Jon’s Code Of Business Conduct Interpretive Foundation

The Code Section To Be Interpreted:

Code 4.4 – Decisions which require discrimination shall be but are not limited to those in which a smaller subset of people must be selected from a larger set of people to be allocated to some task that the larger subset of people will not do.

The section is included to insure that the most important situations are regulated under code part 4 such as selecting people to hire, choosing people for advancement, and choosing people for special tasks.  However, this section does not limit the use of these regulations to those situations only.  That being said, there is a difference between discrimination and identification.  An act of discrimination involves making a quality judgement between two or more people.  In other words, a decision which requires discrimination asks:  Who is better?  Or literally from the word discrimination:  Who is less criminal?”  Whereas identification is the process of assigning concepts to people such as “employee,” “engineer,” “joanna,” or “christian.”  Most forms of identification do not involve discrimination because they rely upon a judgement of facts instead of quality between two or more people and are not regulated under this code section.  For instance, if two employees are named Pablo and Joanna, then those two employees can each be singled out and called by their own names.  However, if Joanna does something and is named a “hero” by her peers and Pablo does the exact same thing at the same time somewhere else, demonstrating the exact same qualities and is called “opinioniated” by the same people that called Joanna a “hero.” Then there is reason to suspect that there was some form of discrimination involved in that identification process.

Jon’s Code of Business Conduct Interpretive Foundation Part 4.3

The Code Section To Be Interpreted:

Code 4.3 – Any employee shall be guilty of misconduct if they willfully alter or conspire to alter the appearance of any person’s price, proficiency, availability, willingness, and/or adherence to this code of conduct to the senses of any employee who must make a decision which requires discrimination.

Examples of Misconduct Under This Code Section:

  1. Employee A must decide amongst numerous candidates that have applied for a job with the company. Employee A asks Employee B to print out all of the candidate information. Employee B was once humilated when Employee B mispronounced someones name. Employee B adds some sloppy formatting and suspicious language to the files of candidates with difficult to pronounce names before printing them out and giving them to Employee A.  Employee B is guilty of misconduct under code section 4.3.
  2. Employee A and Employee B are being considered for advancement. Employee A completes a large amount of product and leaves it unguarded to use the restroom. Employee B convinces Employees C and D to stand at Employee A’s workstation and continue the work, without letting them know the full context.  Employee E, responsible for making the decision for advancement, comes by and surveys Employee A’s workstation, seeing Employees C and D at work and not knowing who did what.  Employee B is guilty of misconduct under code section 4.3.
  3. Employee A is being considered for advancement. Employee A wants there to be hard evidence of their proficiency, and so conspires with a security consultant to help create a loop of video which shows Employee A working, and then they edit frames from the video so that the work appears to be sped up.  The security consultant than calls the video to the attention of Employee B, responsible for making the decision for advancement.  Employee A is guilty of misconduct under code section 4.3.

Examples That Are Not Misconduct Under This Code Section:

  1. Employee A must decide amongst numerous candidates that have applied for a job with the company. Employee A asks Employee B to print out all of the candidate information. Employee B was once humilated when Employee B mispronounced someone’s name. Employee B prints out the candidate files unedited and hands them to Employee A. There is no misconduct.
  2. Employee A and Employee B are being considered for advancement. Employee A completes a large amount of product and leaves it unguarded to use the restroom. Employee B does not have to go to the bathroom and comtinues to work. Employee C, responsible for making the decision for advancement, comes by and surveys Employee A’s workstation, then spots Employee B hard at work. There is no misconduct.
  3. Employee A is being considered for advancement. Employee A wants there to be hard evidence of their proficiency, and so works dilligently to create a large amount of tangible product.  There is no misconduct.

Jon’s Code of Business Conduct Interpretive Foundation Part 4.2

The Code Section To Be Interpreted:

Code 4.2 – Any employee shall be guilty of misconduct if they willfully conceal or conspire to conceal any person’s price, proficiency, availability, willingness, and/or adherence to this code of conduct from observance by any employee who must make a decision which requires discrimination.

