ReportWire

Tag: ethics

  • Ethics: My Direct Report and Friend Wants PTO When We’re Understaffed. What Should I Say?

    A Reddit member writes: I have an employee who was my friend before I became his boss. We’ve been good friends for more than a decade. At times, we blur the boss/employee/friend line and it makes things difficult. I have to deny his request for PTO around the holidays because others have previously been approved for the time so we won’t have coverage if I approve his and it will look like favoritism. How would you have the conversation with him?

    Minda Zetlin responds:

    You need to have a tough conversation. Not with your friend, with yourself. It sounds like he didn’t do anything different from any of your other reports. He asked for PTO around the holidays. He just made the request a little too late.

    As several who responded to your post have said, your task now is equally straightforward. Tell him the truth. You might have been able to accommodate him if he’d asked earlier, but now that others have time off already scheduled, it’s no longer possible. You won’t have enough people working those days if he goes too. This is no different from the response you’d have given to someone who wasn’t your friend.

    Unless you’re withholding pertinent information, it doesn’t sound like your friend was attempting to gain special treatment from you, or do anything other than be a straight-up employee. So based on what you’ve said, it sounds like you’re the one blurring the lines between employee, boss, and friend. He seems to be clear on the difference.

    Has he ever requested special treatment?

    This is why you need to have a serious talk with yourself before you have the conversation with him. Ask yourself if he has ever requested special treatment from you as an employee. If the answer is no, then ask yourself why you’re having so much trouble managing the boundaries between your work relationship and your friendship. Because it doesn’t sound like there’s a problem on his side.

    If he hasn’t requested or expected special treatment up till now, then it sounds like he understands the necessary distinction between your roles at work and your friendship outside work. In that case, there’s no need for a whole discussion about the appearance of favoritism. All you need to say is something like this: “I’m so sorry. I’ve already approved time off for others who asked earlier, so I can’t spare you then. I’m happy to give you time off right after the holidays if you would like.” The fact that you’re both his boss and his friend will only be a problem if you make it into one.

    Update:

    The Reddit member talked more with the friend, and learned that one of the requested days off was for a doctor’s appointment. So the friend was given that day off only. For the rest, the boss explained that there were too many projects in the works, and too many others taking time off for the friend to do so as well.

    Minda Zetlin

    Source link

  • Ethics: My Employee Is Hiding Her Job From Her Husband. It’s Become Everyone’s Problem

    A reader writes: I have a part time employee who has been with me for several years now. She’s never been able to do more than 10 hours a week but she has a unique skill set and experiences that are really helpful for my business.

    For the last year, her productivity and quality of work have become increasingly inconsistent. Her work is great sometimes and poor others. Sometimes she’s very productive and sometimes she misses important deadlines completely. Sometimes she doesn’t put in any hours for a week and then wants to make it all up later. That puts a lot of stress on other people who suddenly receive a large number of requests from her. My business is run entirely remotely, which makes this whole situation so much harder because all communication is via Zoom, or Monday, or texts, or phone calls.

    Fairly frequently she’ll cancel a meeting with someone at the last minute because she’s “sick” and leave them without needed information or deliverables. One time she had to leave abruptly in the middle of a team meeting because her husband got home.

    I know there are issues at home and she’s currently hiding the fact that she’s working from her husband. I’m concerned she’s in a physically abusive relationship. I’ve talked with her about it and she has confirmed that she wants to continue working for my company. What’s the best way to handle this?

    Minda Zetlin responds:

    First of all, it does sound very much like this employee is in an abusive relationship. It may be physical abusive, emotional abuse, or both. But if she believes she needs to hide her work from her husband, it sounds like he is attempting to control her. And most abusive relationships are all about control.

    For people trapped in those kinds of relationships, work is often a lifeline, and a much needed sanity check. It sounds like your company needs her, and she needs her job as well.

    You wisely are not trying to intervene in your employee’s relationship. At the same time, she trusts you enough to tell you what’s going on. That leaves the door open for you to let her know you can be a resource if she ever needs one.

    Minda Zetlin

    Source link

  • OR State Rep Greg Smith Facing Ethics Violations Investigation – KXL

    OR State Rep Greg Smith https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/smithg

    SALEM, Ore — The longest serving representative in the Oregon State House is facing at least his 4th ethics investigation.  The republican from Eastern Oregon Greg Smith will find out on either Friday or at a January meeting whether the The Oregon Government Ethics Commission plans to continue with action surrounding the allegation that Smith broke state ethics laws when he used his influence to ty and secure a $66,000 raise.

    On Tuesday, the Commission decided they needed another 30 days to investigate.

    They will be looking into a case revolving around his work as eecutive director of the Columbia Development Authority.

    More about:

    Brett Reckamp

    Source link

  • 3 Peabody students honored at Bishop Fenwick

    PEABODY — Three Peabody students at Bishop Fenwick High School have received awards for their contributions to the school’s community.

    Junior Elias Rodriguez, sophomore Emily Legault and freshman Teddy Fleming were given the school’s Fenwick First Award, which recognizes students, faculty and staff who go above and beyond and live the virtues of faith, integrity, relationship, scholarship and tradition, the school said in a statement.

    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm#@5C:8F6K 😀 2 “C6DA64E65 G@:46 2>@?8 4=2DD>2E6D” H9@ “=625D E9C@F89 D6CG:46 2?5 6I2>A=6 @? E96 D@446C 7:6=5[ 😕 42>AFD >:?:DECJ 2?5 H:E9:? u6?H:4<’D w:DA2?:4 4@>>F?:EJ[” E96 D49@@= D2:5]k^Am

    kAm“w:D H@C< 6E9:4[ A@D:E:G6 2EE:EF56 2?5 5C:G6 7@C 6I46==6?46 6=6G2E6 E9@D6 2C@F?5 9:>[ 2?5 9:D 6>6C8:?8 =6256CD9:A 😀 2=C625J >2<:?8 2 >62?:?87F= :>A24E]”k^Am

    kAm{682F=E 😀 2 565:42E65 >6>36C @7 E96 32?5[ 😀 “2 ECF6 =:89E 😕 @FC 4@>>F?:EJ” 2?5 “=:G6D u6?H:4< 7:CDE 😕 6G6CJ H2J[” E96 D49@@= D2:5]k^Am

