Workplace

Ethics Dunce: Dwayne Johnson, a.k.a. “The Rock’

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

“The Rock,” as actor Dwayne Johnson bills himself, was scheduled for a paid and advertised appearance before a paying “Wrestlemania” event. Admittedly, anyone who pays to see a farce like “Wrestlemania” is one who is fated to be “soon parted” from his money anyway, but nonetheless: Johsnon was two hours late showing for his gig. Unless one is a victim of a terrorist attack or suffers a ruptured aneurysm, there is never a good excuse for being two hours late to any professional appointment (for that matter, any private social engagement either).

As discussed in January when superannuated pop diva Madonna pulled this stunt, for some reason entertainers seem to think they have dispensation to behave like this. A lawyer who is two hours late for a trial is likely to be held in contempt. If I’m two hours late for a seminar I’m scheduled to teach, even once, I’m out of business. One time, in a play I was directing, the star was one hour late for pre-show call, then showed up 15 minutes before curtain. I told him to go home, that his understudy would play his part than night and maybe permanently.

But “The Rock’ decided that the correct response to the well-deserved booing he received from the crowd when he deigned to appear was to bathe himself in attitude, shift focus to a local football hero’s travails, and show no contrition whatsoever. I get it: he was playing a part, as behaving like an asshole is a long-observed staple of the professional wrestling world, and “Never apologize, it’s a sign of weakness,” John Wayne’s credo in “She Wore a Yellow Ribbon,” later adopted by “NCIS” tough guy Jethro Gibbs ( Mark Harmon) as one of his “rules,” is part of the act.

I don’t care. The two-hour tardiness wasn’t part of the act. Johnson’s one ethical response was “I’m sorry.” Whoever advised him to act like an asshole should be fired, unless “The Rock” really is an asshole.

[Note: WordPress’s AI bot believes I should tag this “book review.”]

On Quitting as an Unethical Grandstanding Tactic

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

Last week Lizzo, the Grammy-winning singer and songwriter currently battling accusations of sexual harassment and mistreatment by former back-up singers, announced on social media that she was quitting her epic career. Fans expressed the appropriate level of horror, so five days later she was back, saying that she was not quitting after all, and denying that was what she meant to convey.

This stunt has become a standard PR tool in the music industry particularly. Singers Nicki Minag, Justin Bieber, Doja Cat (don’t ask me who she is) and others have used fake exits to get headlines, publicity and “Please come back!” messages from panicked fans. One of the most celebrated —in all aspects of the word—examples was Richard Nixon’s bitter public farewell after losing the election for governor of California in 1962. “You won’t have Richard Nixon to kick around any more!” he said. Sure, Dick.

My position on fake quitting, or quitting in anger and then regretting it after the fever passes, has always been “If you quit, you’re done, at least as far as I’m concerned, and there are no do-overs.” The same principle applies to threatened resignations. I had many opportunities to exercise this personal policy as a manager or leader of various organizations and staffs. My response to “Do X or I’ll quit!” is an automatic, “Bye! Good luck in your future pursuits!” When I ran a non-profit health promotion organization, two of the original staffers didn’t approve of my polices (I had taken over from the deceased founder and their friend) and gave me letters of resignation. Later, they came to the office like nothing had happened, and were shocked when I informed them that they didn’t have jobs anymore. Apparently fake quitting had been a tradition under the founder. The indignant resignees even complained to the board. Bye!

Regular readers here know that I apply the same principle to commenters on Ethics Alarms. If I ban you, you can apply for reinstatement, but if you quit, or threaten to quit, you’re out, and permanently.

I’d like to see that attitude toward strategic quitting become a cultural norm.

