Ethics in briefs

A while back, I received a reminder from an ethereal UC machine to go online, mouse over squared ABCD answers to various questions and show my willingness to enter the fictional world of management. A world with conflicts of interest, apparently, self-serving, back-biting, and so forth. Somewhat depressing but not new. It came from something called the UCLearningCenter and in its best passive voice suggested that I,

As an employee of the University of California, […] have automatically been registered for the mandatory Compliance Briefing: UC Ethical Values and Conduct (20-30 minutes to complete). This briefing is designed to raise continued awareness of the University of California Statement of Ethical Values and Standards of Ethical Conduct, and to convey University employment obligations with respect to ethical and compliant behavior. The purpose is not to teach University policy or ethics but to familiarize UC employees with important ethics and compliance information, issues and resources. You are required to complete this course by December 31, 2010.

So it’s not about dusting off the old Aristotle. But how about the “familiarizing” with “important ethics … issues and resources?” Wouldn’t reading the official statement be enough? I read it. But no, you have to give proof, not that you read it, but a devalued digest of it. Proof to whom? To be used how? So that my “continued awareness” be “raised?” But if it is already an “awareness”, and “continued”, how can it be raised? Raising the ethics flag would be enough to modify behavior? It all looks very muddled.

According to UCOP where I found a presentation giving a very good idea of the thing, 192,000 UC employees are to spend an average of 20-30 minutes doing that every year. I.e., 60,000-92,000 hours at say an average $20.00/hr, an investment in “raised continued awareness of … Statement… Ethical… Value” of $1,200,000–1,920,000. I’m sure the public will be convinced and happy to see public dollars properly spent.

Back in 2007, I wrote sundry emails with questions like: what company did you hire (Workplace Answers still?), why a private company, what is the cost (above that of the employees’ time)? Why this decision was taken by the regents in November to May 2005 (when a few scandals happened among the top brass of UCOP), etc… Please get back to me, before I contemplate raising my continued awareness of the thingy. What of the example set by a top teaching institution automating the “conveying of obligations”? Has the down cost of that been factored in?

I shouldn’t be bothering about this matter. . And that’s what’s counted on I suppose: fatigue. “Yes, it’s silly, but come on, just do it. Submit.”

The message ends with this call:

For anonymous reporting of non-compliant behavior, please call [number] or visit [site address]

Please do.