    kAm“$96 >2<6D :E 96C >:DD:@? E@ 3C:89E6? E96 52J @7 @E96CD—@776C:?8 2 H2C> 8C66E:?8 E@ 6G6CJ 724F=EJ 2?5 DE277 >6>36C D96 A2DD6D] t>:=J 2AAC@2496D =62C?:?8 H:E9 6?6C8J 2?5 7@4FD[ AC@24E:G6=J D66<:?8 96=A H96? ?66565 2?5 2=H2JD DEC:G:?8 E@ 8C@H]”k^Am

    kAmu=6>:?8 “6I6>A=:7:6D u6?H:4< 7:CDE E9C@F89 9:D 2FE96?E:4:EJ[ <:?5?6DD 2?5 566A 4@>>:E>6?E E@ 9:D 72:E9” E9C@F89 9:D A2CE:4:A2E:@? 😕 >2?J 4=F3D 2?5 24E:G:E:6D[ :?4=F5:?8 E962EC6[ 32?5[ HC6DE=:?8 2?5 >@4< EC:2=]k^Am

    kAm“%655J 3C:?8D 6?E9FD:2D> 2?5 DEC@?8 677@CE E@ 2 C:8@C@FD 4@FCD6 =@25 2?5 6?8286D 7F==J 😕 6G6CJ 4=2DD] z?@H? 2D @?6 @7 E96 86?F:?6=J ?:46DE DEF56?ED 😕 @FC 4@>>F?:EJ[ 96 3F:=5D >62?:?87F= C6=2E:@?D9:AD 24C@DD 2== 8C256D 2?5 D92C6D 9:D >2?J E2=6?ED H:E9 9F>:=:EJ 2?5 ;@J]”k^Am

    kAmu=6>:?8 AC6G:@FD=J 2EE6?565 s6??:D*2C>@FE9 |:55=6 $49@@=] {682F=E H6?E E@ w:88:?D |:55=6 $49@@= 367@C6 u6?H:4< 2?5 #@5C:8F6K H2D 2 DEF56?E 2E vC62E #@4< r9C:DE:2? p4256>J 😕 s2?G6CD]k^Am

    By News Staff

    Source link

  • Ethics: New Cars Have Been Put on Hold by the Auto Maker. My Manager Says to Sell Them Anyway

    A reader writes: I am the business manager in an automobile dealership when we received a notice from the manufacturer: several vehicles had been placed on the hold list. That meant one thing–those cars were not allowed to be delivered. Whether the issue was safety, software, or pending approval, the directive was clear: no delivery, no exceptions.

    The sales manager came to me and told me to push the deliveries through anyway. He wanted the units delivered so the dealership could hit its monthly numbers. He told me things like: “Just print the paperwork.” “The factory is slow, nobody will know.” “We need these cars out today.”

    I knew exactly what he was asking me to do: ignore the manufacturer’s restriction, bypass protocol, and put the dealership–and the customers–at risk. Delivering a hold-listed vehicle is not only unethical; it’s potentially illegal. I refused.

    That refusal has sparked a full-blown conflict. What should I do now?

    Minda Zetlin responds:

    Your sales manager is being foolish and self-destructive. Does he not see how he’s put himself completely in your power? You could report him to the manufacturer and to your state’s attorney general. You could tell could tell customers or the local media, or post it to social media. His actions, if exposed would cause no end of trouble for both the sales manager and the dealership.

    That’s especially true if he has already sold any of these cars without your agreement. If that’s happened, you have an ethical obligation to alert the purchasers. If you didn’t, and something bad happened, that would be very hard for you to live with. But it sounds like, in your role, you are able to prevent the sale of these cars.

    Your next move depends on your relationship with the sales manager, and with the dealership as a whole. If you have a good relationship and generally trust him, you can gently let him know that if he doesn’t back down, you will expose him. You can try to make him understand the huge risk he’s taking. But from what you say, it doesn’t sound like you have a good relationship.

    That being the case, if I were you I would document as much of this as possible. Has he put any of these instructions in writing? Make sure to keep copies. Has he given these same instructions to anyone else? I might try to find out.

    I’m guessing you will have to report this to someone in your organization sooner or later. It might be the only way to get out of this difficult relationship. Ideally, you’ll have solid documentation in hand when you do that. Based on their response, you can decide what to do next.

    Update:

    The reader decided to quit. “I walked away,” they write. “I chose to protect the customer, the dealership’s legal exposure, and my own integrity–even if it meant losing my job.”

    It turned out to be a good thing. For a long time, this reader had wanted to go back to school and pursue a law degree. But they’d hesitated, fearing they were too old to start a new career. Leaving the dealership was the push they needed to start on a path that would ultimately make them happier.

    “The dealership owner asked me to come back.”

    Before they left, they informed the dealership’s owner of what had happened. Because customers’ safety was potentially at risk, they also informed the auto maker. “After a few days, my representative from the auto maker, as well as the dealership’s owner called me, by conference call, to tell me they had fired the sales manager. The dealership owner asked me to come back, but I had already enrolled in university.”

    The reader’s last paycheck from the dealership included pay for an extra two weeks of vacation time, they say. “I know I could have asked for more but, I just wanted to end that saga.”

    Today’s ethics question came from a member of my text community, a growing audience of Inc.com readers who receive a daily text from me. Interested in joining us? Here’s some information about the texts and a special invitation to a two-month free trial.

    The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com.

    The final deadline for the 2026 Inc. Regionals Awards is Friday, December 12, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply now.

    Minda Zetlin

    Source link

  • Ethics: My Direct Report Is Countermanding My Instructions. What Do I Do?

    A reader writes: I started a new job and inherited a completely demoralized staff. A transformation was in order, and I began working through it. One director, however, apparently disagreed with some policy changes I requested, but didn’t tell me so herself.  A member of her team came to me in confusion because Julie (fake name) had told him to ignore my requests and do things the old way.

    Confused myself, I sat down with Julie and asked her about the situation.  She hemmed and hawed, apologized, and then said she’d make everything clear to her staff.  I thought we were done, but the same thing happened a few weeks later, and my assistant told me Julie was still actively telling her team to ignore my directions.

    Minda Zetlin responds:

    What a frustrating situation! And how awful to have a team member outright lie to you. Julie has put you in a really tough spot.

    As a newcomer to the organization making some big changes, you were bound to come up against resentment from some who were accustomed to doing things the old way. If things hadn’t been so dire, you could have taken some time to build relationships with longtime managers like Julie. You could have taken their input into account when you started changing things. That might have resulted in more buy-in, or maybe not. Change is never easy and there will always be some who resist it, even if the current situation isn’t working.

