Bush Orders Staff to Attend Ethics Briefings

[fishbob]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...referrer=email

Harriet Miers - White House Counsel is supposed to give a 'Refresher' Course'.

Early last year a couple of officers in my company were caught with hands in the cookie jar. So to make it all better, everybody in the company had to attend 'ethics training'. The training was pretty much a big waste of time, but the intent apparently was to create the perception that naughtiness was being addressed, so the Board of Directors and the remaining officers were happy.

So I have to wonder what Bush intends.

[Ed]

Media event.

Unfortunately DC is completely self referential so while the party hacks congratulate themselves, the rest of the country is eye rolling.

[toddjh]

All employees at my university have to take an ethics course (with a test) every single year. With the exception of some federal privacy regulations (which you already know if your job requires it), it's stuff that any ten-year-old could tell you.

I have a feeling the stuff in Washington is going to be pretty much the same. If people are breaking the rules, it's sure as hell not because they don't know them.

Jeremy

[TragicMonkey]

It's like those ridiculous tests some companies make you take when you apply for a job there.

You notice a coworker is stealing office supplies. Do you:

A) do nothing
B) notify your supervisor
C) steal supplies yourself
D) blackmail your coworker by demanding sexual favors in return for your silence
E) gun down your supervisor.

Such naive tests. The last three aren't mutually exclusive.

[Grammatron]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

It's like those ridiculous tests some companies make you take when you apply for a job there.

You notice a coworker is stealing office supplies. Do you:

A) do nothing
B) notify your supervisor
C) steal supplies yourself
D) blackmail your coworker by demanding sexual favors in return for your silence
E) gun down your supervisor.

Such naive tests. The last three aren't mutually exclusive.

First I would do A then C then D then B and maybe E, it depends on circumstances.

[Ed]

Originally Posted by toddjh

All employees at my university have to take an ethics course (with a test) every single year. With the exception of some federal privacy regulations (which you already know if your job requires it), it's stuff that any ten-year-old could tell you.

I have a feeling the stuff in Washington is going to be pretty much the same. If people are breaking the rules, it's sure as hell not because they don't know them.

Jeremy

We are talking about bloody smart lawyers from ivy league schools. If they have a lapse it is because they damn well meant to do what they did.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Grammatron

First I would do A then C then D then B and maybe E, it depends on circumstances.

Silly. You have to do B last, otherwise the cops might start sniffing around after E and find a memo about it that would lead them to investigate office thefts.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Ed

We are talking about bloody smart lawyers from ivy league schools. If they have a lapse it is because they damn well meant to do what they did.

You don't think maybe some of them just get near-sighted from power? If you've got the sort of job where millions of people are just statistics on paperwork, maybe you could lose touch with the consequences of your actions.

[Ed]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

It's like those ridiculous tests some companies make you take when you apply for a job there.

You notice a coworker is stealing office supplies. Do you:

A) do nothing
B) notify your supervisor
C) steal supplies yourself
D) blackmail your coworker by demanding sexual favors in return for your silence
E) gun down your supervisor.

Such naive tests. The last three aren't mutually exclusive.

Naive indeed. You would have to know for :

A) is a payoff involved? What is the size of such payoff vis a vis brownie points for squealing?

B) Is the supervisor a fence?

c) This goes without saying

D) This goes without saying too. You can always turn them in.

E) Is he armed? Have the drugs he has been selling been cut too much? Is he a member of the crips?

[Ed]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

You don't think maybe some of them just get near-sighted from power? If you've got the sort of job where millions of people are just statistics on paperwork, maybe you could lose touch with the consequences of your actions.

All too often there are none, so, no, they are quite aware of the likely consequences.

[KillerBob]

The company I work for got into some trouble with the government a few years back. Now, as part of the settlement, we all have to take an annual ethics course. So thanks to some jerks who've long since been fired, I get to be bored to tears on an annual basis.

People who have ethics don't need to be told to act ethically. Those who don't aren't going to listen anyway, except to look for new ways to avoid getting caught, so what's the point?