Examples of Misconduct Under This Code Section:

  1. Employee A must decide amongst numerous candidates that have applied for a job with the company.  Employee A asks Employee B to print out all of the candidate information.  Employee B was once humilated when Employee B mispronounced someones name.  Employee B prints out all of the candidate files and then throws away some of the pages that belong to candidates with difficult to pronounce names.  Employee B is guilty of misconduct under code section 4.2.
  2. Employee A and Employee B are being considered for advancement.  Employee A completes a large amount of product and leaves it unguarded to use the restroom.  Employee B packages half of Employee A’s product which is the normal next step in the process, but is not usually done so early in the work day.  Employee C, responsible for making the decision for advancement, comes by and surveys Employee A’s workstation, seeing only half of Employee A’s work and not looking for already packaged product so early in the day.  Employee B is guilty of misconduct under code section 4.2.
  3. Employee A is being considered for advancement.  Employee A dozes off at their work station because of a new colicky baby at home.  Afraid that the incident might negatively effect their prospects, Employee A convinces a security consultant to destroy camera footage of the event.  Employee A is guilty of misconduct under code section 4.2.

Examples of That Are Not Misconduct Under this Code Section:

  1. Employee A must decide amongst numerous candidates that have applied for a job with the company. Employee A asks Employee B to print out all of the candidate information. Employee B was once humilated when Employee B mispronounced someones name. Employee B prints out all of the candidate files and then provides them to Employee A.  There is no misconduct.
  2. Employee A and Employee B are being considered for advancement. Employee A completes a large amount of product and leaves it unguarded to use the restroom. Employee B does not have to use the restroom and continues to work.  Employee C, responsible for making the decision for advancement, comes by and surveys Employee A’s workstation, then watches Employee B hard at work.  There is no misconduct.
  3. Employee A is being considered for advancement. Employee A dozes off at their work station because of a new colicky baby at home. Concerned for their safety if they continue to work, Employee A notifies their supervisor of their state and is sent home.  There is no misconduct.

Jon’s Code of Business Conduct Interpretive Foundation Part 4.1

The Code Section To be Interpreted:

Code 4.1 –  Any employee shall be guilty of misconduct if, while in the performance of their work for the company, they discriminate amongst persons by any other measures than price, proficiency, availability, willingness, and/or adherence to this code of conduct.

Note:  To insure compliance with US Code, it is further noted that making rules about the effects of differing races, creeds, sexual orientations, religions, etc on price, proficiency, availability, willingness, or adherence to the code of conduct shall be avoided.  For instance, one shall not conclude nor act upon an assertion that whites cost more because they demand fancier coffee.

Examples of Misconduct Under This Code Section:

  1. Employee A is choosing amongst a set of applications for a new job that needs to be filled.  Employee A was once embarassed by mispronouncing a difficult name, so Employee A, before reviewing any qualifications, sorts out all of the applicants with names that Employee A doesn’t immediately recognize.  Then Employee A uses The Company’s discriminatory decision form to rank the remaining candidates in terms of price, proficiency, availability, willingness, and adherence to the code of conduct.  Employee A then selects the highest ranked candidate.  Upon review of the decision, it is determined that following Employee A’s ranking process, one of the set aside candidates should have been highest ranked candidate.  Employee A is guilty of misconduct under code section 4.1.  By setting aside a group of the candidates, employee A discriminated based upon a criteria that is not allowed.
  2. Employee A is choosing amongst employees to find a person to give a presentation on safety to new hires.  The preparation and presentation will take a significant amount of time.  Amongst those that are willing, there is an employee that is more productive than the others.  Foreseeing issues with meeting deadlines if that employee wasn’t working normally, Employee A chooses a less proficient employee.  Employee A is fuilty of misconduct under code section 4.1.  It is against the interests of The Company to deny opportunities to the most meritorious employees on the grounds that they are meritorious.
  3. Employee A is choosing amongst employees to assign a temporary position as an assistant to Employee A on an important business trip.  Numerous employees express willingness, but employee A picks Employee B because Employee A knows that Employee B shares interest in hockey.  Employee A is guilty of misconduct under code section 4.1.

