Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Ethical dilemma - job related, WWYD?

128 replies

PlaceAtTheTable · 19/12/2017 18:17

NC, obviously. I'll try to keep this brief:

One of my superiors at work, A, is in a bit of a legal pickle with regard to a client contract (not his fault but a series of rather unfortunate occurrences). This is someone who I feel immense loyalty to and for whom I'd happily get up at 3am to help bury a body.

I'm in a position to help due to some information I have obtained in a not entirely ethical manner from a second contact, B. In my defense: this information was offered to me freely and I didn't ask for it. I name dropped at an event and B pro-actively rang to tell me about this.

Basically, I couId kill two birds with one stone and help my A out while also doing B's bidding. Sounds perfect, right?

The problem is, that this would entail forcing a third party, C, into a comply-or-be-fired position that, while technically perfectly legal, is not what our firm states as its policy. I'm essentially meant to force them to solve A's problem against their will to get them out of B's hair either due to re-assignment or by engineering an unreasonable behaviour type of situation that would be grounds for dismissal (B's agenda).

This is obviously rather shady as it is, seeing as the info that B volunteered is highly confidential. On top of that, resolving the situation would probably catapult me into the pole position for promotion, so I personally stand to gain from doing it. Conversely, as A's subordinate, I stand to lose if A has legal issues even though they're not directly related to my job.

OTOH, C has a rep as a problem child and will arguably get the sack either way - it's all a question of when and how grounds for dismissal can be found. He's also legally obliged to do what I would need him to - that's just not what our HR decides to tell our employees (for PR reasons) but is actually very clear cut.

For background, in case it matters: I'm a middle manager in a large corporation, as is C. A is upper management. B's general area is HR.

So, yeah, WWYD? Help friends in need and and leverage what's coming either way or refuse to play ball, lose out and feel superior due to my impeccable ethics?

OP posts:
Original poster
PlaceAtTheTable · 19/12/2017 20:47

Also: fuck you autocorrect! I wrote that previous one and I barely understand it!

OP posts:
myrtleWilson · 19/12/2017 20:48

Well I think I've done everyone a favour by introducing the Klingon analogy Grin Wink

Original poster
PlaceAtTheTable · 19/12/2017 20:50

@Florene, you're not. I'm being deliberately vague due to the nature of the subject. And I've always been rather shit at being cryptic but clear.

Basically, I think HR want to make it look as though no stone was left unturned in order to preempt any attempt at a challenge.

OP posts:
gingergenius · 19/12/2017 20:51

Still think you're being set up as a fall guy if their plan doesn't work op.

Redtartanshoes · 19/12/2017 20:52

Do it:

I would. Without a second thought. Screw whingey whiney C

allthgoodusernamesaretaken · 19/12/2017 20:55

I think you're being played by B and should steer well clear. Either the information B gave you is confidential in which case B could be sacked for sharing it and you could for using it . Or its not confidential and B could share with A (or As boss) and use it to resolve the situation

^^ This, I think. It's all rather confusing, but It think that you should take the moral high ground here. "You live by the sword, you die by the sword" etc. I've made plenty of mistakes in my career, (who hasn't?) but I'm very proud to think that my integrity has never been questioned

eurochick · 19/12/2017 20:56

And if this ended up in a tribunal and you were called as a witness....?

I think it's all fine apart from the blackmail bit. Ie you need to stay out of it.

KateAdiesEarrings · 19/12/2017 20:57

Surely if C becomes the under-performing, whiney Klingon translator in your team then A has just substituted one problem for another?
My concern is that you don't need to be involved in this at all. A is your superior and knows about C's skill-set. B is HR and knows about C's skill-set.
Your involvement is superfluous which would make me question why A and B are letting you take this role. You don't have a problem to solve. B has a problem to solve - they want rid of C. A has a problem to solve - they can't afford to dishonour the contract.
You don't have a problem to solve but A and B have flattered you into thinking you need to provide the solution. I'd be very wary if I were you.

Florene · 19/12/2017 20:59

Me too @gingergenius.

A has already approached and offered the role. C has already declined.

Put A in touch with B to provide the evidence they need.

This won't help A who presumably is still in the shit for not having a Klingon translator in place by the end of the year. But this would also be the case if you tried to blackmail C and he still refused. So A is no worse off.

Only way A would benefit is for you to blackmail C into accepting the position and it work. Which B clearly doesn't believe will happen, though they wouldn't have an issue if it did.

So get A to provide B with the evidence, and you keep trying to find A an equivalent to C. Though I am also struggling to see how A could be in hot water for something agreed by their predecessor, D. Unless they knew about the requirement for a Klingon speaker some time ago when it would have been possible to resolve, and did nothing about it until it was too late?

NoSquirrels · 19/12/2017 21:01

What KateAdie says.

A knows about C - and has offered the job.

B knows C has turned down the job.

The very most you should do is tell A that B (HR) has indicated off the record that he should press C into taking the role.

Stay away from the rest.

Original poster
PlaceAtTheTable · 19/12/2017 21:01

I'm very proud to think that my integrity has never been questioned

So am I, thus far - I've fucked up on occasion and have always cleaned up after myself. Hence the moral dilemma.

A and B (in addition to me actually being good at what I do) pushing me into the faces of people who matter and putting me on the unofficial list of 'people who'll definitely be running this place come 2027' doesn't help.

My loyalties are torn between the people who've been looking out for me and pushing my career and my belief that you should always be morally impeccable.