    There are, obviously, some very big drawbacks to terminating someone who’s been in the organization for so long, especially at a time when you’re still learning your way around. But, ultimately, you can’t do your job if the people who report to you are countermanding your instructions and lying to you about it.

    You should begin documenting every instance of this behavior that you learn about. And you need to let Julie know there will be consequences if she keeps this up. You might also want to start building relationships directly with her team. You could let them know there’s been some understandable confusion over the new policies and procedures and invite them to talk to you directly if they have any questions or issues. With someone actively undermining you, it’s smart to stay as informed as you can.

    Update:

    The reader was understandably upset, and took a few days to calm down and think things through. Then this reader began thinking about the fact that Julie and her team were also working very closely with a different department within the organization. “There was a new leader of that team, and he was looking to expand the group,” the reader explains. “I took him out to lunch, and we both realized that Julie would be perfect for a slot he wanted to fill. After further discussion, the organization’s leadership decided it would be best for Julie’s entire team to move.”

    It turned out to be a great solution. Both Julie and the new group were happy with the move. And with Julie’s team now part of another department, the reader was able to hire new employees, taking some of the burden off their own overworked employees.

    “She’s a person with low emotional intelligence.”

    I asked the reader how they felt about Julie, in effect, being rewarded for dishonest behavior. They said it did not bother them. “She’s a person with low emotional intelligence, and if she felt she got one over on me, that’s fine,” they write. Julie had been in her job for many years, and the company’s leaders knew the real story.

    In the end, after the reader had moved on to their next job, karma seems to have caught up with Julie. “I just looked her up in the directory, and she seems to have lost her director position,” the reader writes. “She’s still there, but in a manager role rather than an executive role. So, in the end, it all worked out.”

    Today’s ethics question came from a member of my text community, a growing audience of Inc.com readers who receive a daily text from me. Interested in joining us? Here’s some information about the texts and a special invitation to a two-month free trial.

    The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com.

    The final deadline for the 2026 Inc. Regionals Awards is Friday, December 12, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply now.

    Minda Zetlin

    Source link

  • Ex-Fed Governor Kugler quit after more trading violations | Fortune

    Former Federal Reserve Governor Adriana Kugler abruptly resigned after Chair Jerome Powell refused to grant her a waiver to address financial holdings that ran afoul of the central bank’s ethics rules, according to a Fed official.

    Kugler also faced a probe by the Fed’s internal watchdog related to her recent financial disclosures before stepping down in August, according to a document released Saturday.

    Fed ethics officials declined to certify Kugler’s latest disclosures, which were posted on the website of the Office of Government Ethics, and referred the matter to the board’s inspector general, the document showed. The OGE also declined to certify Kugler’s newly released disclosures.

    The disclosures revealed details related to financial activity that violated the Fed’s internal ethics rules.

    Kugler announced on Aug. 1 that she would resign effective Aug. 8, without citing a reason and after she missed the central bank’s July 29-30 policy meeting. At the time, the Fed said her absence from the meeting was due to a “personal matter.”

    Ahead of that meeting, Kugler sought permission to conduct financial transactions to address what the Fed official described as impermissible financial holdings. It wasn’t immediately clear which holdings were involved in that request.

    According to the official, Kugler asked for a waiver to rules requiring top Fed officials to obtain clearance before conducting certain financial transactions and prohibiting them from trading during so-called blackout periods that straddle their policy meetings. Powell denied the request.

    Kugler’s resignation gave President Donald Trump an earlier-than-expected opportunity to fill a slot on the Fed’s board in the midst of his intense pressure campaign urging policymakers to drastically lower interest rates. The opening ultimately went to Trump ally Stephen Miran, who took an unpaid leave of absence from his post as a White House economic adviser and has called repeatedly for rapid rate cuts.

    Prohibited Trades

    The newly released documents revealed previously undisclosed trading in individual stocks in 2024, which is prohibited for Fed officials and their immediate family members, including Materialise NV, Southwest Airlines, Cava Group, Apple Inc. and Caterpillar.

    Some of the prohibited trades also represented violations for having been executed during blackout periods straddling each policy meeting during which no transactions are allowed.

    That included the purchase of Cava shares on March 13, 2024, days ahead of a March 19-20 meeting and the sale of Southwest shares on April 29, 2024, on the eve of the Fed’s April 30-May 1 gathering. The disclosure also lists several fund transactions that fell within blackout periods. 

    A footnote connected to the Jan. 2, 2024, sale of Materialise NV shares read: “Consistent with her September 15, 2024, disclosure, certain trading activity was carried out by Dr. Kugler’s spouse, without Dr. Kugler’s knowledge and she affirms that her spouse did not intend to violate any rules or policies.”

    Kugler, who was appointed to the Fed in September 2023 by President Joe Biden, declined to comment.

    Financial Disclosure

    In the disclosure released Saturday, Fed ethics official Sean Croston said, “Consistent with our standard practices and policies, matters related to this disclosure were referred earlier this year by the Board’s Ethics Office to the independent Office of Inspector General for the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.”

    The financial disclosure, which was submitted roughly a month after Kugler’s departure, covered calendar years 2024 and 2025 through her resignation. Top Fed officials are required to submit disclosures annually and after leaving the central bank, and to report periodic financial transactions. 

    “Earlier this year we received a referral from the Board’s Ethics Section regarding certain matters related to this filing,” a spokesperson for the Fed’s Office of Inspector General said in a statement. “We have opened an investigation and, consistent with our practice, we are unable to comment further until our investigation is closed.”

    Previous Violations

    In previously released, periodic financial disclosures during 2024, Kugler acknowledged that she had run afoul of Fed investment and trading rules when her spouse completed four purchases of shares of Apple and Cava. 

    Those trades violated the central bank’s rules that limit how senior Fed officials, their spouses and minor children invest and trade. 

    Kugler said her spouse made the purchases without her knowledge. The shares were later divested and Kugler was deemed in compliance with applicable laws and regulations by the Fed’s designated ethics official, according to the disclosures.

    Powell introduced tougher restrictions on investing and trading for policymakers and senior staff at the central bank in 2022. That followed revelations of unusual trading activity during 2020 by several senior officials.

    Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren and Dallas Fed chief Robert Kaplan each announced their early retirement after the revelations, with Rosengren citing ill health. The Fed’s internal watchdog ultimately cleared the pair of legal wrongdoing, but chastised them for undermining public confidence in the central bank.