Examples That Are Not Misconduct Under This Code Section:

  1. Employee A is choosing amongst a set of applications for a new job that needs to be filled. Employee A was once embarassed by mispronouncing a difficult name, so Employee A, before addressing any of the candidates, asks them to verify the pronunciation of their names.  Then Employee A uses The Company’s discriminatory decision form to rank the remaining candidates in terms of price, proficiency, availability, willingness, and adherence to the code of conduct. Employee A then selects the highest ranked candidate.  There is no misconduct.
  2. Employee A is choosing amongst employees to find a person to give a presentation on safety to new hires. The preparation and presentation will take a significant amount of time. Amongst those that are willing, there is an employee that is more productive than the others. Foreseeing issues with meeting deadlines if that employee isn’t working normally, Employee A postpones the presentation to a time when that employee’s production won’t be as critical.  Employee A selects the highest ranked employee based upon price, proficiency, availability, willingness, and adherence to the code of conduct.
  3. Employee A is choosing amongst employees to assign a temporary position as an assistant to Employee A on an important business trip. Numerous employees express willingness, so Employee A decides amongst them based upon price, proficiency, availability, and adherence to the code of conduct.  The CEO is amongst those that express an interest, but Employee A selects another candidate because the CEO’s effective hourly price is much too high to make it useful for the CEO to fill the position as an assistant.  There is no misconduct.

Jon’s Code of Business Conduct Interpretive Foundation Part 3.4

The code section to be interpreted:

Code 3.4 – Any employee shall be guilty of misconduct if they willfully; deceive, slander, humiliate, or coerce or intimidate by threat of deception, assault, slander, humiliation, or theft any other person.

It is notable that the restriction of prior consent was omitted from this code section.  This is because if one is permitted to lie to another as long as the other consents, then the liar and the consenter could create a sort of deceptive show which would convince a third party eavesdropper of a falsehood.  As far as such things as acting, sarcasm, or joking these things are not forbidden as long as there is a reasonable indicator that what is happening is not real and as long as the actors or jokesters freely admit to all that they were joking after the fact, and in the event that some observer does not grasp the unreality of the situation, it is the responsibility of the actor or jokester to amend the situation.

Examples of Mosconduct Under This Code Section:

  1. Employee A and Employee B are standing in a busy common area with many other people within earshot. Employee A looks Employee B up and down and states loudly, “Look at your clothes, You look like a slob, What are you?  Poor?  You stupid bastard.”  And then Employee A walks away briskly.  Employee A is guilty of misconduct under code section 3.4 for humiliation.
  2. Employee A is Employee B’s supervisor.  Employee A asks Employee B if some crucial task has been completed.  Employee B is unsure, but knows that they are responsible for knowing.  Employee B lies and says that yes the task is completed.  Employee A takes actions which assume that the task is completed.  Employee B is guilty of misconduct under code section 3.4.
  3. Employee A wants a non-employee to trade to them a fantasy football player.  Employee A tells the non-employee that they will lie to the non-employee’s wife that the non-employee is cheating on her if the non-employee doesn’t make the trade.  Employee A is guilty of misconduct under code section 3.4 for coercion by threat of deception.

Examples That Are Not Misconduct Under This Code Section:

  1. Employee A and Employee B are standing in a busy common area with many other people within earshot. Employee A looks Employee B up and down and states loudly, “Look at your clothes, You look like a slob, What are you? Poor? You stupid bastard.” And then Employee A walks away briskly.  Employee A returns shortly and takes Employee B’s hand and they, together, bow, and say, “Stop Bullying!”  There is no misconduct.
  2. Employee A is Employee B’s supervisor. Employee A asks Employee B if some crucial task has been completed. Employee B is unsure and admits that they are unsure, and goes to find out for sure and/or complete the task.  There is no misconduct.
  3. Employee A wants a non-employee to trade to them a fantasy football player. Employee A tells the non-employee that they will offer another valuable player in exchange for the desired player.  There is no misconduct.

 

Jon’s Code of Business Conduct Interpretive Foundation Part 3.3

The Code Section To Be Interpreted:

Code 3.3 – Any employee shall be guilty of misconduct if they willfully and without prior consent; assault, injure, harm, apply force to, affect the appearance of, entrap, or bind the body of any other person.

All of code section 3 arises from the axiom that every person is a means unto themselves.  This section makes misconduct any of the simplest ways in which people make other people their means against their will:  The direct application of force to the body.