OP posts:
HopelesslydevotedtoGu · 19/12/2017 21:06

If C refuses the transfer, and B wants them fired for refusing, then why is B giving you into for blackmailing C? Doesn't B just want to fire C, so isn't blackmailing C to transfer against B's objective?

If someone said to C "you have to transfer or you will be fired", surely C would agree to transfer? What is so bad about A's job that C would choose being fired?

How long does A need C to be in the team to meet contractual obligations? Earlier you said that A just needs to introduce C to the client and it is sorted, even if C then quits. So can C be temporarily be transferred to A's project for a brief period? Rather than being forced to transfer then fired? It all seems a bit nut with a sledgehammer if C literally Just needs to be introduced to the client

NoSquirrels · 19/12/2017 21:07

But do you understand why you need to be involved to help B’s case? I know you’re being vague, but it’s not clear to us - is it clear to you?

To be honest, I’d think if you went back to B and said “Listen, thanks for the heads up and you know I appreciate your help in so many ways but I’m not sure I should be involved at all with the C situation if he’s already refused directly to A” then no one could possibly hold that against you professionally.

Why does A think you’ll succeed where they failed? Why aren’t they willing to use the info to strong-arm C to accept?

oldmum22 · 19/12/2017 21:11

I am trying my hardest but I don't get why you need to become involved. If C is not up to standard, let HR compile the evidence and do the required meetings. I would hate to see you being used as a tool to carry out someone elses dirty work .

HopelesslydevotedtoGu · 19/12/2017 21:15

I would say to A "I've heard that actually you can't turn down assignments, I recommend you keep asking for A to transfer"

I wouldn't get involved in blackmailing, it may well backfire on you

Smellyrose · 19/12/2017 21:19

I’m worried about the blackmailing aspect - why can’t A use that info? Sounds like you’re going to be the fall guy.

Also, why will C get the sack if he says no when you try and assign him, but he wasn’t sacked when A tried to assign him?

Great Klingon analogy btw!

lougle · 19/12/2017 21:26

Sorry to be a voice of dissent, but I have a real problem with this situation. Personality shouldn't have a bearing on your professional conduct. You should have the integrity to set yourself a standard of behaviour that you are happy to work to, regardless of whether you are dealing with friendly, helpful, chatty colleague X, who you would hate to lose from the firm, or sour, obstructive, sullen colleague Y, who you would gladly never work alongside again.

If you take this information and use it to your advantage, with colleague C never knowing that you've had the advantage of it, you speak volumes of your moral standard to your other colleagues and you never know when it might be brought up as an example of conduct in the future.

I would steer very well clear.

Weedsnseeds1 · 19/12/2017 21:26

So you have an alternative C, who actually knows what they are doing, but is not from an EU country?
Can C2 not come over on a business visa, as opposed to a work visa, to temporarily appease the client. Can any C work be done remotely in the meantime?
I have no problem travelling outside the EU for short term work contracts, so provided C2 is willing, would this be a solution.
( I don't speak Klingon, but English seems widely accepted in many countries).

MargaretCavendish · 19/12/2017 21:32

Your involvement is superfluous which would make me question why A and B are letting you take this role. You don't have a problem to solve. B has a problem to solve - they want rid of C. A has a problem to solve - they can't afford to dishonour the contract.
You don't have a problem to solve but A and B have flattered you into thinking you need to provide the solution. I'd be very wary if I were you.

This. So much this. I think you're being flattered and manipulated - and I'm sorry but the fact that you seem to think this humdrum and slightly nasty piece of tedious office politics makes you James Bond suggests it's working! B wants you to do her dirty work in a way that keeps her hands clean. Your direct involvement has few benefits for you (everything you want to happen can happen without you) but comes with a pretty huge risk that it all goes a bit wrong and you get blamed.

ToucheEcat · 19/12/2017 21:32

I'ld run for the hills. Just because A & B say they've got your back, doesn't really guarantee anything if the shit hits the fan, and you've got a tribunal on your hands.

Original poster
PlaceAtTheTable · 19/12/2017 21:34

I think I can beat describe this as 'mutually agreed goal conflict': HR is fine with me getting what I want as plan B. I'm being offered plan B as a solution in exchange for ammunition on plan A, should plan B not pan out.

Basically, they're agreeing to accept second best in exchange for arguments on favour of optimal, from their POV.

OP posts:
NoSquirrels · 19/12/2017 21:37

But they don’t need you for ammunition on Plan A - it’s alrwady been offered and refused, they have ammunition without you...

Original poster
PlaceAtTheTable · 19/12/2017 21:39

As for who needs whom: A needs me because I have a better network. A has all the formal power - I'm the one with the connections.

From B's POV, I'm replaceable with anyone in a similar position. B's a friend - but not an 'I'd kill for you' one.

I trust A implicitly. As long as A is around, I'll be okay. We could make each other fall and wouldn't, for a second, entertain the notion. I trust B conditionally - it's the sort of relationship that'll hold up so long as I'm considered a rising star and B benefits from being seen as my champion.

OP posts:
NoSquirrels · 19/12/2017 21:42

Just tell A - here is C, qualified in Klingon. B says if you press him to take it they’ll support it, even if he’d rather not.

Why is that not an option?

HolyShet · 19/12/2017 21:43

Excellent intergalactic explanation

C is shit at what they fancy doing. A needs skills C can offer. Contractually C is obliged to do work they are assigned but is unaware of that.

Neither the "entrapment" or blackmail bits would sit well with me. This kind of stuff comes back to haunt you.

Can't you just say you want/need C on the team (because you do) leave the other information out of it and get HR to say 'you have to, its in your contract?"