May 2009 Archive

The political class in the United Kingdom is in crisis because of revelations by the Daily Telegraph that cabinet ministers and parliamentarians have abused their expenses accounts. The minister of Justice Shahid Malik was suspended while the government is investigating allegations of abuse of his expenses privileges. It was also reported that Ian McCarthy, the former Labor party Chairman had charged taxpayers some 16,000 pound sterling for furnishing and decorating his second home.

Expense reports serve a useful purpose mainly for practical reasons. It is easier for an individual and its employer that charges related to business be paid by the individual and then reimbursed by the employer.

Unfortunately many abuse that privilege. According the Wisconsin Law Journal, cheating on expenses is one of the most common thefts perpetrated by employees.

It is not always easy to determine what is right and what is wrong when submitting an expense report. Let’s look at two scenarios.

1. You are out -of- town on business and spending the night in a hotel. You had a busy day and feel you need to relax and decide to watch a movie. Should you include the cost of the movie on your expense report?
2. You are traveling for business to meet a client in Europe for two days. You arrive a day early and use the extra day for a vacation. Should you include the extra hotel night on your expense report?

Some people will argue that these charges are acceptable others, (I among them) think they are not.

One may argue that if the amounts involved are small it is okay to charge them. It is not a good argument. Taking what is not yours is stealing whether it is one dollar or $10,000.  The amount does not matter as much as the principle. There is a difference between a misdemeanor and a felony. However the difference is in the penalty for breaking the law not the moral principle that prohibits stealing. Furthermore, a minor offence in ethical conduct often leads to a larger offence.

Here are some guidelines that might be helpful.

A. Find out what is the policy of the company that employs you and stick strictly to it. If the policy is not clear to you, ask for clarification.

B. Do not include a charge on your expense report that you would be embarrassed to justify to your boss or…… your mother!

C. Never include a questionable charge because “everybody does it” for the reason that:

• It is never “everybody”

• The fact that there are a number of people doing something wrong does not make that thing right.

D. Apply the popular adage that says: “when in doubt, abstain.” It may keep you from serious negative consequences such as embarrassment, loss of reputation, loss of a job or even jail time.

As Mother Theresa once said:

“Be faithful in small things because it is in them that your strength lies.”

Last week AIPAC, (American-Israel Public Affairs Committee) had it annual meeting in Washington. A colleague attended and was impressed by both the content and speakers.Critics of the organization often accuse American Jews of “dual loyalty” claiming that their loyalty and support of Israel exceeds their loyalty to the United States. This is a pernicious argument that I believe is often fuelled by anti-Semitism. I have never heard of the American Armenians support of Armenia as a “double loyalty” nor of the support of any immigrant or children of immigrant for the “Mother Country” as being disloyal to the United States.

When John Kennedy ran for president, his opponents argued that because he was Catholic his allegiance to Rome would compromise his loyalty to the United States! No one would dare question his loyalty to the U.S. today.

We all have multiply loyalties. Most of us are (or want to be) loyal to our family, friends, colleagues, employer, business partners, clients, religion and so on. Children of divorced parents often have to deal with a conflict of loyalties. There are situations when these loyalties could have the potential of entering into conflicts. It is up to us to best navigate them guided by our own conscience and the values at stake.

Loyalty is a much-revered value in most, if not all, cultures but remaining loyal to more than one entity is not easy. Ethics often deals with potential conflicting loyalties.

How do you manage a conflict of loyalty situation?

Here are a few tips that might be helpful.

1. Identify or recognized the conflicting loyalties

2. List your values, those that define you. Decide who you are or want to be.

3. Determine the boundaries, what your loyalties will allow and prohibit. What you are ready to do and what you will refuse to do. You may decide, for instance, that you will not lie to either party or that you will not report information from one party to the other.

4. Seek counsel before making a decision or taking action.

As the Israeli novelist Amos Oz once said:

A conflict begins and ends in the hearts and minds of people, not in the hilltops.

The fear of a worldwide pandemic has gripped the nation and has been recently the major topic in print, broadcast and Internet media. Some think that we are witnessing an irrational frenzy or the results of media hype. Fear is most often not rational.

A real ethical dilemma, should we have a pandemic, will be making the decision of who is going to get help, assuming that our supply of vaccines would not be sufficient for all the population. How do you allocate vital limited resources?

The ultimate goal in a situation that has no perfect solution is to do the utmost to reduce for the greatest number of people the negative impact of the flu.

When facing an ethical dilemma it is always helpful to think of the values that are involved. I would think that the predominant value is fairness in a situation that by definition is unfair.

What should be the criteria to make that determination? Those criteria would apply for any situation where vital resources are limited.

Let us first eliminate some of the criteria that should not be taken into consideration.

1. Gender
2. Social standing
3. Religion
4. Citizenship

There are at least two criteria I think we should we should consider.

1. Vulnerability: People the most vulnerable that might have a greater probability of dying from the flu should be helped first such as children and the elderly.
2. Profession: People that are in essential social services and public safety such as healthcare providers, firemen, sanitation workers and the police.

Some have suggested implementing a system of random selection to determine who gets the vaccine. I think it would be morally questionable to do so because it is shifting the moral burden of the decision to chance. Issues of life and death should not be decided by a lottery.

As Edward W. Howe, the naturalist and author once wrote: “A boy doesn’t have to go to war to be a hero; he can say he doesn’t like pie when he sees there isn’t enough to go around.”