    The new rules, which the Fed said at the time were aimed at supporting the public’s confidence in the impartiality and integrity of policymakers, boosted financial disclosure requirements, among other measures.

    Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat from Massachusetts who has long called for stricter ethics rules at the central bank, released a statement on Saturday calling for bipartisan legislation “to make the Fed more transparent and accountable.”

    Amara Omeokwe, Bloomberg

    Source link

  • Ethics: My Best Performer Is Quiet Quitting. What Should I Do?

    A Reddit member writes: I manage a product development team of ten. One person is objectively our top performer, smart, fast, clean work. A huge asset. But lately they’re totally disengaged. We’re doing this big all-hands effort to refine our long term vision, and they treat these sessions like optional homework. Sits there, phone under the table, contributes nothing. When I ask for input, “Looks fine!!.” that’s it.

    They crush the technical work but seem to have zero interest in the why, the mission, the team, their own career path. I tried the usual stuff: more recognition, promotion talk (which they deflected immediately), giving them a project to lead. Nothing. Here’s the weird part: they light up talking about their hobbies. Building a gaming PC, super into it. But work stuff? Completely flat.

    I’m worried this is burnout, but I don’t know how to have that conversation without sounding like I’m accusing them of being a bad teammate. I get the sense they need autonomy and complex problems and maybe our current focus on collaborative vision work feels like a waste of their time. But I don’t know how to dig into that without it getting weird.

    How do you have a coaching conversation about motivation that goes deeper than why aren’t you engaged?

    Minda Zetlin responds:

    First of all, you’re doing something that’s very human but not very helpful. In the absence of clear information, you’re filling in the blanks yourself to try and guess what’s going on with this employee. You speculate that the problem might be burnout, or a need for more autonomy, or disinterest in working in a group to strategize a vision of the future.

    Any or all of those could be true. Or maybe they broke up with their partner, lost a beloved pet, or have a new and all-consuming relationship in the gaming community. They may even have applied for a different job and are marking time until they give notice. You don’t know what you don’t know.

    You have to talk things out with this employee, and they don’t seem to want that conversation. That’s always a tough situation both at work and in your personal life. But you need to find a way to make it happen.

    Take the conversation out of the office.

    From your question, your objective here is to reach this employee and bring them back to their former level of engagement, not initiate a disciplinary situation. With that in mind, here are a few suggestions. First, take the conversation out of the office setting if you can. Ask the employee out for lunch, or coffee, or for a walk, as Steve Jobs used to do. That may make it easier for them to talk to you, and it should be a clear signal that your intentions are benign.

    Next, since they light up around the topic of building gaming PCs, begin by engaging them on that. Letting them talk about their passion may help them talk to you on other topics as well. As one commenter noted, listening carefully to what they say about gaming might also give you a clue to what is on their mind, and how to re-engage them.

    Try some open-ended questions.

    After that, I’d recommend some very open-ended questions. Since they’re resisting the group vision work, ask for their honest opinion of that initiative. In a one-on-one conversation, they might be willing to say more than “Looks fine!!” If that truly is part of the problem, offering to let them opt out of the group planning work, and perhaps replace it with a more technical task, could be helpful. As several commenters noted, not everyone wants to be a leader, or to participate in strategic planning.

    Or, you could say something as simple as, “I feel like something’s changed with you lately. I’m wondering how you’re doing, what’s going on, and whether there’s anything I can do to help?”

    The most important thing is this: Your goal is to talk as little as possible and listen as much as possible. The employee might open up and you may leave with a clear plan to re-ignite their enthusiasm. Or they might keep things to themselves. If you listen closely, you should still end up with a better idea of what to do than you have right now.

    Got an ethical dilemma of your own? Send it to Minda at minda@mindazetlin.com. She may address it in a future column.

    The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com.

    Minda Zetlin

    Source link

  • Opinion | AI Is a Tool, Not a Soul

    Pope Leo XIV tries to head off claims that chatbots are sentient beings with rights.

    Kristen Ziccarelli

    Source link

  • Ethics: I Sent a Harsh Email to a Failing Employee. They’re in Tears. How Do I Fix This?

    A Reddit member writes: I’m a new manager working with a very entry level person (1-2 years of working experience). We have a project with a very high maintenance client.

    Now, my original approach for the entry level was very conversational, asking if these deadlines work with their schedule, checking in every two weeks that the work is being done, providing opportunity to discuss any questions, and having an open door for any questions. Every two weeks I received the “everything’s great,” and we talked through a few minor items. When it came down to the internal deadline the assignment was NOT to the level of detail or completion I was told it was at.

    I redid the assignment on my own over the weekend to get it to the client. 

    Implemented changes on my approach, set up weekly meetings, gave smaller assignments that built on one another to get us to the goal of the deliverable. Through those smaller assignments I saw that the entry level person didn’t actually understand what they were doing. I would go into detail explaining things and tell them it would be good to take some time on their own to do a little background research to expand their knowledge. We are now at month 5, and they still are having a hard time comprehending the project, their role in the project, the expectation of quality, and overall just seem lost.

    “I sent a pretty harsh email.”

    I sent them a pretty harsh email laying out the expectations, that I need updates in writing from them, and for them to explain their reasoning on why they went about something. (Not my finest moment, but stress and exhaustion won the best of me.)

    The next day the entry level person gives me a call, clearly upset, possibly was crying, explaining how it’s just been difficult for them and the assignment is hard and that they’re trying and that email just really discouraged them.

    So, now I need to know how to fix this. Because although they weren’t meeting expectations, and I had to redo every intermediate assignment given to them, they’re still stuck on my project… They’re fully checked out and are just giving me worse quality work now.

    This is an abridged version of a very detailed post.

    Minda Zetlin responds:

    Let’s begin by acknowledging that you are in a very tough situation not of your own making. In an ideal world, there would be some pushback from your employer on this client’s demands, particularly since you mention that there is also a very tight deadline for completion.

    Your entry-level person should absolutely not be working on this high-pressure project. And you certainly shouldn’t be spending your weekends re-doing their work. So it’s no surprise that your frustration boiled over into a harsh email. Don’t be hard on yourself about it; that won’t help anything.

    Beyond that, it’s time for a reality check. Contained in the phrase “entry-level” is the idea that someone in this role needs to learn how to do their job. Yet both your employer and you seem to expect something different. Asking an entry-level person if a deadline works for their schedule doesn’t make much sense when they don’t seem to know what the work actually entails. Instead, you should figure out how long a task ought to take a completely inexperienced person. Then give them that amount of time to do it.

