An employee named Jack for name's sake made an incident report on an issue at work. Jack has been with the company for about six weeks. He was following standard rules and expectations of his job.

The subject of his report named John failed to comply with standard rules and expectations. John had been with the company for about two years. The incident involved job communication between Jack and John.

Jack's explanation followed standard procedures, and John's explanation was conditioned on his circumstances at the time.

While they talked about the incident, no resolution was met as each holds own grounds.

Jack offered to make an incident report to the supervisors for improvement and John didn't care.

Jack emailed the report to the regional supervisor and 'CC' the head office. The regional supervisor named Sam was assigned to resolve the issue. Sam's finding follows a minor difference in both explanations.

At the same time, other workers have seen the incident report and not only made their opinions heard but also to show their support for John.

Sam the supervisor is aware of this development at work. He is caught up in a natural state of conflict of interest. You see, if Sam makes a decision based on following rules and principles, then John is at fault. But if he rules against John, he becomes an unpopular supervisor with workers. So his own self-interest influenced his decision not to find John at fault.

Usually in normal circumstances, no one is exempted from the rule. But when the supervisor slides on principles, his authority is also compromised. He will always be controlled by external influence.

The workers lobby represents other indirect influences such as politics and peer pressure ruling the organisation of work. And in the absence of principle rules and regulations, many innocent workers especially new employees are subjected to unfair treatments.

I have given the process at work the name Prolific Organisation. Prolific organisation is not necessarily doing the right thing or following standard procedures, but keeping on side with majority rules and their popular choices.

Some workers comply with standard procedures and regulations but struggle for what is right against the majority. This comes at the expense of isolation, bullying, threats and even losing a job.

It appears that if you are a new employee and you don't submit to the majority, there's a good chance you could be sacked within 90 days as per 90-day law.

What you must also know is that the site is a smoke free environment. Jack is a non-smoker but John and his workmates are all smokers. Smoking in a smoke free environment is a crime under the Smoke Free Environment Act 2000. And there you have it, the workplace is ruled by criminals.

Is there a place for ethics at work or anywhere else in modern societies? What's the point of borrowing thousands to acquire a qualification when criminals can have their way with work?

And similar organisations rule Internet Service Providers and clients. There is a whole lot of manipulation going on. It's a paradise for Internet business.

Settling in a northern suburb of wellington, Sione goes about establishing an Internet connection. This is after the agent for the landlord refused to make good of the landlord's responsibilities against advice from Tenancy Service.

The first ISP Sione rang made a verbal agreement by phone. But five days later his connection is still not working. And at the same time, the ISP has already debited his account not only for monthly charges but also for administration fees. Sione felt helpless as he was locked into a contract that he has already paid for but the product hasn't been delivered. Further, if he pulls out of the contract now, he is threatened with an early dis-connection penalty fee of over two hundred dollars.

How's that? His account is already debited but the product hasnt been delivered on time as agreed to, and conditioned to be liable for penalty fees should he pull-out now.

Sione's blood was boiling and he told the company to terminate his contract. The outcome is still under negotiation.

Sione rang another ISP company only to go through the same contractual process, and four days later the modem has yet to be delivered. This company had already sent invoices for monthly charges, activation and modem, and none of which had eventuated.

I know their lawyers are busy looking for some technical term to rib off customers.

The third ISP Sione contacted told him that the first company he had a contract with still had their bar on the landline. This third company have got Chorus to remove that bar before activation is possible. And you know what, that invalidated the second company invoices of a service when the previous company still had a bar on the landline.

You see the powerful technological companies, landlords and big corporation use their power to force customers to non-existing services. And having no authority, the consumer is helpless to the above exploitation in the hundreds of dollars.

You see, there are no ethics in business whether you're an employee or a consumer.

Under Prolific organisation, the customer has to endure unethical standards. But how much longer can you deny yourself respect when made nothing more than a means of exploitation for business and for work?

Prolific organisation emerged in the absence of employee representation. It gave power to the employer to dictate the terms of contracts against the vulnerable employee and customer.