Examples of Misconduct Under This Code Section:

  1. Employee A and Employee B are coworkers.  Employee B proposes an idea which is far superior to a proposal from Employee A.  Employee A feels humiliated by the defeat.  Later, Employee A comes across Employee B a the bathroom, seizes Employee B by the arms and pushes Employee B up against the wall. Then Employee A exclaims that they really wanted their proposal to be accepted.  Employee A is guilty of misconduct under code section 3.3, for applying force to the body of another.  Although the force applied wasn’t harmful in and of itself it was intended to make Employee B feel as if they were in some way responsible for Employee A’s emotions, an undesirable state for The Company.
  2. Employee A is in a large meeting with a group of clients.  Employee A spots a member of the opposite sex and attempts to initiate flirting from a distance but has difficulty getting the other’s attention because they seem to be focused on something else.  This distraction lasts throughout the meeting and a short time after everyone else leaves.  Employee A blocks the door to the meeting place with their body when the other attempts to leave.  The other, still somewhat distracted says, “Excuse me.” upon spotting Employee A in their path.  Employee A does not move, but instead responds, “Hey, I’ve been trying to get your attention.”  Employee A is guilty of misconduct under code section 3.3, for entrapping the other without their consent.
  3. Employee A is a prankster and Employee B’s coffee mug is a glossy black color.  Employee A coats the inside of the handle of Employee B’s mug with ink.  Employee B uses the mug and gets ink on their hand.  Employee B must spend half an hour trying to clean the ink off.  Employee A is guilty of mosconduct under code section 3.3, for affecting the appearance of another person’s body.

Examples That Are Not Misconduct Under This Code Section:

  1.  Employee A and Employee B are coworkers. Employee B proposes an idea which is far superior to a proposal from Employee A. Employee A is impressed vy the idea. Later, Employee A comes across Employee B a the bathroom and offers a (clean) hand to Employee B to shake, saying, “Nice job out there.”  There is no misconduct.
  2. Employee A is in a large meeting with a group of clients. Employee A spots a member of the opposite sex and attempts to initiate flirting from a distance but has difficulty getting the other’s attention because they seem to be focused on something else. This distraction lasts throughout the meeting and a short time after everyone else leaves. Employee A stands by the door to the meeting place when the other goes to leave. As the other passes, Employee A says, “Excuse me, hi.  I’m Employee A.  No not from the training video, its a family name…”  There is no misconduct.
  3. Employee A is a prankster and Employee A’s coffee mug is a glossy black color. Employee A coats the inside of the handle of Employee A’s mug with ink. Employee A uses the mug and gets ink on their hand.  Employee A then pretends not to notice the ink, and when Employee B inquires about it, Employee A puts on a pair of black rimmed glasses that have also been inked, states, “I don’t see anything.”  Then takes off the glasses, revealing the new ink staining.  There is no misconduct.

Jon’s Code of Business Conduct Interpretive Foundation Part 3.2

The Code Section to be Interpreted:

Code 3.2 – Any employee shall be guilty of misconduct if they willfully and without prior consent; steal, damage, affect the appearance of, or otherwise deny the owners’ the use or access to any property belonging to The Company or any other person or company.

The concepts of property and ownership exist, and the purpose of any employment is to gain ownership of money (the ultimate fungible property) by purchasing it with labor.  If the property of others can be gained or made use of without consent in accordance with one’s will, then there would be no need for employment.  Thus if one indicates that one does not believe in the need for employment by engaging in one of the activities above, then one shall in accordance with this code section be guilty of misconduct.

Examples of Misconduct Under This Code Section:

  1. Employee A wants a new TV.  Employee A sees a new TV that was not purchased by them or otherwise given to them to use by an owner of that TV.  Employee A takes the TV and installs it in their home.  Employee A is guilty if misconduct under code section 3.2.
  2. Employee A is jealous of someone elses new TV.  Employee A hucks a rock at the new TV, breaking it.  Employee A is guilty of misconduct under code section 3.2.
  3. Employee A is annoyed when a TV owned by The Company is displaying the video chosen by The Company.  Employee A installs a new video source and feeds it into the TV, causing it to display the video that Employee A wants instead of that which the owner, The Company, wants.  Employee A is guilty of misconduct under code section 3.2.

