deal either.

Why did the NFL look the other way? What would have happened if it was another team, one that made less money in ticket sales?

I believe that if it was any other team, the punishment would have been a lot harsher. By simply placing a small fine on the offending team, you are telling other teams that the risk is not that large and that as long as you are raking in the dough the NFL doesn't really care what you do to win a game. Ever since this incident the NFL has become more and more shady. There is now talk of making all NFL games available only through the NFL network unless it is a local game. They don't care what fans they lose, they just figure if you are a big enough fan that you will pay the extra money to support your favorite team.

Since when did sports become such a shady business? What ever happened to it being fun to watch?

The NFL has a lot of things that they need to work out so that they don't become a joke to their fans.

Staples

Recently I have experienced something within my retail job at Staples which I consider unethical. I have worked for Staples for over five years. Just recently I found out that my apartment complex is raising rent, therefore I won't be able to afford living there so I have decided to move back to Allen with my parents. Therefore I need to transfer back to my old store.

For some reason it is a huge deal that I want/need to do this. I've told my manager, wrote my two weeks note, but he won't allow me to transfer and claims that it is not that easy. But it was easy the first time I did it when I transferred into his store. He claims that they will need to replace my position before I can go anywhere. He said that he will be picky in finding someone because he wants them to be just like me, wants me to train them and says it may take months. Therefore he is saying that I will need to spend about two or more hours a day driving to Lewisville on my crappy pay to be able to continue working at Staples.

I would quit, but that would screw him over big time, and well I would have no insurance then. What can I do other than call HR and hope that they agree with me and not management?

Ethical lives

Why can't people be more ethical within their own lives? When it comes to business I think that more people think ethically than in their own personal lives. Personal relationships seem to be placed on the back burner to their professional relationships. Why don't people see that the personal relationships developed outside of their professional careers can help them in the future?

If I have learned anything over the years it is to not burn any bridges, you never know when you will need to call upon that person for help...or when you'll run into them again.

It is very unfortunate that some people feel that they don't need to be considerate to other people when they meet them out at the bar, at a coffee shop, a retail store or whatever. The people that you meet and treat like crap may be the people that you go to for a job someday.

Enron

After watching the Enron movie last week in class, and piecing together all the things that happened made me wonder how something as large scale as this could keep going for so long.

The unethical decisions started from the beginning. The fact that employees were rated based on other employees made their place of work too competitive. When faced with competition and fear of job security any decision seems like a good one. Those people were put under so much pressure that they knew nothing more than to do the wrong thing.

What I would have liked to hear about in the movie was the people who left the company because of their own ethical beliefs. I'm sure not everyone in the company was carrying out the unethical tasks.

The worst part was the whole electric company buy out scheme. The phone conversations between Enron associates was horrifying. I can't believe that people could ever be so heartless and say "burn baby, burn" even jokingly while millions were dying from forest fires in California.

Why weren't these people caught? Was it because Ken Lay was friends with the President? Could that have had anything to do with why Enron was able to get away with so much?

This whole case simply boggles my mind. I can't believe that people would simply throw their own set of ethics out the window just so they could make their bosses happy. That's ridiculous.

Clear Channel Ethics

As an employee of Clear Channel. I'm appalled at the lack of information that is being passed down to employees.

I went into work the other day and about five people had been fired. No one knows why. The only thing everyone knows is that "this is just the beginning". Corporate hasn't cleared up anything with anyone. I did some research on the company and it turns out that there was an article in Fortune stating that Clear Channel was getting ready to sell. I asked a DJ that has worked at the station for several years if he knows what is going on and he told me he had heard it was budget cuts. He said they were cutting the budget by 1 million and in the process were cleaning house.

From a PR standpoint this kind of behavior is unethical and simply promotes a bad image for the company as a whole. The employees should be the first people to find out what is going on in a time like this, because if they only see people being fired every time they turn around they are most likely going to start looking for another job that is more secure. If it wasn't for the media, no one at Clear Channel would ever know what was going on. Also if someone from the media were to do some interviews about the buy out within the company, they would find some pretty negative comments/confusion from employees stating to investors and etc that Clear Channel is unstable.

Libel

I don't understand why slander would be a big deal. Whatever happened to free speech?

I guess we have free speech but to an extent. That's what I will assume. You can say something, but if it offends someone then you get in trouble. Whatever happened to opinions? I guess you can't have those anymore because it may be offensive to someone. I feel like the law has taken libel and slander a bit overboard. Instead of being free to say anything you want, the way this country was brought up to believe, you have to walk on egg shells and hope that no one is offended by what you say.

So what happens to those people who say something inappropriate? Their names go on record of saying the phrase that made someone upset and they have to go to court to settle something that may have been just a momentary thought written down on paper or spoken. Because they were able to say what they felt, they are now being slandered their reputation is in jeopardy. They will always be known as an offensive rude person. Is that fair?

