David A. Frenkel

Mobility and loyalty in labour relations: an Israeli case

Employee mobility is a phenomenon that challenges workplace ethics. This paper argues that despite on-going attempts by management and consultants to build and install employee loyalty, and despite the complexity of relationships between employees and their organization, employee mobility remains a common phenomenon in today’s market. Courts, at least Israeli courts, perceive the employee–employer relationship as almost purely contractual and thus strive to protect workers first, often ignoring deeper commitments such as loyalty. This results in a certain dissonance in the relationships between employees and employers.

Human rights in industrial relations - the Israeli approach

Basic human rights are supposed to protect people from abuse and harm. They are the means whereby we protect our humanity. One would expect, therefore, that basic human rights would be valid and sacred in any context, including industrial relations. However, the complexity of the employee–employer relationship obscures this issue, and it is not clear whether such rights can be protected or whether they are valid in the context of industrial relations. Since rights are relational, they are preconditioned on the special nature of the relationship between employee and employer. Hence, the specific meaning that these rights have in industrial relations cannot be grounded in the notion of human rights as such, but rather depends on the special relationships between employers and employees. Though much legislation has been passed to regulate the relationship between employees and employers, the issues surrounding this relationship remain one of the most debated topics in business ethics. Our paper focuses specifically on the right to equal pay and the right to privacy. With respect to the right to property, the paper examines whether there is a conflict between general human rights and the fundamental right of employers to their property. The Israeli legislature has responded to this conflict by enacting ‘protective laws’ that legally outline and mandate certain human rights. Under these laws, employees are prevented and prohibited from waiving the rights granted to them by law, even if employed in private industries. Despite this legislative effort, market forces are at times stronger, and consequently some basic rights are not fully applied or implemented.

The israeli approach to advertising: Ethical and legal norms

The Israeli approach to advertising consists of two complementary sets of norms, legal norms and moral-ethical norms. Advertising legislation demands honest disclosure. The Israeli legislator refrains from intervening in fundamental rights such as freedom of expression, free trade, occupation, and liberty of contract in advertising. However, there are also few interventions to prevent phenomena that are dangerous or abusive, especially to groups needing protection. The Israeli courts do try to apply moral considerations in cases tried by them, but living up to moral responsibilities is different from complying with legal obligations. Advertisers in Israel have a(i) Treatise(r), consisting of ten ethical guidelines, which neither sums up advertising ethics in its entirety nor is legally binding. Sociological and psychological features of the culture need to be examined in order to spell out what truth and honesty in advertising actually mean in this society, and the manner in which these values are practised. Lacking sanctions in public law against misleading consumers or manipulation based on false facts, consumers must find remedy in civil actions which rely on moral and ethical rules.

Euthanasia in Israeli law

The Israeli Penal Law of 1977, as amended, legal duty to perform. The question, however, may defines manslaughter as causing the death of another arise regarding withdrawal services already started, person by an unlawful act or omission [1]. One of like disconnecting from mechanical devices, which the alternative definitions of murder in the same law may result in shortening the dying period and letting is causing the death of any person with premeditation the patient die. [2]. Causing death means also hastening, by act or This question is not only a medical or legal one, omission, the death of a person suffering under any but involves also questions of ethics and values. It disease or injury apart from such act or omission that includes also the long discussed question whether a would have caused death [3]. The Israeli Penal Law patient may refuse treatment, or may decide upon also prohibits abetting or aiding suicide [4]. termination of his life. Euthanasia means ‘easy death’. This term is based The Israeli courts have never accepted the defense on two Greek words: eu5good (easy), and allegation of ‘mercy killing’. Thus, the district court thanatos5death. Sometimes it is named ‘mercy of Tel-Aviv convicted a mother who shot her son to killing’, which may hint the feeling and attitude of death out of what she claimed to be ‘mercy killing’. the speaker. The son suffered from a terminal cancerous disease. Euthanasia is used mainly in connection of termiWhen his pains were unbearable, according to what nally ill patients. It may take the form of two she testified in court, he asked her to kill him. The possibilities: active and passive. Active euthanasia, is court sentenced the mother to imprisonment of 1 an intentional act, like giving some medicines or year. The court said the Israeli law did not recognize injecting some drugs to the patient in order to hasten the term ‘mercy killing’. The judge continued and his death, or giving medical assistance to the patient said that in our society one of the sacred principles is to aid him to commit suicide. Passive euthanasia is the right to live [5]. Prior to this decision there had simply refraining from any act that may prolong life, been some other cases, e.g., convicting a mother who like not connecting to any mechanical life saving killed her retarded son by putting an overdose machine. While active euthanasia is forbidden in sleeping tablets in his food [6] and a father who Israel and will be considered as unlawfully causing tried, unsuccessfully, to end the life of his mentally death, passive euthanasia may be permissible. For ill son [7]. the definition of causing death, omission means On the other hand, where there was a possibility to refraining from doing any act which a person has a cure a person, his refusal for treatment was rejected by the attending physicians, who operated on him

Civil Commitment Under Israeli Law

Civil commitment of mental patients is a rather delicate issue and might serve as a gauge of the value system of a society. It constitutes a compromise between the needs and rights of society and those of the sick individual, as well as a safeguard of the rights of patients.