    This employee needs training.

    Similarly, it likely wasn’t helpful to suggest that the new person do background research. I’m not sure what you actually said, but a specific suggestion of a book to read or a video to watch might make more sense. That isn’t enough, though. This employee needs actual training. They need someone to teach them the job, and perhaps help them do it step by step. As one commenter mentioned, just providing more and more detailed instructions won’t help.

    At this point, both because of the tight deadline and because of your past interaction, you are not the right person to train this employee. You mentioned that they have a supervisor other than you. That supervisor should provide or arrange the training this employee needs to competently do their job. Without it, there’s little hope that their work will improve.

    As to fixing your own relationship, that may or may not be possible. But you can try. Begin by having an honest conversation, perhaps over a meal or coffee to make for an easier atmosphere. Apologize again, not only for your email, but also for expecting them to know more than they do. Ask them to talk about their view of the situation and listen to what they have to say.

    Acknowledge that everyone involved, including you and this employee, are in an impossible situation because of the demanding client. Ask if the two of you can start over with a clean slate. Let them know you want to help them succeed. It might work, or it might not. But it’s certainly worth a try.

    Got an ethical dilemma of your own? Send it to Minda at minda@mindazetlin.com. She may address it in a future column.

    The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com.

    The early-rate deadline for the 2026 Inc. Regionals Awards is Friday, November 14, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply now.

    Minda Zetlin

    Source link

  • Your Friend Asked You a Question. Don’t Copy and Paste an Answer From a Chatbot

    Back in the 2010s, a website called Let Me Google That For You gained a notable amount of popularity for serving a single purpose: snark.

    The site lets you generate a custom link that you can send somebody who asks you a question. When they click the link, it plays an animation of the process of typing a question into Google. The idea is to show the person asking the question how easy it would have been for them to just look up the answer themselves.

    It’s an insult, basically. It’s funny and rude.

    Now, there’s nothing wrong with a little rudeness in the right context. If an openly hostile person is wasting your time on social media by asking easily researched questions, I think you should go ahead and enjoy a little passive aggression (as a treat).

    In more personal contexts, though, using Let Me Google That For You states clearly that you don’t respect the person you gave the link to, and that their question is a waste of your time. If someone from your workplace or your personal life is asking you a question, it’s because they want your specific input, so it’s better to just give the answer—ideally with context only you can provide—than it is to send a link to a Google search results page.

    Now, this being 2025, the people behind Let Me Google That For You also offer Let Me ChatGPT That For You, which works exactly the way you think it does. And its existence points to something new: how rude it is to, in response to a question, respond with AI output—especially in a more professional context.

    Wasting Time

    Telling someone to Google something can be funny and satisfying, but it’s not helpful. I’d put copy-pasting or screenshotting a conversation with ChatGPT, Claude, or any other AI agent in the same category: not helpful and kind of rude.

    Developer Alex Martsinovich touched on this a while ago in a blog post called it’s rude to show AI output to people: “Be polite, and don’t send humans AI text,” he writes. “My own take on AI etiquette is that AI output can only be relayed if it’s either adopted as your own or there is explicit consent from the receiving party.” I think this is a pretty good framework for AI etiquette.

    If someone asks you a question, when they could have asked the machine instead, it’s because they wanted your perspective. The internet exists, at least in theory, so that humans can connect with each other, and so that we can benefit from each other’s knowledge. Responding to a question with AI output ignores this dynamic, especially if you don’t say that’s what you’re doing.

    Justin Pot

    Source link

  • Ethics: My Newly Assigned Second-in-Command Keeps Undermining Me. What Should I Do?

    A Reddit member writes: My colleague and I were both promoted by my boss a few months ago, I was promoted to Head of, and they were promoted to Director (my 2IC). Their role is split between Director and Regional Manager (not ideal). We’d worked together a little before the promotion but not extensively. Since the promotion, there have been occasions where I believe they’ve undermined me.

    [For example] They proposed shifting strategy in their region and sent me a short Word document outlining the change. I agreed with the sentiment but asked for a more detailed plan, as it didn’t consider all the risks. They agreed, but a few weeks later, I heard from someone else that they had instructed the team to move forward with the plan anyway.

    Now, I’m unsure how to move forward. I’ve lost trust in them. We’ve discussed other initiatives they’ve said they support, but I’m no longer confident they do. Their dual role limits how much they can support me anyway. They are talented, and ideally, I’d like to leverage their ideas–but I don’t have to. To make the best use of their time (and protect mine), my plan is to delegate time-consuming projects I don’t need to handle personally and focus on progressing the broader priorities, as there’s plenty to do.

    Minda Zetlin responds:

    This is a very awkward situation. You have someone reporting to you whom you did not hire or choose for the role. Which presumably means you can’t fire them at will, either. You mention in the discussion that they’re the top performer in this group, and that they work in the same U.S. office as your boss, while you’re working remotely from the U.K. None of that makes this any easier.

    Going ahead with a strategy shift after promising you they’d give you a fuller plan first is a huge red flag. Whether or not they’re actively trying to undermine you, they are refusing to accept your authority. They seem to hope that if they ignore you, you’ll go away. Perhaps they believe your new job should have been theirs instead.

    I’ll echo the advice you got from several who commented: You should document every instance of their broken commitments or insubordination. For example, what happens if the new strategy they launched without your approval turns out to be a disaster? Will they be able to claim that you signed off on it? Or is your request for a detailed report and your warning about the possible risks in writing?

    This employee has earned your mistrust.

    You are very right not to trust this person, which is why documentation is so important. Any solution must start with clearer communication. You mention that you have regular one-on-one meetings, but not how often. For example, what if you had a weekly or even daily check-in in which you asked for an update on their new strategy and on the report they promised they’d write? They would have to choose between telling your up front that they were ignoring your instructions or actually lying to you about what they were doing (rather than simply failing to let you know). Or else, they could put off implementation until they had your go-ahead. Any of these would have been better than what actually happened.

    Although you can’t yet trust them, both ethically and as a good leader, your first goal should be to create a better relationship with them. They’re a top performer and you say you would like to use their talents. They clearly have the potential to be a huge asset to you as well as to your organization. You must try and turn them from an enemy into an ally.

    It’s time to tell your boss.

