Hard decisions and Hard lines.
If you knew something, something that was potentially damaging to someone would you talk about it? What if it was potentially damaging to a whole family, a whole company, or the whole country, would you say anything?
Recently in the news the guy who was deep throat in the Watergate scandal came forward and revealed himself. The guy, 91-year-old W. Mark Felt, was essentially the number two man under FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. And when Hoover died probably expected to take over the FBI. How could he not, he had been literally running the show for a while; then Nixon stepped in and nominated some guy named L. Patrick Gray to be acting director. After this it is speculated, and if you read a little about the whole thing you might reach the same conclusion. Mark Felt was angry about being passed by for the position of Director of the FBI and always harbored resentment for Nixon, because of this. It’s not like Mark Felt, liked Nixon before this happened, but after it, well he probably hated the guy. So when Watergate came along, here was his opportunity to even the score with Nixon, and using a long standing relationship he had with a reporter Bob Woodward he did just that. So if you knew something, something that could take down the president, would you act on it, knowing that it would have severe consequences if you did. Would you do it just to even the score?
Last Sunday I read an article about an executive, Dr. Peter Rost, a vice president at the pharmaceutical company Pfizer. He had spoken out in the news in favor of the re-importation of drugs. And has openly criticized the high cost of prescription drugs and the efforts by the drug companies to block the importation of cheaper drugs from other countries. Here is a guy who works for a drug company openly criticizing those same companies. Why did he do it, why did he talk about what was going on in a company he was employed at? Was it a sense of moral duty? Was it vindictive? Was he just trying to do what’s right?
When asked why he was doing it he said. "I believe I am doing the right thing, both in the long-term for the pharma industry and in the short-term for all the patients who cannot afford life-saving drugs."
That same article I read on Sunday talked about how his employees have stopped reporting to him, supervisors stopped talking to him, and how his secretary just left one day. Then they moved his office near Pfizer’s security department and how one day his e-mail and celphone just stopped working. Eventually I think he got his e-mail back.
So here is a guy who according to the news media “has a history of whistle blowing”, how will he ever be able to get another job at another company with a “history of whistle blowing.” He, trying to do the right thing, has in effect jeopardized both his current employment and any future employment he might have in the industry to do the right thing.
What does he do now, he has no real work to do at Pfizer now. So how does he spend his day? He can’t surf the internet or play Worlds of Warcraft all day as his company is just looking for a legitimate reason to fire him. So what does he fill his day with, that won’t get him fired. He has to keep talking to the media, because his company is just waiting till the story disappears from the media so they can then quietly lay him off. So he is now caught in a vicious catch-22 where the only way to stay employed is to stay in the media and by continuing to talk to the media he will be totally unemployable when his company does let him go. His time is numbered there, and he is in effect just waiting it out collecting a paycheck. He probably had a cush job; I think I read somewhere he was making something in the neighborhood of $600,000. Why jeopardize all that. Why did he do it?
Because he was trying to do the right thing, he jeapordized all that to do the right thing. Why not just quit the job if he didn’t agree with their practices. Like I would never work for a cigarette company because I just can’t work for a company that I believe causes cancer. Was it because his convictions were so strong that he couldn’t quit, because his position in the pharmaceutical industry afforded him the opportunity to speak out and be taken seriously.
Would you do the same thing if you were in a similar position, regardless of the personal risk. Would you do it, if you knew by taking action you would adversely affect the lives of others. Your friends, your family, your friends families. Could you conscientiously put them at risk too? There is a difference between taking a risk personally and putting everyone else at risk through your actions. How could you ever live with yourself if your actions are sure to hurt so many other people? What if eventually you thought by inaction the problem might eventually right itself? Maybe there was a law broken, or some indiscretion by one person or another but it will all turn out all right in the end. Would you take action then? What if the action that other person was commitiing served to benefit them financially. Would you stop it knowing that eventually it would come to an end on it’s own? Isn’t that just pointless action and risk on your part. Should you do it because it’s right, or should you forego what’s right to protect your friends from the eventual harm your action would cause. What if this person committing this action was your friend? Would you take action against them? Would you tell anyone if you did or would you wait till you were 90. And then when all the cards had been played out, talk about what you did so long ago. I am not sure what I would do if I were put in the same position. Likely if the person was my friend before I would no longer consider them such. I would cut all ties to them, as for action against them, if my action was going to put other people I cared about at risk, I would probably do nothing.
Almost always the moves I make and the actions I take are to protect the people I care about. I have always thought of this as a mafia mentality, but it could be from the time I have spent in an Islamic country, as I have always held to the idea of “An eye for eye.”
