Logo Temporaries Now

PHONE: 703-914-9100

Linkedin Facebook Twitter yelp

Give us a call today to discuss your needs.

703-914-9100

Employer header img

"We place the finest candidates with the best organizations while upholding the highest professional standards of ethics."

Since trust and integrity are the bedrock on which our company is founded, Gaskins Search Group and Temporaries Now pledges to subscribe to the highest standards of ethical behavior in conducting its everyday business with regard to its clients, its full-time and temporary employees, its suppliers, and the community. In pursuit of this goal, Temporaries Now will:

 

Observe strictly all laws and regulations governing the performance of our company activities;

 

Carry out our obligations to our clients, our temporaries and our full-time staff, striving for excellence, honesty and integrity for all;

 

Assure that our employees are well-suited to fulfilling the needs of the client, using such interviewing techniques and testing methods as may best determine such suitability;

 

Respect the dignity of our employees and those seeking employment with us;

 

Support the letter and spirit of all Equal Employment Opportunity laws and all Civil Rights laws, at all times, under all conditions;

 

Provide equal opportunities for employment, promotion and advancement to all applicants based upon their qualifications for the job, without regard to race, color, creed, national origin, sex, age, physical handicap, or any other protected category;

 

Prohibit the harassment of an employee by any other employee, supervisor, manager, or client. Although precisely defining harassment is not easy, it definitely includes unwelcome jokes or comments, sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, unwanted touching, and other physical or verbal conduct.

 

Want to take our Ethics Test? Find our Ethics Test below.

 

For more on ethics issues, try a visit to the Ethics Resource Center.

Our Policy on Ethics

The examples below run from the trivial to the extreme, but they all make a point. You've probably encountered one or more if you live in the hard-bitten world of reality.

 

1. Share the glory. You're writing the monthly status report to the board detailing division performance. The talk in the corridor is about the incredible success resulting from an innovative strategic suggestion, first suggested by a rival from another department. The trouble is, you really dislike the guy. It's personal. You deliberately fail to acknowledge his contribution and take all the glory yourself. Right or wrong?

 

2. The silent kickback. You're a consultant. A client, who trusts you implicitly, asks you to recommend a third party vendor for a planned capital purchase. You provide a vendor recommendation but fail to mention that the vendor is going to commission you on the lead. It is the classic 10 percent off the top routine. Incidentally, the vendor in question does good work and there's no fiddling with the pricing structure because of your referral fee. Right or wrong?

 

3. He's not in right now. You don't use voice mail and your assistant who screens your call advises that Mr. Unhappy who has been trying to track you down for the past week is on the line. You have time to take the call. Courtesy alone dictates you take it, but you blow it off with excuses such as, "He's in a meeting," or "He's on the phone talking to London." Right or wrong?

 

4. Broken promises. Your research firm recently sold a "proposed" industry study to a group of clients based on the guarantee that you'll be conducting interviews with 100 industry experts. Because of logistical difficulties, you only complete 75 of the interviews, but you're still going to lose a ton of money on the deal. You priced the study too low to begin with and it ended up absorbing more time than you had projected. Your clients, who bought the study, have already prepaid and like the results even though you fell short of the guaranteed interview count. You choose to remain silent and not rebate your clients for the shortfall. Right or wrong?

 

5. The refund not refunded. You're flying to meet a client in another city. At the last minute, you decide to extend the trip to visit a second client while you're on the road. The deal is that your clients always rebate you in full for travel expenses. You bill both clients for the full, return airfare from your city to theirs in spite of the fact that you were able to secure a multicity, discounted fare and in the process made money on the deal. Right or wrong?

 

6. The money-back guarantee. Your sales literature clearly states that an unsatisfied customer is entitled to a full refund or credit regardless of the reason or the cause. You do a job that fails to meet a client's needs, but, due to mutual negligence and a lack of clear definition, your client chooses to pay you and let the matter drop. You believe that you went above and beyond the call of duty in addressing the client's needs. But, you still don't offer a refund. Right or wrong?

 

7. The plane crash. You're the marketing director of a major airline. One of your planes crashes because of airline negligence. You know that you have to expose the airlines insurance representatives to the next-of-kin as soon as possible in order to negotiate quick settlements. The longer the delay, the greater the risk that a class action lawsuit attorney will get to them first and force protracted litigation, which in turn will result in higher settlement costs. It doesn't feel right to force a confrontation with the next-of-kin at their greatest moment of vulnerability but you do it anyway. Right or wrong?

 

8. The name dropper. You and I meet for the first time. During the meeting, you ask me to provide names of friends and associates, people who might be prospects for your product or service. You subsequently write them a letter and in the opening paragraph you mention that the referral came from me. The problem is, you did it without my permission. When I gave you the names, I neglected (and you deliberately failed) to mention the issue. Right or wrong?

 

9. The fake RFP. You're the head of a young, aggressive advertising agency and you'd love to know how your competitors package and present themselves. So you fake an RFP for an imaginary account that's up for review, send it out and specify that responses be mailed to a blind postal address. Your competition wastes precious time responding to a fictitious request for proposal and you gain valuable insights into your competitors' psychology and marketing technique. Right or wrong?

 

10. Fresh from the faucet. You're in the bottled water business. Unlike your competitors' products, your water doesn't come from a natural source. No gurgling springs for you. You take good old-fashioned town water, distill it, treat it and package it with a fake, natural-sounding name, together with label artwork resplendent with waterfalls and bubbling brooks. A classic case of the reality not matching the perception. But it's great marketing. Right or wrong?

 

I failed seven of the 10 and consider myself an honest and honorable person. How did you do?

 

This material is ©Alf Nucifora, and is used with his kind and gracious permission. You can find him at: Alf Nucifora, Nucifora Consulting Group, 6520 Powers Ferry Road, Suite 300, Atlanta, GA 30339, Phone 770-952-2112, Fax 770-952-7834, Alf@Nucifora.com or www.Nucifora.com.

Ethics Test

The Region's Premier

Permanent & Temporary

Placement Service

nhraloho napslogo shrmlogo

"This is only a test." It's time again to brush up on our business ethics. It's time to do a little soul searching and kneeling at the confessional. As always, we're not concerned with the easy choices, the well-known vices of envy, greed, sloth or coveting anything of thy neighbor. The emphasis here is on the subtler offenses that tend not to get much attention in either the Sunday pulpit or in the pages of Forbes Magazine.

Top 10 Rights or Wrongs

Our Mission Statement

Ethics and Corruption

There is a belief that people become corrupt very gradually. A recent research study indicates that this may not be the case.

 

Participants in this study were involved in a game in which the goal was to win a contract with the government. To secure this contract they had to bid against other contestants. In the event of a tie, the contract was split evenly unless a participant had bribed the government official.

 

Participants were either offered two opportunities to bribe the official, a small bribe followed by a larger bribe, or only one opportunity for the larger bribe.

 

The results show that participants were more likely to bribe the official when they were only offered the single larger bribe than when offered both.

 

These results indicate that the leap to corruption can happen quickly and all of us need to be very vigilant.

 

Yudkin, D., Kobis, N., & Van Lange, P. (2017, February 21). Leaping into Corruption. Retrieved February 22, 2017, from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/leaping-into-corruption/