    You say that your 2IC has a good relationship with your boss, but so do you. Alerting your boss to this issue and providing what documentation you can is the first step. Tell your boss know that you want to improve your relationships with this person, and you will need support to do so. Do it right away. You don’t want the boss first hearing about the problem from your subordinate rather than you.

    Then, have a friendly and honest conversation with your 2IC. Ideally, it should be an in-person conversation rather than video chat although given the distance, that might not be possible. Either way, let them know that they have to start following your instructions. Tell them you are giving them time-consuming work because you can’t trust them with anything better. But you wish that you could.

    Don’t say that they’re intentionally undermining you, even if you feel sure that they are. That gets you into a discussion of their thoughts and motivations, which won’t be helpful. Stick to just the facts: You said this; they did that.

    Tell them you’re on their side.

    Also let them know that you are on their side and would like to have a good relationship. Ask them about their aspirations and what they would most like to do. Let them know you’ll do your best to help them achieve those goals. Make a specific plan for them to check in with you very regularly about what they’re doing and to make sure communications are completely clear. Get their written agreement to this plan. And then forward a copy to your boss.

    What happens next is up to them. If they continue ignoring what you tell them, you’ll have evidence of that in writing. That evidence should be difficult for your 2IC and your boss to ignore. If the problem continues, you’ll be well positioned to initiate or request disciplinary action and/or a transfer away from your area.

    But I hope that’s not what happens. I hope that by being honest, friendly, firm, and fair, and letting them know you care about their welfare, you can gain their genuine support. And maybe even turn this enemy into a friend.

    Got an ethical dilemma of your own? Send it to Minda at minda@mindazetlin.com. She may address it in a future column.

    The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com.

    Minda Zetlin

    Source link

  • Ethics: Management Is Reassigning Jobs Under a “One Company” Slogan. My Team Isn’t Happy

    A Reddit member writes: Our senior leadership keeps dropping this “One [company name] mindset” slogan and they are using it to ask employees to perform functions beyond their job description and functional area, even going as far as temporarily re-naming entire teams to reflect a function that they weren’t hired to do, and is frankly a poor use of their expertise.

    I’m hearing a lot of grumbling from my team, many of them seeing through this thinly-veiled re-skinning of the “family” exploitative trope.

    Indeed, some team leads are more willingly adopting the slogan and are offering up their teams to be re-purposed, while others are protecting their teams and keeping them focused on their responsibilities. It’s causing a lot of angst because people are seeing their workloads increase while simultaneously diminishing their impact and visibility.

    Minda Zetlin responds:

    First of all, the slogan itself isn’t the problem. There’s nothing inherently wrong with saying “We’re all one company,” or “We’re a family here.” Some (rare) companies actually do treat their employees like family.

    And it’s not necessarily bad to ask employees to perform tasks outside their regular duties. I get that those tasks are not in their job descriptions and aren’t a good use of their skills. But the real question is this: What does the company need most, and how can it best use its resources to accomplish those most essential tasks? In a fast-changing world, reassigning people to different jobs may be the best way, or the only way, to accomplish that. You mentioned that it’s a small company, and it’s common in small companies for people to take on multiple roles.

    I see three big problems here. First, the company is asking your team members to put in a lot of extra work without any extra reward. I think that’s fine on a very temporary basis, if there’s an all-hands-on-deck sort of event. But stretching that over the any kind of long term leads to poorly done work, unhappy employees, and burnout.

    Second, the new policy is being applied inconsistently. Team leaders who don’t go along with it are able to insulate their teams from the extra work. Team leaders who cooperate are watching their teams do extra work with no extra recognition. Third, and worst of all, you mentioned in the comments that some team members who took on extra tasks are now getting negative feedback for not making more progress in their real jobs. That’s unfair and infuriating, and you have every right to be angry about it.

    From what you’ve said, it sounds like the smartest thing would be for you, too, to reject the new system and join the leaders who are shielding their teams from this thankless extra work. There seems to be no benefit in complying, and lots of drawbacks. It’s like the old saying that no good deed goes unpunished.

    Can you negotiate for your team?

    Because compliance is inconsistent throughout the company I also wonder whether you can use it to negotiate with management on your team’s behalf. For example, can you ask for a bigger bonus at bonus time for those who pitch in? Or to have their participation factored in to their performance reviews? Can you ask to have deadlines and other benchmarks changed for their real jobs so they won’t be punished for taking on additional tasks?

    As a team leader, it’s your job to help the company succeed, but also to advocate for your team. Things get tricky when those two roles conflict, as they do here. But you’ve seen clearly that taking on extra work is a lose-lose proposition for your team. So your best choice here is to protect them as much as you can.

    Got an ethical dilemma of your own? Send it to Minda at minda@mindazetlin.com. She may address it in a future column.

    The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com.

    Minda Zetlin

    Source link

  • Ethics: My Intern Stole a Task–and Leaderboard Points–From an Employee. What Should I Do?

    A Reddit member writes: I’m a team lead, and recently our CEO introduced a leaderboard to track completed tasks. Yesterday, I assigned a documentation task to a full-time employee with a deadline. At 3 am, an intern messaged me saying he had taken the initiative and already completed it, he went on and assigned the task to himself on the system and then informed the FTE about it.

    Now the full-timer is left out and frustrated, he told me he felt the task was sniped. The intern has the points under his name on the system now. How should I handle ownership of tasks and recognition here? Should the credit go to the assigned person, the intern or what?

    Minda Zetlin responds:

    The full-time employee is perfectly right. His task was swiped. And, frankly, you don’t have much choice as to where the credit should go. If team members can assign tasks to themselves in pursuit of leaderboard points, that’s a recipe for chaos. Also, sooner or later, someone will assign themselves a task they’re not qualified to do.

    There have to be consequences for stealing someone else’s task. Otherwise, as one comment noted, you might as well not bother assigning tasks at all. Everyone could just choose to do whatever they want.

    So, the credit for the task and the leaderboard points must go to the employee you assigned it to, no matter who completed it. Since this is an intern, you might want the employee to double check the work anyhow. Going forward, ideally it shouldn’t be possible for people to assign tasks to themselves in this system. And there should be a formal rule against it.

    The intern has a lot to learn.

    Here’s a question: Do you think another full-timer would have done this, or do you think they would have known to ask first? We often think of internship as an opportunity for a recent graduate or other newcomer to learn a job or an industry. But it’s also a chance for them to learn how to operate in the workplace. If you’ve been doing it for a while it can be easy to forget how much you didn’t know when you first started.

