You know the statement- all men are created equal. The problem is that it’s a lofty goal- and one open to terribly wrong interpretations.
For example, if we charge every person $ 400 for the right to sue in court, that sounds like we are treating folks equally. But, what if a very poor person wants to sue his or her landlord for repairs to the apartment. From where do you suppose that $ 400 will come? Or, for their attorney fees? (This is the reason why those who can’t afford representation are supposed to be provided counsel in criminal cases. The problem is that these court appointed attorneys are underpaid, overworked, and lack the resources of the state or federal authorities. To top it off, just the other day the Virginia Supreme Court refused to require prosecutors to share police reports, witness statements, or witness lists with defense attorneys. But, that’s an argument for another blog post.)
This is the problem with mandatory sentencing, too. The crime is listed in the book so the sentence is proscribed- regardless of the circumstances. Do you really believe that someone with three kids and out of work, who stole meals for all of them is the same as the one who takes $ 100 from an elderly couple walking down the street at night? (Proof that our politicians are never akin to King Solomon…)
What about ‘equal’ in the workplace? Is it ok to treat every employee equally badly? (Don’t answer that. That seems to be the current modus operundi for way too many employers nowadays.) No, the goal should be (if you want motivated and enlightened employees) to treat everyone fairly. They need to know what is expected, what are the rewards, what are the pitfalls, to ensure the best operations you can achieve.
Which means our actions (I am presuming we are all leaders) must be consistent and devoid of contradictions. This sort of behavior is what one’s staff would consider acting with integrity. (I still love Stephen Covey’s definition for integrity: Honesty means having your statements conform to reality; Integrity means reality conforms to your statements.)
But, fairly means something else, too. When you have the CFO slacking off, taking two hour lunches, and not overseeing the business planning… should s/he be treated the same as the janitor who took too long a lunch hour? I don’t know about you, but I would dock the janitor and require timeclock usage once again (we have timeclocks, but only use them for those who abuse the system) or one’s pay would be withheld for “non-recorded time”. But, that CFO would probably be gone before the day is done. And, both behaviors and corporate responses would be broadcast to all.
Which probably lets you know I believe the US government is wrong for not prosecuting CEOs and CFOs of firms that transgress or those executives that perpetrated the evil that destroyed our economy in 2008-9. Or, to prosecute (that does not mean incarcerate- but try- and if found guilty- punish via fine or other method) folks like Senator Bob Corker (who also is one of the “holier than thou” sorts) who just “found out” that he misstated his income and holdings on EVERY report submitted to the Congressional Offices since 2007. And, sent in corrections- after his numerous elections, and after voting on those very items which affected his wealth.
Sorry. That’s not an oops, either.