I’m Shocked…SHOCKED!…That Those “Studies” Proving That Diversity Makes Companies Perform Better Are Hooey [Updated]

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

I miswrote a few weeks back when I stated that an assertion by a DEI pimp that “studies show that diversity” makes organizations more successful and effective was a Big Lie, one of those “facts” (like the alleged percentage of women who are sexually molested, or women only making 76 cents for every dollar earned by men for the same job) that have gained currency by repetition by activists without solid evidence to support them. There are studies that purported to support the DEI contention, all from the same management consulting firm McKinsey & Company, carving out a profitable little niche for itself. Aside: I have worked for and with consulting companies. Consulting is a business, not a profession, and such companies strongly tend to give clients what they want to hear, thus making such firms popular and wealthy. Sadly, this is also true of ethics consulting firms and ethics consultants. I won’t provide an expert opinion crafted to make a client happy, and that is why I’m about three months from living in a cardboard box.

Back when I accepted gigs to do training in “diversity” for bar associations, there were no such studies, and because the diversity virtue-signaling fad was already galloping along then, I carelessly assumed that some enterprising “researchers” hadn’t manufactured “science” to support what was already conventional wisdom in the years since I decided that I couldn’t in good faith keep accepting money to teach politically correct nonsense. The McKinsey & Company studies, all claiming to “prove” the value of “diversity,” were published in 2015, 2018, 2020, and 2023, thus giving the private sector, government, the military, the professions and academia something to justify their woke crusades.

Continue reading →

A Rueful Note From Your Host…

/ Jack Marshall / 22 Comments

I only got two posts up yesterday. That’s not acceptable, and I’m sorry. Ethics Alarms has a goal of registering four posts a day, come rain or shine, because even that level—it’s typically about 3,500 or more words a day, counting typos—doesn’t keep up. I don’t feel too badly when I can only manage three. Yesterday was a terrible day, beginning with the ordeal of having to deal with liars, incompetents and SOBs along with malicious technology as I tried to get an overdue waste water treatment bill handled. By the time what should have been a 15 minute process was over, it was after noon, Spuds was annoyed (I almost wrote “ticked” which has other meanings when a dog is the subject) and I was so furious and frustrated that I could hardly function.

Continue reading →

Oh Look, What a Surprise…California is Considering Another Law Sticking the State’s Nose Where It Doesn’t Belong

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

I don’t understand why anyone continues to live or work in California, a state with a culture that lurches between stupid, irresponsible and deluded.

The headline above does not refer to the recent, bone-headed decision to give fast-food workers up to a 25% raise, with cooking Big Macs the minimum wage jumping to $20 an hour in that sector next week. “It’s a big win for cooks, cashiers and other fast-food workers ” says taxpayer-funded progressive propaganda organ NPR. Right. Fast food wages have been growing at a faster clip than almost any other sector since the pandemic, with the result that more outlets are moving to automation, which means, as has happened every time the minimum wage jumps, lower-paid workers—whose skills often aren’t worth the minimum wage— will lose their jobs. Meanwhile, fewer people with strained budgets will buy fast food because of the duel problems that it’s no longer fast, and is absurdly expensive, and California is already one of the most expensive states.

Oh, who knows: maybe all those vegans and health nuts in the Golden State want to wreck the fast food business. More likely, however, it’s just that legislators there—Suspense! Will they actually vote to make all Californians-of-the-right-color millionaires?—don’t understand economics, cause-and-effect and reality.

But I find the proposed law this post concerns more offensive from an ethics point of view if less destructive. California Assemblyman Matt Haney wants California to be the first in the country to give employees the legal right refuse to respond if their superior calls after hours. Then the law would permit workers to ignore emails, texts and other work-related communications until the next day after the work day has begun. “People now find themselves always on and never off,” the Nanny State fan said. “There’s an availability creep that has reached into many people’s lives, and I think it’s not a positive thing for people’s happiness, for their well-being, or even for work productivity.”

Oh, shut up. The law aims to give workers a legal right to be unprofessional. If you have a job and believe in ethical work values, you believe in diligence, responsibility and self-sacrifice. If you believe in personal autonomy and character, you believe that human beings need to be able to make intelligent choices about their life, including their careers, without being bolstered by the legal right to stand up to bullies, jerks and unreasonable supervisors.

