R&R Roofers needs to do some painting.
Joe who works for R&R suggest to his boss Bob that J& J’s Paint Co. to do the work.
Jimmy from Jimmy’s Paint Co. and Joe are Friends.
Bob decides to hire Jimmy to do the Job.
Jimmy’s takes the job, but doesn’t own the right sprayer to do the job. However, Jimmy knows Joe has the sprayer he needs sitting in his garage. So, Jimmy asks Joe if he can rent the sprayer from Joe to t the Job for R&R roofing.
Is it ethical for Joe to rent the Sprayer to Jimmy?

What is Joe runs a rental company on the side and Jimmy leases equipment through the company?

Same situation as before, but Joe and Jimmy are partners in J & J’s Painter Co. Joe acts as a silent partner/investor while Jimmy Runs the business end. Now is it Ethical for Bob to hire J&J’s Paint Co.?

1) I would find it unethical if Joe uses the sprayer from R&R's inventory and gets money for it.

2) If Joe told his boss Bob that he knows someone and also tells Bob that he (Joe) will gain with it, it is called confict of interests, and Bob must be aware that there is something wrong, and he (Bob) could burn himself.

3) It would be very unethical of Joe to show up to work for Jimmy and Bob pays the bills. Plenty reasons for disciplinary actions against Joe

4) If you are in a small community and Joe has a proven reputation of quality, would you as the boss (Bob) fly-in a crew from Timbuktu?

5) If I and some other employees, have a small amount of shares at the local bank, Is my company prohibited to do business with the locals?

Waylon,

I don't think it is unethical in the first case as long as Joe and Jimmy didn't collude in the equipment rental. It would be advisable to let Bob know about it, but probably not necessary. I take this as a single case incident.

If Joe runs a rental company and Jimmy leases the equipment from him, Joe and Jimmy have a responsibility to let Bob know what the situation is and to make sure that Bob is comfortable that there is nothing going on that will cost him extra or put him in some other jeopardy. I take this to be an on-going relationship. I don't see any problem with a mutually beneficail relationship as long as it is up-front, equitable and safe for all participants.

The last situation is more complicated. I suppose that Joe still works for R&R Roofers? I can't think of any ethical conflict that Bob would have in hiring J&J. I can see several very good reasons to do it from a business standpoint.

Danny,
I figured the last issue would be considered not ethical.
Joe recommends a company, partially his company, to do the work for the company he is currently working for. Isn’t that a little like double dipping or having your hand in the cookie jar?

One could say that Joe is recommending his clients (Jimmy) to R&R to indirectly increase his side income (rental business); conflict of interest.

Would Joe recommend to Bob a better contractor that does not rent equipment at Joe's?
--------------
On the second case definitely there is a conflict of interests, and R&R should not do business with J&J unless all other options (Timbuktu, Inc.) are discarted with sound justification. But, still there is the potential; if the service received is not as good as expected, will Bob treat J&J in the same way that he will do with another contractor, or a special treatment (at the loss of R&R Roofers) will be given because Joe is one of the J's?
-----------------
Bottom line: Are Joe's actions guided to obtain the best deal for R&R Roofers (his employer) or for him?

Waylon,

Your question was if Bob had and ethical problem.

As for Jimmy, it is unethical if he goes about it an unethical fashion. If Bob knows that Jimmy is a silent partner and that Jimmy is benefitting from the arrangement; and J&J delivers a quality, on-time, as-quoted job; then it is to everyone's benefit that J&J get the job.

Bob's benefits are that he has a relationship with a painter that he can depend on; the project is done on time, in a quality fashion, within the proper budget; Joe's benefit is that he has a steady source of work; Jimmy's benefit is the gained profits from his partnership.

R&R's customer benefits in that they get a quality job. And Bob really benefits in that his brother-in-law doesn't go broke and move in with him. Not only that, but as an employee of R&R he will possibly be less demanding if he has other sources of income.

If in any of these scenarios, Jimmy fails to be completely up front about his position, then he has given in to the opportunity to be unethical.
I think that all of these scenarios have the potential for unethical behavior, but if you stick to the bottom line like Darth said, all of them could be perfectly ethical ways of doing business. I like the last one especially. If done ethically, I just don't see a down side.

If you go by 2 rules you can almost never go wrong:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you-somewhere in the Bible

This above all: to thine own self be true, and it must follow as the night the day, thou canst not be false to any man-William Shakespeare's Hamlet

Good luck with the brother-in-law.

Danny

Where did it say Bob, Jimmy or Joe or any combination of the three were brothers-in-law?

Jimmy is the active partner of J&J.

Joe works for B&B Roofing, rents equipment on the side and is silent partner in J&J Painting. Hmmm.......