Examples That Are Not Misconduct Under This Code Section:

  1. Employee A wants a new TV. Employee A sees a new TV that was not purchased by them or otherwise given to them to use by an owner of that TV. Employee A finds the owner of the TV and offers to purchase it with money.  There is no misconduct.
  2. Employee A sees that someone else has a new TV when invited over to visit them.  While visiting, Employee A trips on a child’s toy that was left on the floor and damages the new TV the tripping was witnessed, appeared authentic, and resulted in a small injury of Employee A.  There is no misconduct.
  3. Employee A is annoyed when a TV owned by The Company is displaying the video chosen by The Company. Employee A asks if they might on occasion use the TV to display something else.  The representative of The Company declines, and requests feedback as to what might be annoying about the video.  There is no misconduct.

2017-05-21

Jon’s Code of Business Conduct Interpretive Foundation Section 3.1

The Code Section To Be Interpreted:

Code 3.1 – No employee shall be guilty of misconduct under any rule of this part 3 of the code for actions necessary to defend themselves or others from imminent potentially lethal bodily harm arising from another’s violation of any part 3 rule of this code, arising from any unintended error or mis-operation of equipment, or arising from any natural disaster.

Because of certain hardwired aspects of human nature, it is unreasonable to assume that a person will not react in defense of themselves or others in the event of apparent imminent doom.  Thus if one employee pulls another employee out of the way of a speeding car, that employee should not be subjected to punishment regardless of how brittle the other employee’s bones might be.

Examples of Negated Misconduct Under This Code Section:

  1. Employees A and B are out to lunch in a diner.  A man in the diner raises a hand gun and fires two shots into the air, and demands that everybody in the diner stay calm and pull out their valuables.  When the robber approaches the table shared by the employees, Employee A tosses a ketchup bottle high up towards the ceiling in such a way that its arc passes near the robber.  While the robber is instinctively following the arc of the ketchup bottle, Employee B whips a napkin holder at speed directly at the robber’s face and follows it with their body to deliver a punch at the robber’s head and then seize the armed hand to disarm the robber or force the robber to empty the ammunition into the floor.  Employee A assists Employee B with restraining the disarmed robber until the authorities arrive.  The throwing of the napkin holder, the punch, the disarming, and the restraint would all normally be misconduct under code part 3, but in accordance with code section 3.1, they are not.  In the event that a person engages in armed robbery of others, that person may be considered to be a source of imminent potentially lethal bodily harm from the time that the brandinshing and demand for property occurs until the time that that person is dead or completely restrained.
  2. Employees A and B are out drinking after work with Employee C.  Employee C is highly intoxicated and quite beligerent.  A tornado siren goes off and Employees A and B notice some exceptionally high winds and decide to take shelter.  Employee C beligerently refuses.  Employees A and B lie to Employee C and tell them that there is more alcohol in the shelter, but Employee C remains beligerent.  Employees A and B seize Employee C and drag them to shelter.  The deceit and the seizing would normally be misconduct under code part 3, but in accordance with code section 3.1 they are not.  The apparently impending natural disaster may be considered an imminent potential lethal source of bodily harm until the national weather service terminates the warning.
  3. Employee A is serving in the armed forces, and performs some act that would otherwise be misconduct under code part 3, but in accordance with code section 3.1 it is not.  While wearing the uniform, or otherwise actively engaged in service in the armed forces, the Employee A shall be considered for all intents and purposes for this code to be under the threat of imminent potentially lethal bodily harm or defending others therefrom.

Examples Of Misconduct which is Not Negated Under This Code Section:

  1. Employees A and B are out to lunch in a diner. A man in the diner raises a hand into the air, and demands that everybody in the diner stay calm and pull out their valuables. When the “robber” approaches the table shared by the employees, Employee A tosses a ketchup bottle high up towards the ceiling in such a way that its arc passes near the “robber.” While the “robber” is instictively following the arc of the ketchup bottle, Employee B whips a napkin holder at speed directly at the “robber’s” face and follows it with their body to deliver a punch at the “robber’s” head.  Employee A assists Employee B with restraining the “robber” until the authorities arrive. The throwing of the napkin holder, the punch, the disarming, and the restraint are misconduct under code part 3, and the misconduct is not negated by code section 3.1 because there was no apparent threat of bodily harm.
  2. Employees A and B are out drinking after work with Employee C. Employee C is highly intoxicated and quite beligerent. It starts to rain and Employees A and B decide to take shelter. Employee C beligerently refuses. Employees A and B lie to Employee C and tell them that there is more alcohol in the shelter, but Employee C remains beligerent. Employees A and B seize Employee C and drag them to shelter. The deceit and the seizing are misconduct under code part 3, and the misconduct is not negated because there is no threat of natural disaster.
  3. Employee A is serving in a restaurant, and performs some act that is misconduct under code part 3, and the misconduct is not negated because there is no threat of potentially lethal bodily harm naturally arising from the side job of being a server.