Mamet's Assertions About Ethics in Marketing

Within Mamet's Glengarry, Glen Ross assertions about ethics in marketing were made.

Most of us have formed a negative stereotype regarding sales people. We think of them as smooth-talking, blood-suckers who are out to support themselves in any way possible. Mamet plays on this stereotypical outlook and portrays his characters dealing with ethical situations.

The salespeople in Gelngarry, Glen Ross sell property. The property they sell does not exist. In the process of selling the fictitious land the men never take into play the situations of their customers, they simply are out for money and recognition as the top seller.

The unethical practices that the sales people within the play are known for are:

- Promising clients more than they can deliver, and lying to get the sale.
- Knowingly recommending products to the customer that they know is not in their best interest.
- Steering customers toward a higher-priced solution when a more reasonable option exists.

The unethical decisions that the characters within Mamet's play make are common ethical dilemmas which salespeople still deal with today. Although the ethical landscape is changing within corporate sales departments, these ethical problems still exist within the people employed. Greed and the fight to make commission get in the way of making the ethical decision within those employed, therefore further tarnishing the way sales careers are viewed.
Continually pushing company ethics and ridding sales departments of commission pay will help to deter people from making unethical decisions and encourage them to hold to company wide ethical standards.

Southwest Airlines Apology

Southwest Airlines recently faced two clothing situations, where two of their customers were refused service because of their attire. This is very unsouthwest behavior.

In order to kill the press on the first incident, Southwest decided to make light of the situation in both a press release as well as TV commercials.

From a business standpoint I believe that Southwest was right in handling the situation the way that they did. By making fun of themselves they were able to get the press off of their backs and still save the face of the company.

From an ethical standpoint this may not have been the best thing to do because by making fun of these situations they were also making fun of their employees own set of ethics. Making their ethics seem inferior to the company's image.

In order to turn this whole situation around, I think that it would be wise for Southwest to either come up with a dress code, or stand behind their employees. As of now not everyone within that company is on the same page, and they very well should be before this clothing situation gets anymore out of hand.

PRSA Code of Ethics

The PRSA Code of Ethics discusses what ethical obligations public relations practitioners should uphold during the course of their career and membership with the organization.

As far as the principles of freedom, stewardship, justice, humaneness and truth, I believe that the majority of the codes reflect the communitarian mode. This mode states that the communities well-being is as important as the organizations. The majority of the codes fall under the principles of humaneness and truth. By focusing on these two principles and referring to the people (the companies and general public we are serving as practitioners) the code of ethics takes on a communitarian mode. PRSA is concerned with the well being of the community and the people living within it.

Although the codes reflect a little of both utilitarian and communitarian viewpoints, I believe that the communitarian viewpoint comes out on top. Sure organizations would like to provide the greatest good to the greatest number of people, but in these kind of situations not everyone will be happy with the chances PR practitioners take to ethically represent their companies therefore the communitarian viewpoint comes into play as the mode that most represents the code.

Southwest Airlines

Recently Southwest Airlines was ridiculed for kicking a 23 year-old college student off of a flight for wearing scantly clad clothing. Their PR team saved them. Instead of allowing the press to blow all of this way out of proportion, the way they always do, they decided to make it into a joke.

The airlines apologized to the girl, and then began running advertising campaigns making fun of the incident. They also encouraged other women in short skirts to fly Southwest as often as they like.

Radio programs around the nation were also having a ball with the incident, planning stunts where they would gather dozens of short skirted girls onto a southwest flight, just to fly them to a city close to them for lunch.

I must say, as a frequent flyer, I was pretty amused by the whole situation. I wanted to specifically dress risque and go on a Southwest flight, just to see what would happen.

From a PR standpoint, I believe that Southwest did the right thing. They didn't make a scene of it, they just apologized and played along. Really, in a situation like that, you can either make light of it or hold to your flight attendants thoughts on the customers attire and make it a serious matter that the media would eat up.

The best thing was done, and now the situation isn't really talked about anymore. It maybe got two days of negative attention from the media, and the rest after that was all positive thanks to the Southwest PR staff.

Apple IPhone

Apple, where should I begin.

I'm not a consumer of Apple products, in fact I pretty much hate everything Apple. So I'll try and keep my biases out of this and get my venting over with in this paragraph. Here are the things I don't like about Apple: the way they handle their customers (they treat them like income not humans), they don't care about quality (who puts a product out knowing that the consumers will have to send it back in two years because the battery won't last longer than that? I understand it is to make money, but it is careless), and last but not least, I don't care for their empire of products that are dependant on other Apple products. What if I want to use something other than itunes?

After reading the Apple IPhone case I came to the conclusion that they are taking on a communitarianistic viewpoint.

