The 226 workers at Kellogg's Memphis plant have been 'locked-out' from their jobs producing Frosted Flakes and Froot Loops for over 3 months. Company management and the union representing the workers - the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union - reached a stalemate in negotiations in October, resulting in the lockout. The primary issue is Kellogg's demand of dramatically increasing the amount of temporary workers, who would earn $6 less and be entitled to much fewer benefits: effectively creating a two-tier system at the plant. Under the current agreement, Kellogg has the right to use temporary workers for up to 30% of the workforce, but the union claims Kellogg is now pushing for 100%. The workers, who have had their health insurance suspended by Kellogg, fear that their jobs will either be replaced entirely by temporary workers, or they will be forced to take lower wages. Kellogg, in the midst of a 4-year cost reduction effort labeled, 'Project K,' claims that the change is necessary to remain competitive and that current employees will be unaffected by the change. Are two-tier systems ethically problematic? http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/business/kellogg-workers-in-4th-month-of-lockout-in-memphis.html?ref=business&_r=1

Chief executives should be challenged for explanations and even have their pay cut if they fail to appoint women to senior positions,' said the Business Council of Australia in a letter this week to its members. The BCA, the representative body of the chief executives of Australia's 100 largest companies, is urging its members to adopt a 'checklist of reforms' aimed at addressing the underrepresentation of women in senior positions, and to consider docking CEO pay if they do not implement the reforms. In Australia, women have been outpacing men in earning college degrees since 1985 and make up 46% of the workforce, but hold only 16% of board positions and 3.5% of chief executive roles. The BCA aims to double the number of women in senior positions in the next 10 years, and claims this isn't just an equality issue, but also an economic issue: 'We risk not getting the best talent for the job.' Even if we take for granted that equal opportunity for women in senior positions is a laudable goal, is tying executive compensation to the promotion of women ethically problematic?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/06/business-council-women-on-boards

Small business owners and corporate executives have long faced the problem of whether to hire their children for summer internships and entry-level positions. On one hand, executives know the importance of gaining 'real-world' experience at an early age, but on the other, hiring direct family raises many concerns of favoritism and conflict of interest. In response, a recent trend has emerged: 'internship swapping.' The quid pro quo arrangement works something like this; 'I'll hire your daughter for the summer at my law firm, if you give my son an internship at your accounting agency.' Taken at face value, it appears to be an elegant solution as neither firm has a familial connection to the new hire. Still, some argue that this is just another way of protecting the special opportunities for the well-connected. Should top executives be engaging in internship swapping?
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323463704578497421692622256

Take the suspect to an isolated place. Make sure the conversation isn't being recorded. Engage in small talk to build rapport. Commence interrogation. These steps, outlined in a manual used by loss prevention specialists to question employees expected of theft, are a common practice in the retail space. Employee theft costs American retailers $16 billion a year, and it's difficult to stop. Rarely is there any physical evidence, only an imbalance in the books or missing merchandise. To address this, retailers are increasingly turning to internal investigations headed by specialists trained in police interrogation techniques. These interrogations include insisting that the company knows the suspect is guilty, pointing to 'bulging files or videocassettes,' and an array of psychological tricks to get the confession. But these techniques are often too effective, resulting in a false confession from the employee. Should retailers abandon the use of police interrogation techniques in their investigations?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/09/business/when-employees-confess-sometimes-falsely.html

In 2013 the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations held hearings on JPMorgan's $6.2 billion trading debacle from earlier this year. According to the 307-page Senate report, traders in JPMorgan's chief investment office hid underperforming derivatives; routinely exceeded bank mandated risk limits; and manipulated the valuation of unprofitable investments to minimize losses. In addition, the report found that JPMorgan used intimidation and deception to mislead regulators. Executives, passed the buck down to lower level employees, claiming that attempts to reduce risky investments were undermined by individual traders undervaluing existing positions to minimize losses. Regulators at the Office of the Controller of the Currency were also criticized for not identifying the losses sooner, as well as for not being aware of JPMorgan's $156 billion high-risk derivatives portfolio. How should blame be allocated for the mishap? Do senior executives get a free pass for actions of subordinates hidden from them? Or does the buck stop at the top? Should the boss always bear the ultimate blame?
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/03/15/jpmorgan-executives-face-withering-questions-at-senate-hearing/