A question of ethics...

“It’s a question of ethics” is the ironic statement that opens the well-acted Coen brothers movie Miller’s Crossing:  in that scene an underground leader discussed the ethics of having a “fixed” fight come out in a way that he would make a windfall, yet a mutual acquaintances was also profiting from the information by stealing the information beforehand and betting on the same outcome, thus “stealing” some of the would be profit from the original fixer.  That action broke the unwritten but often quoted ethical principle “honor amongst thieves.” In the speaker’s view this went against their shared and unspoken view of how things should work smoothly in their larcenous and brutal system: It’s a lot of work to “put in a fix”!  It takes bribes, intimidation, influence, and whatever else, which costs money and risk.  And those factors need to be respected by other thieves.  If you put in the work, you should get the reward.    For someone else to profit from the fruits of another person’s labor, while acceptable on one level of thievery, violates the ethical principle of “honor amongst thieves” on another level if thieves are stealing from each other and not trying to respect each other’s efforts.  It was an ethics violation in that the alleged action did not respect his dignity and worth, professional competence, or the importance of their professional relationship.  I’m guessing here though, since I am not very familiar with this particular ethical system; the only real ethical principle that I have heard of amongst thieves is the keep your mouth shut principle of omerta which actually seems to be ingrained in the psyche of most Americans:  don’t rat on anybody no matter what.  Or the “don’t squeal unless it’s a big deal” corollary which of course opens the debate on what is a big deal to whom and that’s another story.

A question of ethics.

 So when someone told me of her social work adventures at an agency in the land of “At will” employment states I immediately thought of ethics. 

This person put in her resignation notice and stated a forty-five day notification.  The employer, cited that “at will” employment law of the state authorized the employer to make the resignation effective on the day it was tendered; and by law authorized the employer, her director, to ignore or waive any time frame given by the employee.  This employee was forced to leave the building at the close of that business day, and was cut off from accessing her files and giving closure to her clients and colleagues.  Is that ethical or unethical behavior on the employer’s part?  The employee had no disciplinary actions and only positive employee reviews up to that point.  And the National Association of Social Workers Code of ethics clearly states the importance of professional integrity, the importance of professional relationships, commitment to clients, and the importance of relationships between client and professional.  Should social work ethics be considered in at will employment states?

Professional integrity is defined in the NASW Code of Ethics as continually being “aware of the profession’s mission, values, and ethical standards and practice in a manner consistent with them.  Social workers act honestly and responsibly and promote ethical practices on the part of the organizations with which they are affiliated” (NASW, 2014).  The professions mission includes enhancing human wellbeing, ending forms of social injustice, and promoting the responsiveness of organizations to social problems (preamble).  The Code defines ethical standards for social workers relationships with clients and colleagues.  When an organization cuts a professional off from his or her peers and clients this is contrary to those principles.

Professional relationships are defined in the Code under The Importance of Human relationships and professional competence.  The Code states that social workers engage others as partners in the helping process and seek to strengthen these ties.  Professional relationships include a professional commitment to clients; stated in the Code this means client interests are primary:  it is in the best interest of clients that proper notice and closure be given when a worker leaves an organization; especially with vulnerable clients served by an agency.  This ethical principle is further defined in the Code that a professional has the responsibility to ensure continuity of services to their clients and take reasonable steps to avoid abandoning clients (NASW, 2014, p. 1.15; 1.16).  Strict enforcement of At will employment laws and using them to cut professionals off from their clients and colleagues clearly violates these ethical principles.

Now, obviously the person I’m talking about is me:  I put in my resignation and gave adequate noticed but was forced out the day I put it in instead of being given the respect of serving out my notice.  There was a dispute with another colleague, there were efforts on my part to speak with both the colleague and my direct supervisor the director, and there was a strong statement by me in an email that said I would put my notice in by the end of the day, but that I was really looking for other solutions short of that; a statement which I reiterated with the director when she came to my office and informed me flatly that she was accepting my notice and this was her solution to the problems we were facing.  She educated me on the options she felt she had under Alaska “at will” employment laws and at 2:30PM that day I found myself with 2.5 hours to clear out my belongings and leave.  The next day my PC and email were shut down and I had to be escorted by a human resources representative to my office to get the rest of my belongings.  I have to own sending an email out of frustration and duress:  I did.    I didn’t want to resign that day or at all if avoidable and I communicated this to my director.  I spoke earlier that day with a colleague in quality assurance about the situation and was anticipating a sit down discussion that she would be arranging.  In fact I contemplated taking a sick day that day because I knew I was escalated over the situation, however I had a new client to see and felt I needed to do that, so I showed up.  I clearly stated to the director that my intent was not to resign, but find solutions to the problem; I also stated after the director said she was accepting my resignation which I had not signed yet, that if I were to put in my notice, I would give the agency a month and a half notice.  I was not given that respect:  the director forced me to create a document stating my resignation for that day (two weeks after, with me leaving that day and being given two weeks’ pay).  Nor was I given the respect of discussion.  Nor was I given closure with my clients or colleagues after a year with them.

At will laws and ethics.

One day I, a professional social worker, just wasn’t there, which leads me to wonder why organizations have codes and mission statements with grandiose ideals of stewardship and respect?  When humans make mistakes one would think these codes and mission statements would be a guide, not a burden.

Oh, I landed on my feet, and really don’t want to resent anyone.  Unethical treatment sews seeds of distrust and resentment which I will fight hard to weed out; but I am hurt by the whole affair, and would like to have experienced a better end to my employment there.  That way I would have more respect for the organization in the future. 

 

NASW. (2014). Code of Ethics. Retrieved from National Association of Social Workers: http://www.socialworkers.org/pubs/code/code.asp