It is a big assumption that quality work is being or was done. Until after the fact. Seems Joe has the most to gain or the most to lose depends on Jimmy's work.

What are ethics? Don't answer I know but many evidently do not.

After what I have experienced this last year, ethics are evidently not taught any more.

OR

The title of my book will be "The World has Changed, and I must have been asleep"

I thougth this forum was about Reliability another misnomer when it comes to humans.

It says in the title that there is a brother-in-law relationship.


I got Jimmy and Joe's parts reversed.

The assumption that quality work is being done comes from the assumption that R&R is a reputable company and has its clients happiness (and thus their reputation) at heart. Without that, R&R doesn't need to worry about on-going relationships (at least I hope not).

"What are ethics? Don't answer I know but many evidently do not."

I hope that comment is the result of your experience over the last year and not referring to any of my statements made here. It sounds like you have been taken advantage of. That kind of experience makes it very difficult to have the faith in humankind, but I firmly believe that the good will eventually win out. Even if you don't, you can go to your grave knowing that you did the right thing. The truly unethical guy may be able to convince himself that what he did was ok, but can you really escape the truth?

Ethics are taught in college, but by that time, behavioral habits are already deeply ingrained. Ethics are best learned by the examples that our parents and the people that we are exposed to in our younger years give us. Also in college, they make a simple subject overly complicated.

Like I said before, just 2 rules...

Danny

Waylon and others,

Ethics is only one part of the situation. In my view the perception of fpllowing ethical norms is at least as important.

One should never place oneself in a position where people may (wrongly) percieve a lack of integrity. For this reason Svanel's advice should be followed; declare your intent to Bob before doing something that may be percieved in hindsight as inappropriate.

Well and concisely summed up, Vee.

Danny, Nothing was directed at you.

I just brought up those items to highlight how perceptions and sometimes hidden relationships in business may lead to a bad situation. Joe, Jimmy and Bob probably mean well but where is the line in todays business world. It has become fuzzy!

It does seem that the situation described in the original post has become the norm rather than the exception in how some conduct business.

Yes, I was done wrong by some unethical persons in the Reliability industry. It has left me scratching my head concerning ethics. It is apparent to me they have no morals.

I just take offense to taking one in the back to cover some little punks rear that evidently hasn't a clue. It cost them a lot more than it did me. They lost face and work with the client because the client knew different. Yet my family is who suffers the most.

The decline of morals has evidently led to the elimination of ethics, for some.
Yes, I am more than somewhat cynical at the moment.

I always have my faith to rely on and my faith is not in humans.

I actually live by 3 rules.

Don't do it if it is
1.) illegal
2.) immoral (ethics go here)
3.) unsafe

Hm, Waylon,
You got in a trouble?
Well if the guys truly are in "law" there may not so much to do? I think this may not be a about a paint job? Honesty and the law and ethics are not that easy when it comes down to that. I would suggest that you follow your heart/ "gut feeling" as that will make it possible for you to cope with the results. Whatever that may be. That is what I have practiced in sort of similar situation(s) and then live with it. It may not be fun or give hard work but that´s life. Decisions you make are those you live with for years to come for good and bad as long as you can face your face in the mirror in the morning. So far I have been able to do that. Hope I am wrong and good luck. Olov, olov dot li at vtab dot se

Mr. Hatfield,

I try and separate morality from ethics. In my view:

1. Ethics are a personal code of behaviour, influenced strongly by the rules set by contemporary society. Some of these rules relate to society's current view of what is moral and what is not. .

2. Morality requires us to separate right from wrong, good from evil. It is often based on religious precepts.

Consider:
Members of the Mafia are apparently very religious and in some issues observe high moral principles. In their view, in support of Family Honor, a moral principle, it may be OK to kill another person

If there are some bad policies set by a Company, they still form its 'rule-base'. This is the Company's view of its morality, because it believes its rules are 'good' or 'right'. A whistle-blower, following his or her ethical principles can expose such bad policies.

Each of us has a duty to frame our ethical norms, and follow it rigorously. Some of them may not follow contemporary norms of morality. The operative word is
'contemporary'; what is wrong today in society's view may be right 20 years from now. But our ethical norms should not change in 20 years.

Vee,
I agree with your definitions of ethics and morality. However, if one has little or no morality, then how can they be ethical? They have no basis of understanding right from wrong. So how can they be expected to follow rules set by society. This is why prisons are overflowing.

Back to the mafia, if they truly were religious then they would not kill...period.

This is why I believe without some moral basis one can't even begin to understand ethics. much less apply them.