    If the intern has spent most of his time so far in school, he may need to learn the written and unwritten rules of work. I once knew an intern who presented his bosses with a list of more than 20 improvements their company should make. He was trying to be helpful, so he was quite surprised when it didn’t go over well.

    Interns offer their services for free or at reduced pay in exchange for the education they get. It’s time for you to deliver some of that education. Sit down with the intern one on one and gently explain that he’s playing a dangerous game. Whatever the benefit is of having points on the leaderboard, it can’t be worth turning a co-worker into an enemy. Tell him that next time he wants an extra task to build up his score, he should ask you to assign him one.

    Finally, many who commented on Reddit had negative things to say about the leaderboard itself and gamification at work in general. I’m not sure I agree. The leaderboard is new, and it certainly sounds like it needs some refinements. But it also seems to be doing its job. You’ve got two people fighting over what sounds like a tedious task. Maybe in time it can help you get unpopular work completed, and make it more fun for those who have to do it. If so, that’s a win for everyone.

    Got an ethical dilemma of your own? Send it to Minda at minda@mindazetlin.com. She may address it in a future column.

    The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com.

    Minda Zetlin

    Source link

  • When Face Recognition Doesn’t Know Your Face Is a Face

    “If you don’t include people with disabilities or people with facial differences in the development of these processes, no one’s going to think of these issues,” says Kathleen Bogart, a psychology professor at Oregon State University who specializes in disability research and lives with a facial difference. “AI has amplified these issues, but it’s rooted in long-standing underrepresentation and prejudice towards people with facial differences that occurred long before AI was a thing.”

    Too Little, Too Late

    When face verification systems fail, it’s often hard to find help—piling more pressure on a stressful situation. For months, Maryland resident Noor Al-Khaled has struggled to create an online account with the Social Security Administration. Al-Khaled, who lives with the rare cranio-facial condition Ablepheron Macrostomia, says having an online account would allow her to easily access SSA records and quickly send documents to the agency.

    “I don’t drive because of my vision; I should be able to rely on the site,” Al-Khaled says. “You have to take a selfie, and the pictures have to match,” Al-Khaled says. “Because of the facial difference, I don’t know if it’s not recognizing the ID or the selfie, but it’s always saying images don’t match.”

    Not having that access makes life harder. “On an emotional level, it just makes me feel shut out from society,” she explains. Al-Khaled says that all services should provide alternative ways for people to access online systems. “The lack of other fallback options means that sometimes people get trapped in these labyrinths of technological systems,” says Byrum from Present Moment Enterprises.

    Courtesy of WIRED source

    An SSA spokesperson says alternative options to face verification are available, and it is “committed” to making its services accessible to everyone. The agency, the spokesperson says, does not run facial recognition systems itself but uses Login.gov and ID.me for verification services. The General Services Administration, which runs Login.gov, did not respond to WIRED’s request for comment. “Accessibility is a core priority for ID.me,” a spokesperson for ID.me says, adding it has previously helped people with facial differences and offered to directly help Al-Khaled after WIRED was in touch.

    “There are few things more dehumanizing than being told by a machine that you’re not real because of your face,” says Corey R. Taylor, a New York–based actor and motivational speaker who lives with a craniofacial anomaly. Last year, Taylor says, he was using a financial app to access a small amount of money; as he tried to complete the payment processes, he found that the face verification system could not match his selfie to the image on his ID. To get the system to work, he had to move into different positions. “I had to literally raise my eyes and contort my face,” Taylor says. When he emailed the company, he got what appeared to be a boilerplate response.

    Matt Burgess

    Source link

  • Ethics: My New Employee Refuses to Do Some Parts of Her Job. Should I Fire Her?

    A reader writes: I have a new employee who is refusing to do some parts of her job. She hasn’t done this with me directly, but when I left for a week’s vacation, I gave very clear guidance on what she should be working on. That included learning to use some of our equipment, practicing her job skills, and reviewing training videos with the team.

    Unfortunately, while the other team members were focused on the training videos, she was watching personal videos on her phone. Each team member later told me separately that when they asked her to participate, her response was, “No, I’m not going to do it.”

    What should I do now?

    Minda Zetlin responds:

    Unless your employee is covered by a union contract, or a contract between you and her, you certainly have the legal right to fire her. Ethically, you have that right as well. When you hire someone to do a specific job, you can reasonably expect that they will do that job. The exceptions would be if you asked her to do something dangerous, illegal, or that violated her own ethics. Or, if you had unreasonable expectations for when or how much she would work, as in last week’s Ethics question.

    Assuming none of that is the case, you can do whatever you choose. So ask yourself what’s best for you and for your company, and also what’s best for her. The answer will depend on why you hired her in the first place. Does she have skills your company needs? Do you see potential in her? Is she refusing to do these things because she’s inexperienced and perhaps afraid of doing them badly?

    Your next step should be to have a one-on-one meeting with her. I’d begin by asking her why she declined to do tasks that clearly are part of her job. I’d also ask about her future career goals both inside and outside your organization. Her answers will help you make an informed decision about what to do next.

    Update:

    The reader writes that they met with this employee one-on-one. “I asked if she wanted the job, and she said yes,” they write. “I then listed the specific behaviors that needed to change–including refusing to participate and using her phone during work time.” This was done firmly but with kindness, the reader says.

    The reader also explained that the goal was to help this employee develop valuable professional skills. “I made sure she understood the opportunity in front of her. The more senior person in her role earns more than $82,000 a year, and I explained that the training she’s receiving could put her on a similar path at this company or anywhere else.” The reader then printed out a list of the expectations this employee was to fulfill, and they each signed it.

    The two met again for a follow-up two weeks later. By that time, her performance had improved dramatically. “She’s now on week seven, and time will tell if she continues to grow into the role,” the reader writes. “But the kindly, structured explanation seems to have made a real difference.”

    Got an ethical dilemma of your own? Send it to Minda at minda@mindazetlin.com. She may address it in a future column.

    The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com.

    Minda Zetlin

    Source link

  • Ethics Complaint Against Vancouver Councilor Kim Harless Sent to Hearings Examiner – KXL


    VANCOUVER, Wash. — An ethics complaint filed against Vancouver City Councilor Kim Harless will move forward to an independent hearings examiner for investigation.

    The city council voted 5-0 Monday to refer the complaint, which accuses Harless of failing to disclose a relationship with John Park, the director of a nonprofit that received city lodging-tax grants for Vancouver’s annual Pokémon GoFest event. Councilor Sarah Fox was absent from the vote, and Harless recused herself.