2017-05-20

Jon’s Code of Business Conduct Interpretive Foundation Section 2.4

The Code Section To Be Interpreted:

Code 2.4 – Any employee of The Company shall be guilty of misconduct if they issue an order or directive to the employees that they supervise which would require any one of them to do something that would otherwise make them guilty of any form of misconduct as described in this code.

Examples of Misconduct Under This Code Section:

  1. Employee A is Employee B’s supervisor.  Employee A orders Employee B to give a straight answer as to whether or not Employee B will complete a given task by a certain time.  In order to be confident in answering the question correctly, Employee B would have to spend time eliminating error in the estimation of how long the task will take, which would make it impossible to complete the task on time.  Otherwise, without the extra time spent making the estimation more accurate, the uncertainty in Employee B’s estimation makes it entirely possible that the task will not be completed in time.  Thus, Employee B answers, “No, if you want your question answered accurately.  Maybe if you will accept some inaccuracy.”  Employee A responds, “I need a straight answer, yes or no.”  Employee A is guilty of misconduct under code section 2.4.  The reduction of the complicated real answer to a yes or no would in this case be an act of deception which would be misocnduct in accordance with code section 3.4.
  2. Employee A is Employee B’s supervisor.  Employee A sees a thief attempting to abscond with property belonging to The Company, and orders Employee B to restrain the thief.  Employee A is guilty of misconduct under code section 2.4.  If Employee B were to restrain the theif, then Employee B would be guilty of misconduct under code section 3.3.
  3. Employee A is Employee B’s supervisor.  Employee A orders Employee B to offer Employee C a promotion.  Employee A has not performed any evaluation of Employee C’s proficiency.  Employee A is guilty of misconduct under code section 2.4.  Employee B would be guilty of misconduct under code section 2.1 if they complied with the order because offering to advance Employee C because of an order is something other than offering to advance Employee C based on Employee C’s proficiency.

Examples Which Are Not Misconduct Under This Code Section:

  1. Employee A is Employee B’s supervisor. Employee A orders Employee B to give a straight answer as to whether or not Employee B will complete a given task by a certain time. In order to be confident in answering the question correctly, Employee B would have to spend time eliminating error in the estimation of how long the task will take, which would make it impossible to complete the task on time. Otherwise, without the extra time spent making the estimation more accurate, the uncertainty in Employee B’s estimation makes it entirely possible that the task will not be completed in time. Thus, Employee B answers, “No, if you want your question answered accurately. Maybe, if you will accept some inaccuracy.” Employee A responds, “What is keeping you from answering with a yes or no?”  There is no misconduct.
  2. Employee A is Employee B’s supervisor. Employee A and Employee B see a thief attempting to abscond with property belonging to The Company.  Employee A orders a security contractor to restrain the thief.  There is no misconduct.
  3. Employee A is Employee B’s supervisor.  Employee A has performed an evaluation of Employee C’s proficiency which indicates that it surpasses that of Employee C’s coworkers.  Employee A gives this data to Employee B.  Employee B performs an independent evaluation and makes a decision based on that as required by their employment specification.  There is no misconduct.

2017-05-19

Jon’s Code Of Business Conduct Interpretive Foundation Part 2.3

The Code Section To Be Interpreted:

Code 2.3 – Any employee of The Company shall be guilty of misconduct if they issue an order or directive to the employees that they supervise which would cause harm to any person or The Company. Note that this prohibition on causing harm shall not extend to banning the defeat of a competitor if the competitor is defeated without any other form of misconduct, dishonesty, or illicit action.