Regards
Spencer

Spencer,

Your comment They have no basis of understanding right from wrong. So how can they be expected to follow rules set by society raises the question - do all or even most people understand the basis of rules of behaviour? I think a lot of people follow rules simply because it makes them uncomfortable not to do so, or because it is the done thing, or because it is fashionable. In othere words, one does not always know the right thing, to do the right thing, it is not always a cognitive decision. Even amoral people can be quite ethical.

On the next comment

quote:

This is why prisons are overflowing.

, I have some serious doubts. Prisons would be less crowded if we had less absurd laws, AND if laws were sensible, there would be less crime. Death penalties for example, may satisfy the 'moral high ground' of some people, who wish to apply their ethical norms, but they dont reduce the murder rates anywhere. Gun control would be a lot more effective, but bearing side arms is a moral right (valid 200 years ago, but no longer applicable today). Recall my use of the word contemporary in relation to morality.

If everyone followed the rules set by society, then we could never make much progress as a society. Consider all the great things in history that have been accomplished due to civil disobedience, peaceful and otherwise. The Protestent Reformation, the Renassance, the American civil rights movement, the American Revolution, and the list goes on and on.

Vee is right about absurd laws filling our prisons, and it is very evident right here in Richmond, where our jail is full to about 2 x capacity. I don't know what percentage are non-violent drug offenders, but I do feel that if the drug laws were repealed there would be far fewer people in there. I also believe that by repealing the drug laws, you would remove the financial incentive for criminals and they would ply their trades elsewhere.

I was in favor of the death penalty and still might be. Unfortunately, Vee is once again correct about it not having a real effect on crime. In order for it to be a real deterrant, it must be enforced in instances where there is an absolute certainty of guilt, and it must be seen by the criminal as an absolutely certain effect of his crime. In other words, the criminal must know with certainty that if he commits a crime of that magnitude, that he will be giving up his life as punishment. With probably 90% of all crimes being undetected or unsolved, is that realistic?

As far as gun control being effective, I don't think it ever will in the US. There are about 300 million people and handguns here and I don't think that includes rifles, shotguns, etc. These are very well made devices and with proper care will last hundreds of years. While I don't own a gun, I support our 2nd Ammendment rights to do so and feel safer because of the fact that criminals are much more likely to be afraid of encountering an armed citizen while attempting a crime than they are afraid of the punishment that they will, or more likely will not receive.

I ceratinly have enjoyed this discussion, but I guess I need to get to work sometime. Unless someone is willing to pay my rate for my highly valuable views on life.

Waylon,

I hope you got what you wanted here, because I'm pretty sure that it wasn't my views on the death penalty

Hello everyone and thanks for the tips. No, I am not in any kind of trouble. If anything trouble is something I would like to avoid. I have enjoyed the comments. Here in Louisiana is an old joke saying that most of the local government contracts get awarded to people related to those with political influence. Free hunting and fishing trips might also go a long way with the right person.

Hypothetical Situation
I now work for a company. However, I once was self employed. I still have some of the equipment I once used. I often rent my tools to a buddy whom does balancing jobs for his clients. I see no problem with this. However, if he were to do a job for the company I work for that sounds a little different to me.


I apologize for taking so long to reply. I've been on the move.

I believe most understand the basis of rules of behavior. The problem is in humans having the discipline to adhere to the rules, within reason that is. Like Danny has said not always following the rules has led to much growth and progress in the world. As well as much suffering by the likes of Hitler, subversion of religions, etc.

I do agree many laws are absurd. What good is a law, which is generally based on a society's rules, if it can't or will not be enforced. Agreed, the key word is deterrent.

You cant legislate morality. It is a personal decision that people make. Have you not ever heard that inner voice or your conscience telling you that you are about to make the wrong choice? Yet you conscientiously override it and do it anyway.

You knew, even for a fleeting moment, what was right and what wasn't. Was this not a moral issue?

I have known amoral people and none have shown a shred of ethical behavior. Why? They are amoral!

I have known atheists that are ethical, they just don't believe in a deity. There is a difference as in our opinions.

Gun control in the U.S is hopeless at this point. There are just too many to control. Again, it is not the gun that kills but the amoral human that wields it.

I too have enjoyed this discussion but need to go search for work/job due to some amoral, unethical, @$$ #0!&

I feel for you Spencer. Good luck in the hunt and continue to take the high road.

Danny

Danny,
Thanks, but the ones who are going to need some understanding are the foolish ones who don't realize this will all come back on them one day. AND hopefully in spades. Yeah, there is some vengefullness in me. Guess it comes naturally being a Hillbilly.

Some of this has already happened but I can't talk about it. Lawyers and all you know.

The neat part is to see who comes out of the woodwork to speak the truth. I am always amazed by who does and who doesn't.

Waylon, I didn't mean to mess up your post, just that ethics and morals hit a nerve. Then again we have all probably been there before or will be.