Continue reading →

Somebody Please Sue Scribd, and Other Rueful Observations on the Collapse of American Customer Service

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

Too late to thank her, my wife’s death has made me realize what a terrible job she had dealing with all the companies, websites and cyber-traps one encounters trying to do business and deal with finances in today’s America. It also has brought into sharper focus what I had been aware of: that since the pandemic lockdown, customer service live and online has deteriorated to an extent that cannot be justified. When the Biden lackeys (like the execrable Paul Krugman) insist that the economy is wonderful and that the public doesn’t realize how great things are, this aspect of the economy should be thrown in their faces. Maybe elites like Krugman never have to go shopping in person or deal with a company’s website. If they did, they would realize that the quality of life has declined precipitously, and that it is fair to blame inflation (from profligate government spending) and excessive minimum wage levels as well as the remaining carnage from the Wuhan pandemic lockdown.

I hate to point a finger at Wells Fargo, as my bank has generally been more helpful over the past month than almost anyone else, but what follows is a prime example….

Continue reading →

“Didn’t Earn It”

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

I hadn’t seen or heard the derisive (but accurate!) nickname for DEI, as in “diversity, equity and inclusion” until I saw the Scott Adams “X” post above. I think he’s right. When a quick, pointed and accurate characterization makes people slap their foreheads and think, “Wait, why have I been willing to accept this nonsense?,” it can move metaphorical mountains.

The DEI fad has already been destructive to the economy, the workforce, society and its institutions beyond all imagining, making it one of the more damaging outgrowths of “The Great Stupid,” which really got rolling when its Three Horsemen of the Apocalypse equivalent (the fourth horse was a scratch, thank goodness) began galloping together in 2020. They were the George Floyd Freakout, the Black Lives Matter Scam, and the Wuhan Virus Panic, and together they brought virtue-signaling overdrive, progressive preening and an attack on core American and ethical values, not to mention civilization.

DEI , like the slogan “black lives matter,” was another ingenious manipulation of language to trap the slow of thought and the weak of character into going along with a movement that was intrinsically dishonest and unfair. Who could be against such benign concepts as diversity, equity and inclusion? But the objective was and is obliterating the cultural acceptance of merit as the aspirational basis of the American ideal. Along the way, the DEI industry itself emerged as an engine of waste and carnage with mostly underwhelming and undeserving drivers at the controls, as Harvard University demonstrated for us spectacularly.

Oh, we know how this will go: “Didn’t Earn It” will be roundly attacked a racist slur. Long screeds will be published to dispute “the lie”: the beneficiaries of DEI did earn it, the public will be told, just as anyone with ancestors on distant branches of the family tree who were victims of slavery at least a century and a half ago “earned” million of dollars in reparations today. (That response will anchor DEI to an absolutely indefensible policy goal: perfect.) Eventually, because this is what the dishonest and relentless far Left does, it will come up with another moniker, because DEI will finally have the aura of stench about it that it should—you know, just as “illegal aliens” became “undocumented workers” and are now “migrants” (or “visitors”), “performing major surgery on minors because they have been encouraged to believe they are the ‘wrong’ sex” became “gender-affirming care,” and the classic, “aborting the innocent unborn” was recast as “a woman’s choice.”

Never mind. “Didn’t Earn It” is an ethical tool to combat an unethical practice and ideology that is wasting financial and human resources.

I recommend using it.

__________________

Pointer: Instapundit

No, Taylor Preparatory High School, There Is No “Rap Singing Teacher Principle”

/ Jack Marshall / 40 Comments

I want to credit esteemed EA commenter JutGory for both the headline and the pointer. He properly identified this ethics tale out of Detroit as an important contrast to the “Naked Teacher Principle” and its many variations. The NTP et al. (like the the “Drag Queen School Principal Principle,” “the Porn Actor University Chancellor Principle,” and many others) holds that if you are a teacher or in some other position that requires the respect and trust of your employers and stakeholders, having photographs of you appearing naked or in other sexually provocative conditions appear on line justifies your separation from your job and leaves you no leave to complain.

