So I'm supposed to be looking for a job to start my career, right? Now, I have no interest in pursuing anything for any serious length of time, but I do have bills to pay so I need a job, preferably one that pays well. This has gotten me thinking of what kind of jobs to look for.
Given that I'm reasonably intelligent, with an impressive sounding undergrad degree from a decent school, I imagine that I could look to the pharmaceutical or biotechnology industries for good pay. However, I have serious misgivings about the behavior of some of these major pharma/biotech companies. Their lobbying efforts in Washington, to pick one, are reprehensible in some cases.
Here's a hypothetical: Say I am offered a nice cushy job with Pfizer (in nearby Southeastern Connecticut!), where I can make plenty of money selling cancer drugs or giving old men long-lasting boners. Can I do that job with a clear conscience knowing that profits generated by my labor are being used to buy legislation that bans drug imports from Canada? How responsible am I, as a worker, for the elderly woman who can not afford medications which would make her life better?
If I don't take an available job, though, I'm sure that a less conscience-burdened individual would take the job. So if it's going to be done whether or not I take the job, shouldn't I just do it and perhaps use my good pay to do good elsewhere (ah, assuaging liberal guilt, right?)
(I'm sure this type of thing has been hashed out in plenty of psychology and philosophy classes that I never took)
Anyway, I might being heading into America-hater territory here, but what got me thinking of this question of responsibility was Paul Johnson's murder in Saudi Arabia. He was the American beheaded by al-Qaeda last week after being taken hostage. Their justification for kidnapping and murdering him was based on his job as a mechanic (or something) who worked on Apache helicopters which America uses to kill al-Qeada terrorists and Iraqi insurgents and anyone else who gets in our way.
In war everyone, I think, understands that people will defend themselves and fight for their lives, so no one should expect terrorists to walk up to American soldiers so our boys can kill them simply because they're "the bad guys." So if there's an Apache bearing down on an insurgent-manned bunker, I don't think anyone finds it morally reprehensible that those in the bunker would try to shoot down the copter, right? If the enemy sees soldiers running to their helicopters to fire missiles at an enemy encampment, they're going to try to kill the pilots or destroy the copters, which seems to fit the rules of engagement, it's war, after all. What about ambushing supply trucks to cut off necessities to troops at the front? The supply drivers aren't actually killing anyone, but by doing their job they directly enable others to do the killing. Are they fair targets? Would we take a similar opportunity to cut off our enemies? What if those supply truck drivers aren't actually in the military, but hired by it? Are they as responsible for the death of a man with the bullet they brought to the soldier who used it to kill? Or is the truck driver innocent, or just doing their job? How far back does responsibility go? Is the man who repairs the truck responsible, since without his work, the truck would not have made it to the front? What about the person who owns the truck? What if the person is a company? What if the truck was bought with tax-payer money? Are we responsible for the life of someone killed with a bullet we bought? We (supposedly) hold those who fund terrorists who kill Americans responsible for their part, is it so difficult to understand that the enemy in the war we are fighting hold us similarly responsible? We have a government elected and abided by the citizenry, are we responsible for its actions? Or are comparisons inapt, as the American people, as a whole, are certainly not evil.
As with most things, I don't have answers. But it's gotten me thinking.
Subscribe to A Cry for Help
I’m not liking where this is going….
so, you’re saying that it’s OK for terrorists to target the American public, because, hey after all, we bought the bullet that was used in Iraq??
That’s a bullshit, terrorist-appeasing attitude.
You’re starting to sound more and more like an asshat from the Democratic Underground….
You don’t want to work for a pharma/biotech company because of their lobbying practices? There aren’t a whole lot of companies that don’t lobby so good luck finding a job with one. As far as the reprehensible things that big pharma sometimes does (and I agree that they do) you have to weigh that against the good. I personally do in fact work for big pharma (former biotech company that got assimilated). I’m not particularly fond of the company that bought us or their policies but the majority of people who work in then industry do it because they want to help people not becuase they want to make money.
If you want to do that continue your eduaction and go into law, business or medicine. Pharma pays well but still on the low end of the pay scale for comparable degrees.
On the other hand if you want to help produce product that save peoples live you might want to consider pharma. I know for a fact that I’ve helped produce drugs that have made huge differences in peoples lives. I know because I’ve me them and they’ve told me.
As far as price goes yes drugs are expensive but if you want new drugs you have to pay for that research somehow. Pharma has never turned a profit anything like high tech but no one complains that new pcs cost too much and why does a pc cost $1500 when the parts could be had for $200. Is medicine supposed to be free? Good luck finding someone to make it. Things aren’t perfect, I wish pharma didn’t spend so much marketing and lobbying but I can’t do much about that. Drigs in Canada cost less because the government of Canada negotiates price with the industry. That’s something that the US has expressly forbidden. SO who’s fault is that. Yes the industry lobbied for it but your senators and congressmen voted for it.
Sorry to go on a rant about this but it’s a bit of a touchy spot when people start saying things that make everyone in the pharmaceutical industry out to be scumbags only interested in making a buck.
Jim, I’m not saying anything, I’m asking questions. The important one, stuck in the middle of the big paragraph, was this: [In your job] How far back does responsibility go?
Read into that what you want, but it’s a question with far-reaching consequences that most people dont’t think about.
Bob, no need to apologize for rants, we love them!
I didn’t mean to portray the pharmaceutical industry as full of scumbags at all. You’re definitely right with all the points you bring up.
Like you said, you have to weigh the good and the bad, and also there’s things you, as an employee, don’t like but can’t do anything about. That’s really at the bottom of what I’m thinking about. At what point are workers responsible for their employers’ actions (the same, I should say, goes for union members and their leadership).
And most importantly, is your company hiring? I know someone looking for a job…
First things first:
1. Your job is not your life.
2. Your life is not your job.
3. Money and benefits take presidence over all other things.
Find whatever job u can and stick with it until the bills are paid and if you find another one jump to that one and so on.
If you can find a job you like then you are one of the lucky ones.
Hi Bil,
I agree with RK. You can always put in your time and move on. Yes my company is hiring. Don’t know specifics but if you’re interested you can take a look at the company web site (see my email address to figure out which company). If you ahve any specific questions I’d be glad to answer them. Drop me an email.
Bob
I’ve been thinking a lot about this issue lately as well. The question of “where does the chain of responsibility end…” It depends on a couple of factors…
1) What the issue is…
2) What the penalty is…
3) Who is deciding the issue and penalty…
4) How the penalty is decided…
In the case of Johnson, while there is a “war” on and in a sense you can say that Johnson was part of the “supply” chain, the penalty was death, it wasn’t a formal government making that decision, and there was no trial… In my opinion, end of story…
Ask the Israelis… If these radicals could get their hands on any American at all there, they’d be dead… The whole “he repairs Apache helicopters” is a weak cover… What “combatant” was that poor South Korean Arabic translator in Iraq?
Garris