Recently in the news the guy who was deep throat in the Watergate scandal came forward and revealed himself. The guy, 91-year-old W. Mark Felt, was essentially the number two man under FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. And when Hoover died probably expected to take over the FBI. How could he not, he had been literally running the show for a while; then Nixon stepped in and nominated some guy named L. Patrick Gray to be acting director. After this it is speculated, and if you read a little about the whole thing you might reach the same conclusion. Mark Felt was angry about being passed by for the position of Director of the FBI and always harbored resentment for Nixon, because of this. It’s not like Mark Felt, liked Nixon before this happened, but after it, well he probably hated the guy. So when Watergate came along, here was his opportunity to even the score with Nixon, and using a long standing relationship he had with a reporter Bob Woodward he did just that. So if you knew something, something that could take down the president, would you act on it, knowing that it would have severe consequences if you did. Would you do it just to even the score?
Last Sunday I read an article about an executive, Dr. Peter Rost, a vice president at the pharmaceutical company Pfizer. He had spoken out in the news in favor of the re-importation of drugs. And has openly criticized the high cost of prescription drugs and the efforts by the drug companies to block the importation of cheaper drugs from other countries. Here is a guy who works for a drug company openly criticizing those same companies. Why did he do it, why did he talk about what was going on in a company he was employed at? Was it a sense of moral duty? Was it vindictive? Was he just trying to do what’s right?
When asked why he was doing it he said. "I believe I am doing the right thing, both in the long-term for the pharma industry and in the short-term for all the patients who cannot afford life-saving drugs."
That same article I read on Sunday talked about how his employees have stopped reporting to him, supervisors stopped talking to him, and how his secretary just left one day. Then they moved his office near Pfizer’s security department and how one day his e-mail and celphone just stopped working. Eventually I think he got his e-mail back.
So here is a guy who according to the news media “has a history of whistle blowing”, how will he ever be able to get another job at another company with a “history of whistle blowing.” He, trying to do the right thing, has in effect jeopardized both his current employment and any future employment he might have in the industry to do the right thing.
What does he do now, he has no real work to do at Pfizer now. So how does he spend his day? He can’t surf the internet or play Worlds of Warcraft all day as his company is just looking for a legitimate reason to fire him. So what does he fill his day with, that won’t get him fired. He has to keep talking to the media, because his company is just waiting till the story disappears from the media so they can then quietly lay him off. So he is now caught in a vicious catch-22 where the only way to stay employed is to stay in the media and by continuing to talk to the media he will be totally unemployable when his company does let him go. His time is numbered there, and he is in effect just waiting it out collecting a paycheck. He probably had a cush job; I think I read somewhere he was making something in the neighborhood of $600,000. Why jeopardize all that. Why did he do it?
Because he was trying to do the right thing, he jeapordized all that to do the right thing. Why not just quit the job if he didn’t agree with their practices. Like I would never work for a cigarette company because I just can’t work for a company that I believe causes cancer. Was it because his convictions were so strong that he couldn’t quit, because his position in the pharmaceutical industry afforded him the opportunity to speak out and be taken seriously.
Would you do the same thing if you were in a similar position, regardless of the personal risk. Would you do it, if you knew by taking action you would adversely affect the lives of others. Your friends, your family, your friends families. Could you conscientiously put them at risk too? There is a difference between taking a risk personally and putting everyone else at risk through your actions. How could you ever live with yourself if your actions are sure to hurt so many other people? What if eventually you thought by inaction the problem might eventually right itself? Maybe there was a law broken, or some indiscretion by one person or another but it will all turn out all right in the end. Would you take action then? What if the action that other person was commitiing served to benefit them financially. Would you stop it knowing that eventually it would come to an end on it’s own? Isn’t that just pointless action and risk on your part. Should you do it because it’s right, or should you forego what’s right to protect your friends from the eventual harm your action would cause. What if this person committing this action was your friend? Would you take action against them? Would you tell anyone if you did or would you wait till you were 90. And then when all the cards had been played out, talk about what you did so long ago. I am not sure what I would do if I were put in the same position. Likely if the person was my friend before I would no longer consider them such. I would cut all ties to them, as for action against them, if my action was going to put other people I cared about at risk, I would probably do nothing.
Almost always the moves I make and the actions I take are to protect the people I care about. I have always thought of this as a mafia mentality, but it could be from the time I have spent in an Islamic country, as I have always held to the idea of “An eye for eye.”
posted by The Information Officer at 7:28 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home