Bruce Weinstein, Ph.D.
The Ethics Guy, BusinessWeek

Last year, New York became the first state in the nation to pass a law establishing a bill of rights for airline passengers. The bill was in response to ten-hour flight delays at John F. Kennedy International airport, among other airline-related aggravations. Although the bill was struck down by a federal appeals court, and the Congressional bill introduced by Rep. Mike Thompson and Sens. Barbara Boxer and Olympia Snowe died in the Senate, the passenger’s rights movement continues to plow ahead, and House speaker Nancy Pelosi is expected to call up the bill after the 4th of July recess.

Passengers stranded on tarmacs are certainly entitled to be treated with respect, but with rights come responsibilities. I therefore propose the following “Passenger’s Bill of Duties”: Keep reading

Bruce Weinstein, Ph.D.
The Ethics Guy, BusinessWeek

Daniel Goleman’s books “Emotional Intelligence” and “Social Intelligence” have made a huge impact on our culture. We could all develop our ethical intelligence, too. That means not only understanding the difference between right and wrong, but also choosing to act ethically, especially when there is great pressure to do otherwise. It’s not enough to know what’s right; the ethically intelligent person does what’s right, and is committed to doing so time and again.

How ethically intelligent are you at work? Take the following quiz to find out.

1. One of the people you have just hired seems to be attracted to you, and you are attracted to this person. Both of you are single. Would you:

A) Ask the person out on a date.
B) Have only a professional relationship with the person.
C) Ask the person if your intuition is correct, and if it is, discreetly pursue a romantic relationship.

2. A co-worker in the next cubicle has a habit of spending a lot of time making loud and distracting personal phone calls about things that are obviously trivial. Would you:

A) Ask the person to keep the volume at a reasonable level.
B) Focus on your own work.
C) Talk with the person about why it’s in everyone’s interest to limit personal phone calls.

Keep reading

Bruce Weinstein
The Ethics Guy, BusinessWeek

In an article entitled, “John McCain Doesn’t Work Weekends,” Politico.com reports that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee chooses to spend Saturdays and Sundays with family and friends rather than staying on the campaign trail.

The tone of the article, beginning with its headline, suggests that McCain is committing not just a political sin, but a moral one as well. It’s as though McCain had been found guilty of being cruel to animals or something similarly abominable.

Why?

Keep reading

Bruce Weinstein
The Ethics Guy, BusinessWeek

On his radio show on Monday, during a discussion about the arrests of suspended Dallas Cowboys cornerback Adam Jones, Don Imus asked, “What color is he?”

Tuesday, Imus defended his question by saying:

“What people should be outraged about is that they arrest blacks for no reason. I mean, there’s no reason to arrest this kid six times. Maybe he did something once, but everyone does something once.”

Let’s set aside the issue of whether it is acceptable to refer to a 24-year-old professional athlete as a “kid.” (It’s better, I suppose, than calling him “boy”—but not by much.) The central ethical question is whether Imus’s latest remarks are justifiable, given the racist language he used last year in referring to the Rutgers University women’s basketball team.

Keep reading

Bruce Weinstein
The Ethics Guy, BusinessWeek

The death of Tim Russert touched me deeply. I never knew him personally, but like many of those who watched him regularly, I felt as though I did.

I was particularly moved by the outpouring of love and affection from journalists. The emotional highlight was the roundtable discussion that Tom Brokaw led on Sunday’s “Meet the Press.” I’m glad that Brokaw broke his own “no weeping” rule toward the end of the program, when he choked up as he recalled the bond he shared with Russert; Mike Barnicle came close to doing the same shortly afterward. It’s been a long time since journalists allowed their feelings to come through so boldly, and rightly so.

Amidst the swirl of memories and emotions, I wondered if the panelists ever told Russert while he was alive how much he meant to them. If not, they wouldn’t be alone. After all, when are we most likely to tell someone that we care deeply about him or her? At that person’s funeral! How much good does that do for the departed? Not a lot.
Keep reading

Bruce Weinstein
The Ethics Guy, BusinessWeek

The campaign for the White House, which seems to have been going on forever, still has five months to go, and it’s possible that the nastiness, squabbling, and irrelevancies that have characterized this campaign - and too many before it - will get worse. This isn’t just unpleasant or unfortunate; it’s unethical, because such pettiness detracts from a meaningful debate about the issues that truly matter to the public.

I therefore propose a code of ethics for the candidates to follow. Everyone - we citizens, the political parties, the democratic process, and the candidates themselves—will win if the candidates follow this code.

The proposed guidelines are rooted in the five fundamental principles of ethics:
Keep reading

Have we gone iPhone crazy?

Bruce Weinstein,
The Ethics Guy, BusinessWeek

Eleven years ago, Apple Inc. began using the phrase “Think different” in its advertising campaign, and the phrase quickly became as iconic as “Where’s the beef?,” “Got milk?,” and other catchy slogans.

On June 9, the company will unveil iPhone 2.0, and everyone who hopes to be cool will want one. What could be wrong with that?
A lot, as it turns out.

Our society has devolved into a mass of turned-on, tuned-out, and plugged-in technophiles. Whatever distinction used to exist between public and private life is all but gone. Waiting on line at the grocery store or post office used to mean striking up a conversation with the person in front of you; it now involves blurting the intimate details of one’s love life into a cell phone for all to hear, or scrolling through a playlist for just the right song, or checking our e-mail.

There are three costs associated with this self-absorbed behavior…
Keep reading

Bruce Weinstein
The Ethics Guy, BusinessWeek

Why does Hillary continue to run, when the odds against her winning the Democratic Party’s nomination are so slim? Perhaps it’s because she truly believes she is the best person to be the next President of the United States. Perhaps it’s because she is convinced that, with continued determination, she can succeed at this formidable task. But the reason could be much simpler.

She may consider losing to be a form of personal failure.

If so, she is clearly not alone in feeling this way. We live in a culture that celebrates winners and chastises losers. “Winning isn’t everything; it’s the only thing” might well be the unofficial motto of this country. Indeed, everyone loves a winner, but losers are viewed with scorn and derision. This is more than unfortunate; it’s unfair. I will argue that we should rethink losing and that we ought to embrace our losses, rather than run from them.

THE WINNING MENTALITY AND ITS DISCONTENTS
UCLA football coach Henry “Red” Sanders (who, not Vince Lombardi, coined the expression) was mistaken in holding winning to be “the only thing.” No one would rationally want to live in a world in which winning is our sole objective. There are other considerations that are as, or more, important than winning, whether the subject is football, corporate management, dating, or any other social activity.

The five fundamental principles of ethics are:
Keep reading

Editor’s Note: Bruce Weinstein, “The Ethics Guy” will analyze the ethical issues at stake with former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan and his new book, tonight on 360° 10p ET.

Bruce Weinstein
The Ethics Guy, BusinessWeek

For the past several days, there has been a lot of discussion about Scott McClellan and why he has written his tell-all book, “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception.” Much of the criticism has focused on McClellan’s motivation for writing this book. Is he disgruntled? Does he feel guilty? Is he simply trying to cash in on his former position in the Bush administration?

As provocative as these questions may be, they are not nearly as important as the central ethical question raised by this story: was it right for McClellan to write such a book?

Looking at the ethical issues at stake, I argue the following:
Keep reading