Justice - Justice really hasn't been served in the case of Apple. They are currently violating disability acts because their new phones are not made for people with hearing disabilities. So far they have not responded to any customer complaints and instead take on a "no comment" stance. In this case it is definitely the powerful over the powerless. The Apple empire is worth billions of dollars, I'm thinking that some disgruntled customers will not affect their sales to the extent of bankruptcy, therefore Steve Jobs isn't worrying about it.

Humaneness - In this case Apple is not being humane. They aren't recognizing their customers needs, and are completely overlooking every helpful comment to simply get the product out and make the money. If they would have taken on a good business standpoint they would have acknowledged the hearing impaired when they attended meetings before the release to try and get their product changed, instead they ignored them and in turn ignored that whole sector of the population who could have been brought on as Apple customers. They also ignored their European customers by releasing the IPhone there knowing that the Internet speeds would be slower than in the US. Everything that Apple does revolves around money, not the customer.

Truth - Apple is telling the truth, they warned customers about the battery life of the IPhone, they told people that they were sorry for the price drop and offered something in return to hopefully satisfy their customers, but they failed to take the interests of their customers to heart.

Freedom - They are free to pursue profit. They are a business, that's what businesses do. Sloppy ones do whatever they can no matter what to make more money.

This case hasn't helped my stance on Apple. I originally thought that their $100 rebate was a nice gesture, but after I found out it is only a store credit, I was a little mad. There's nothing like getting store credit instead of cash, instead of using that money to buy something else, you are forced to use that money on Apple products. WooHoo...so what about the people who don't want anything to do with Apple after they screwed them over? I guess they themselves are screwed.

Dallas Cowboys...

Upon reading the Dallas Cowboys story, I have come to believe that there was some under the table exchanging of money. Although we do not have the whole story, I think that McIver was paid to keep quiet. I'm sure they didn't have to pay him much either, since he was probably scared out of his mind that he would lose his job or be blacklisted in the NFL if he ever said anything.

I also believe that what the Cowboys did was ingenious. I by no means support the "no comment" strategy, but in this case it worked. The reason it worked was because an inferior player was involved. He was the one that was the victim, and after the implementation of scare tactics, the team was then able to silence everyone.

As someone who is a fan of football, not necessarily the cowboys, I support what they did. If my team would have had issues with their key players and would have risked losing a season because of something they did, I should hope that they would keep it covered up.

Even though this strategy worked, there could have been many things that went wrong. Someone could have spoken, charges could have been pressed, and then what would be the image of the cowboys? Would they have changed their minds about supporting their key player, or would they have turned on him and kicked him off the team? Football is a business, and in a business you need to do what you have to, to keep it afloat.

Genital Cutting

Last semester I wrote a paper on genitle cutting for my anthropology class. I read several papers by distinguished anthropologists, but never realized until I read "Cosmopolitanism" that they were very biased. The papers mainly talked about the horrors of the mutilation, and as I read them I began to feel sad for the women who go through this process.



Appiah takes on a totally different view and brings up points that I never would have thought of. One point he makes is that critics "say it is mutilation, but is that any more than a reflex response to an unfamiliar practice?" He also says, "They say that female circumcision demeans women, but do not seem to think that male circumcision demeans men."



These viewpoints made me realize that it is just a part of their culture, and just because I don't agree with genitle cutting doesn't make it wrong. Since western culture doesn't practice genitle cutting we automatically frown upon it, and based on biased accounts gathered to make the process sound heinous, we judge it and therefore decide that we need to get involved to help stop it. That would be like someone from another country coming to the United States and saying that male circumcision is wrong and that ethically we should not practice it anymore.



What I don't agree with is genitle cutting without consent of the woman. That is what is unethical. A woman should have a say on what kinds of procedures are to be performed on her genitalia. She shouldn't have to suffer just because her husband wants sex to be more pleasurable. It is the same with abortion, a woman should have a choice on the procedures that are to be performed on her body, no one else should get a say in the matter.

Does Everybody Matter? What about the people within corporate America's supply chains?

Yes, everyone matters. If everyone didn't matter than what kind of world would we live in? I admit in the past and even today certain groups of people have decided that others aren't as worthy as they are of having a normal life. They are imprisoned or judged because of their beliefs. Take the famous examples of Nazi Germany, slaves, or even people within corporate America's supply chains. These examples have allowed most of us to learn from that behavior, and I believe that we are slowly shedding our ethnocentric views for that of a cosmopolitanism belief that we are all "human" and can "learn from each other's differences".

Although it would be nice to have everyone take on a cosmopolitanism belief, not everyone can fathom the idea of equality. Some people have been brought up with certain beliefs, and after a certain time period it gets harder and harder to change those instilled beliefs. In a perfect world, if everyone was brought up with these views, the world would be a better place. Unfortunately I'm going to take a pessimistic view and say that this will never happen. There will always be someone who will believe their race, religion, etc. to be better than another. Therefore, although I think everyone matters, not everyone will share in my belief.