Domonique Brown, however, a recent “Teacher of the Month” at Taylor Preparatory High School, did not have any naked photos or anything close on the web. She was fired from her job as a history teacher because the school learned that she had a second career as a rising rap artist named “Drippin’ Honey.” Brown had proven herself to be a skilled and popular teacher for seven years, and is pursuing a master’s degree and a doctorate. But when a parent alerted the school in an anonymous complaint last October that Domonique was also a rap artist, she found her fitness to teach being questioned.

Continue reading →

Speaking of Conflicts of Interest and To Prove I’m Occasionally Right: Let’s Revisit “‘Baseball Super-Agent Scott Boras Has Another Super-Conflict And There Is No Excuse For It,’ the Sequel”

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

I have never recycled a post so soon (this one was was featured in January) but these are special circumstances:

  • After my analysis of the Fani Willis conflicts scandal did not jibe with the judge’s decision, my self-esteem is at a low ebb, and I feel the need to point out my prescience in this matter
  • This, like Willis’s self-made disgrace, is a conflict of interest, and one involving law as well…but also baseball.
  • The conflict of interest I flagged in January has now had some of the adverse results I predicted, and attention should be paid.
  • Baseball is one of the few things that has a chance of cheering me up right now, having gone through my first two weeks without Grace’s companionship and support. We followed the seasons (and the Red Sox) together since before we were married, as I taught her the game by taking her to watch the Orioles play Boston in old Memorial Stadium.

Two months after I wrote the post that follows, Spring Training is almost over and the season is less that two weeks away. Yet the two star pitchers I flagged as the victims of their agent’s greed and unethical conduct remain unsigned. I strongly believe that the reason they are unsigned is that the agent/lawyer they foolishly employ has been pitting teams against each other while using each pitcher as leverage to benefit the other, or so Scott Boras would argue. There is no question in my mind that if Blake Snell (above, right) and Jordan Montgomery (above, left), both talented left-handed starting pitchers that fill the same niche, were represented by different agents, both would have signed rich, long-term contracts by now. Because they have allowed themselves to be marketed by the same agent–an unconscionable conflict that baseball should prohibit and Boras’s bar association should sanction—they will not be ready to start the season even if both signed tomorrow. Pitchers who have had to miss large portions of Spring Training have frequently had off-years as a result: Boras’s greedy practice of representing competing talents may result in off seasons and even damage to their careers.

All of this could have and should have been avoided, and would have been, if baseball’s agents were subjected to any genuine ethical regulation.

Now here is the post… Continue reading →

Friday Open Forum: Waiting to See If I’m Right…

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

Judge Scott McAfee confirmed yesterday that he will announce the fate of Fulton County’s designated “Stop Trump!” agent Fani Willis some time today. From the moment your friendly neighborhood ethicist heard the basic facts in this annoying story I was convinced that one way or the other she would have to leave the Trump case. One of my legal ethics colleagues emphatically disagrees, arguing that whatever conflicts of interest she created by hiring her illicit boyfriend to help prosecute Trump were matters of legal ethics discipline but irrelevant to the defendants. He also pooh-poohed the “appearance of impropriety” issue, echoing the American Bar Association’s logic when it took that category out of the ethics rules: actual impropriety matters, the mere appearance doesn’t.

Yet Willis is a government attorney, and employees of the state are required to avoid the appearance of impropriety because it erodes the public trust. If there was ever a prosecution that mandated a squeaky clean leader beyond suspicion or reproach, this is it. Instead, Willis has left an odoriferous trail of conflicts, arrogance, hypocrisy, dubious explanations and likely lies, all supported by her obnoxious reliance on race-baiting. I have been certain that she would eventually go down for all of this, and that my learned friend–who is apolitical— as well as the my myriad partisan-biased colleagues in the legal ethics association I belong to are wrong.

Well, we shall see . If you see Fredo (“I’m smart! I’m not dumb like everybody says!”) leading off a post today, you’ll know I was right.

Meanwhile, talk about whatever interests you in the Wonderful World of Ethics.