    Harless said she consulted with city attorneys before the votes and was advised there was no conflict of interest because she was not engaged to or living with Park at the time. She called the complaint “incredibly invasive” and said it has taken a personal toll.

    The council also voted to remove Harless as chair of the city’s Lodging Tax Advisory Committee until the investigation concludes. The hearings examiner is expected to issue findings within 60 days.

    More about:


    Jon Eric Smith

    Source link

  • Ethics board clears Denver airport CEO over flights costing as much as $19,000, but is ‘appalled’ by response

    The Denver Board of Ethics has cleared Denver International Airport CEO Phil Washington of using his position for private gain when he flew himself and eight other executives to Madrid on a spring trip that cost about $18,000 per person.

    But the board members said in a written decision that even if Washington technically followed city policy, they were “appalled” by the amount of money he approved spending for an aviation conference — and by his “seemingly cavalier attitude in responding to this complaint.”

    The decision, issued Friday, came five months after CBS News Colorado revealed the cost of the tickets and other travel expenses after filing a request under the Colorado Open Records Act. Soon after the story came out in May, someone anonymously filed an ethics complaint about the report.

    “While the Board of Ethics believes that officers, officials, and employees of the City and County of Denver should be better stewards of public funds, the Board must apply the facts to the law as it stands,” according to the ruling document.

    In an interview with the board’s executive director, Washington said he wouldn’t have allowed the purchase of the airline tickets if he knew how much they would cost, according to the decision. But the board found that when Washington approved the expenses, the estimates he saw were mostly in line with the actual costs.

    “Mr. Washington’s statement that he was unaware of the actual costs of the airfare is concerning,” the members wrote in the statement.

    The airport’s travel policy allows employees to fly business class on flights longer than eight hours, and on this trip all nine flew business or first class. The group’s round-trip flights ranged in price from about $9,300 each for three officials to nearly $19,200 for the airport’s chief operating officer, Dave LaPorte. Washington’s flights cost about $12,000.

    The board also took issue with Washington saying it was a “once in a lifetime opportunity” to attend the Passenger Terminal Expo and Conference, since it happens annually. Washington said the higher-class seats were necessary so that the executives could “hit the ground running” when they arrived, even though almost none of them had speaking engagements until one to two days after they arrived in Madrid.

    Elliott Wenzler

    Source link

  • Ethics: My Boss Told Me to Skip My Best Friend’s Wedding. Now He Wants Help Getting a Job

    A reader asks: My former boss once required our entire team to work through the weekend, completing a quarterly financial report. The report wasn’t really urgent. My best friend was getting married that weekend and I was a groomsman in his wedding.

    When I explained the situation, my boss said, “You have a choice between the wedding and your job.”

    I said, “It’s an easy choice. I’m in the wedding.” This is how he came to be my ex-boss.

    Since then, I’ve started my own business as a career coach helping people get hired, and it’s going well. Meantime, my former boss lost his job. Recently, he reached out to me to ask for my help landing a new job.

    I was astonished by the request. My first instinct is to refuse, of course. But my family is friends with his family. I don’t want them to suffer due to his bad behavior. What should I do?

    Minda Zetlin responds:

    Obviously, you have no obligation to help your ex-boss. His behavior toward you was unethical in the extreme. You’re cleared of any responsibility you might have had to help him as a friend or colleague.

    In a roundabout way, he may have done you a favor. You’ve built a successful business and it sounds like you’re happier than you would have been if you had stayed at your old job. But things could have gone a different way. You could have spent a long time searching for a job and suffered financial consequences from his actions. 

    I appreciate that you’re concerned for his family. That shows you’re a good person. And perhaps you might help them with a donation or a loan if needed. But you’re under no obligation to help your ex-boss find a job because of them. One could also argue that, given what you know about your ex-boss, you shouldn’t help him. You could be subjecting his future reports to the kind of mistreatment you suffered at his hands.

    Do what feels right.

    Having said all that, I think you can be guided by your own feelings. Would helping him make you feel good because you helped his family? Often our own kind acts benefit ourselves as much as anyone else. If helping him would make you feel better than not helping him, that’s a good reason to do it.

    It also presents you with an opportunity. You could discuss your past history with him before offering any assistance. That might make you feel better and it could potentially benefit him. Let him know that his past arrogance and intransigence almost cost him your aid. That just might get him thinking about the risks that he runs by treating employees as if their lives outside work don’t matter. Tell him that if you do help him, you expect him to be a more thoughtful manager than he was with you. 

    One reason there are so many bad bosses in the world is that very few receive the training they need to become good leaders. With that in mind, you could insist that he sign up for some  management training as a condition of helping him. That could benefit him, his family, and his future employees all at the same time.

    Update:

    The reader reports that he did help his former boss, and the boss did find a new job. But before he agreed to help, the reader told his ex-boss  just how badly he failed as a leader. “I lit into him,” he says. 

    I’m hoping it taught the boss an important lesson. Most industries are like small neighborhoods. The person you mistreat today may be in a position to help or harm you tomorrow. That’s something you should consider before trying to force someone to skip an important personal event.

    Got an ethical dilemma of your own? Send it to Minda at minda@mindazetlin.com. She may address it in a future column.

    The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com.

    Minda Zetlin

    Source link

  • Is the Trump Administration’s Shutdown Messaging Illegal?

    Some experts think the overtly political messaging could run afoul of the Hatch Act, a federal law that places specific limits on the political activities of civil employees of the federal government.

    Michael Fallings, a federal-employment attorney and managing partner at the law firm Tully Rinckey, told NPR that such direction from the federal government “could be considered a violation of the Hatch Act.”

    “Here, while the reference to Democrats alone likely does not constitute a violation, the explicit blaming of the Democratic Party for the shutdown and ‘reference to radical left’ may constitute a violation,” he told the outlet in a statement.

    Donald Sherman, the executive director of the government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, told NBC News that the messaging is likely in violation of the code of conduct for federal employees. “There’s no universe where that is acceptable or advisable under the code of conduct.”

    Public Citizen, the consumer advocacy group, has filed complaints against the multiple departments who have adapted this messaging including HUD and the SBA, alleging Hatch Act violations. “This is such an obvious violation of the Hatch Act that it raises the question: ‘How on Earth does HUD think they can get away with this?’ Craig Holman, the group’s government-affairs lobbyist, said in a statement.

    Nia Prater

    Source link