Employment Ethics It is generally agreed that for one to be a true professional, one has to separate one's personal ethics from their professional ethics. This is sometimes necessary because the two ethics sets will sometimes conflict. However, the ethical dynamic when it comes to employment situations is greatly complicated by other factors that turn what would normally be black and white issues into shades of gray. Things that can lead to these shades of gray include religion, disagreements with the ethical standards being posed by a government power or employer and so forth. While some may like to assert that the rules of the employment and human resources playing field are clear-cut and without question, that is simply not the case sometimes and some skepticism about the a matter may actually be justified.

Analysis

One major topic that comes up when it comes to employment situations and ethics would be religion. While privately held businesses are basically able to infuse religion at will (with some constraints, of course), the same is not true of public organizations and agencies. Indeed, the author of this report has service in the United States Navy and there has been a bit of a shift as of late from "God and Country" to more of an inclusive approach in the form of the shuttering of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and a minimization of a religious presence in some forums (HRC, 2015). Another great example that is in the news right now would be the clerk in Kentucky that is refusing to issue marriage licenses on religious grounds even though the Supreme Court has ruled the practice of not issuing marriage licenses to gay couples against the Constitution. However, the picture is a little cloudy because the woman in question is citing the First Amendment and its freedom of religion clause. Even so, her chances of prevailing any coming legal challenges is slim to none (Blinder, 2015). Much the same thing has been seen with businesses like bakeries and the like that refuse to make wedding cakes for gay couples. In short, whether it be a private business or a public institution, the employees have a right to have their own convictions and religions practices but it cannot have certain effects on who is hired, who is fired, who is served as a customer and who is not. When it comes to ethical standards, the wrong actors in these cases are pretty clear even if some people disagree based on their personal viewpoints. Imposing one's own viewpoints on the broader society is not ethical and it is often illegal (ACLU, 2015).

The author of this report referenced shades of gray and they certainly do exist. For example, there is the subject of affirmative action. Indeed, affirmative action for black people in terms of getting jobs or getting into premier colleges exists for a fairly straightforward reason. For centuries, blacks were subjugated, enslaved and treated like second-class citizens, if not animals. The legacy of slavery in the Americas and the nearby Caribbean islands goes back to at least Columbus in the late 1400's. Even so, there is something amiss in the minds of many people when it comes to giving any favor to black people because of their race because it would seem to be doing the same thing in reverse to white people. Further, the white people affected by these decisions are often non-racist and have nothing to do with the racism that led to affirmative action being a policy. Some suggest that such tilting in favor of black people is necessary to "level the playing field" and even things up. While that may sound good in principle and while it may seem like the lesser of two evils, others suggest that the real issue are the inner cities that are turning out squalor, lack of education and crime. However, it is a lot harder to institute fixes for that and prior efforts like transfers of wealth, social programs and so forth do not seem to budge the poverty and other negative rates that seem to impact blacks the hardest. In general, the author of this report holds that the best person should get the job irrespective of what race, gender or religion the applicants happen to be. However, even doing that can lead to scrutiny from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and other regulatory bodies when people of color and women in general are not hired at rates that match the surrounding population of an employer. Indeed, there are no easy answers but to...

The question becomes whether it is more ethical to right past social/legal wrongs forced upon African-Americans or if equality for all should be the immediate and only goal (SCU, 2015).
Another example of good intentions perhaps running afoul of ethics or even rational sense is the recent EEOC assertion that felons should not be dismissed from employment consideration based on their criminal history. Certain government agencies have responded to this by erasing "Are you a felon?" questions (or anything like it) from their paper or online employment applications. However, some people actively disagree with that general concept because they suggest that hiring felons is just not good sense. Beyond that, there is the concept known as "negligent hiring." For example, if an employer hires (knowingly or unknowingly ... but especially if it's knowingly) a convicted rapist and the man in question attacks or rapes an employee thereafter, there is a strong chance that the employer would be held accountable. More commonly, if an employer hires a person with a history of stealing (e.g. embezzlement, shoplifting, forgery, etc.) and a customer gets their money stolen by that person, there is a strong chance the employer will face repercussions for that as well. Not dissimilar from vicarious liability, there is the general idea that if an employer knows the actions and predilections of their employees and they do not exercise reasonable care to stop that person from engaging in their bad behavior (e.g. sexual harassment), then the employer is generally held liable (NRMC, 2015).

However, this particular situation and example gets even grayer when one throws in the idea that many ex-convicts are not entirely bad people and just made some bad choices. There is also the idea of not holding over the crimes of years or decades ago over the heads of those people. Lastly, there is the idea that there needs to be a way for an ex-convict (felon or not) to reintegrate into society. Like the affirmative action question, there is not an easy answer. Further, the position that the EEOC is taking on the matter, that being potentially punishing employers for exercising what is seemingly well-intention skepticism and due diligence, is a bit unseemly and actually puts employers between a rock and hard place. They can either run the risk of hiring a person that is/was an unquestioned criminal or facing derision/legal action from the federal or other government agencies of the land. The military is certainly no stranger to that dilemma. Indeed, putting a gun in the hands of a person that is a criminal or is mentally damaged is probably not the best idea unless it is known with a good amount of certitude that the person has been treated/reformed and that they are now on the right path. Many say it is the ethical thing to do to help hire and reform felons while others vehemently state that those felons burned their bridges when they engaged in their criminal behavior and that it would be unfair and unethical to endanger their employees (SHRM, 2015).

Yet another employment conundrum is how to handle drug and alcohol use. There is a lot of chatter when it comes to alcoholism in particular that is a "disease" and this general concept has received at least some level of support from the medical and human resources communities. However, this particular dilemma falls along the same sort of lines as the felon question. First of all, even if there are medical indicators and treatment patterns involved, the genesis of any alcoholic becoming what he/she is would be voluntary behavior, that being the drinking of alcohol. Second of all, there is the idea that a drunk or hung over employee can actually be a danger if part or all of their job involves driving, operating heavy machinery or the handling of hazardous materials. However, even white collar jobs are generally very cold to the idea of supporting and retaining person that obviously has a substance abuse problem. While many addicts are what known as "functioning" in that they find a way to live their lives in a fairly normal fashion even with their addiction, there will almost certainly be some sort of negative impact in the form of absenteeism, lower performance or something else along those lines. The fact that…