Examples of Misconduct Under This Code Section:

  1. Employee A is Employee B’s supervisor.  Employee A is being persecuted for some behavior which did not occur or is not a violation of the Code of Conduct by some third party external to The Company.  Employee A decides that it would be best for The Company if the persecution were brought to an end.  Employee A alters some of The Company’s advertising materials in a way which is libelous to the persecutors, and orders Employee B to distribute the materials which would otherwise be in accordance with Employee B’s employment specification.  Employee A is guilty of misconduct under code section 2.3.  Libel is a harmful act, and Employee A ordered Employee B to distribute it, thereby ordering Employee B to do harm.
  2. Employee A is Employee B’s supervisor.  A number of misguided protesters have blockaded a site that The Company requires access to.  Employee A orders Employee B to drive a vehicle up to the protesters and rev the engine menacingly and otherwise make it appear as if the vehicle would be used to drive through the protesters.  Many of the protesters see the threatening action and try desperately to escape.  One of the protesters is trampled and injured by protesters fleeing the threat.  Employee A is guilty of misconduct under code section 2.3.
  3. Employee A is Employee B’s supervisor.  A new piece of industrial machinery is installed by The Company and Employee A orders Employee B to begin using the machine immediately for production to meet a fast approaching deadline without reviewing manufacturer safety warnings or instructions and then training them to Employee B and without ordering Employee B to review and comply with manufacturer safety warnings and instructions.  Employee B misoperates the new piece of equipment resulting in serious bodily harm to Employee B.  Employee A is guilty of misconduct under code section 2.3.
  4. Employee A is Employee B’s supervisor.  Employee A discovers that a client will soon be entering into competition with The Company.  The Company has agreed to fulfill an order of product to the client and the order is ready to ship.  Employee A decides that fulfilling the order properly will harm The Company because the client will soon be a competitor, but also that not appearing to be attempting to fulfill the order will harm The Company.  Therefore Employee A alters the packaging of the product such that it will likely be damaged during shipment and then orders Employee B to ship the order.  Employee A is guilty of misconduct under code section 2.3 (and 3.2).  Although the client will soon be a competitor, Employee A is causing the client harm by willfully damaging property belonging to The Company or client (depending upon when ownership of the product is transferred during the shipping process) which is otherwise misconduct under code section 3.2.

Examples That Are Not Misconduct Under This Code Section:

  1. Employee A is Employee B’s supervisor. Employee A is being persecuted for some behavior which did not occur or is not a violation of the Code of Conduct by some third party external to The Company. Employee A decides that it would be best for The Company if the persecution were brought to an end. Employee A alters some of The Company’s advertising materials in a way which is critical of the persecutors, and orders Employee B to distribute the materials which would otherwise be in accordance with Employee B’s employment specification.  There is no misconduct.
  2. Employee A is Employee B’s supervisor. A number of misguided protesters have blockaded a site that The Company requires access to.  Employee A orders Employee B to construct a ladder or bridge which bypasses the protesters’ blockade.  One of the protesters sees this attempt to bypass the blockade and assaults Employee B.  Employees A and B subdue the protestor with punches and restrain the protester.  There is no misconduct.  Doing something which outsmarts or is otherwise better than someone else is not harm, and it is not reasonable to expect that other people will react violently to something which is not harm, so the order to attempt to bypass the protesters was not an order to cause harm.  Furthermore, the punches and restraint employed against the protester are not misconduct because the assault by the protester, as with any assault that isn’t carried out with an intentionally non-lethal weapon such as a tazer, a stun gun, or trained martial non-lethal subjugation techniques that it may be presumed that police officers would employ if not otherwise armed, was potentially lethal and therefore were not misconduct persuant to code section 3.1.
  3. Employee A is Employee B’s supervisor. A new piece of industrial machinery is installed by The Company and Employee A reviews the manufacturer safety warnings and instructions and practices using the machine several times.  Then Employee A trains Employee B to use the machine, orders Employee B to follow written and posted safety precautions, and tests Employee B on the understanding of the instructions and precautions. Employee B misoperates the new piece of equipment resulting in serious bodily harm to Employee B.  There is no misconduct.
  4. Employee A is Employee B’s supervisor. Employee A discovers that a client will soon be entering into competition with The Company. The Company has agreed to fulfill an order of product to the client and the order is ready to ship.  Employee A orders Employee B to ship the order.  There is no misconduct.

2017-05-18