As delightful as “black and white” clarity is, I think it’s all too rare. Sometimes it’s there, just camaoflaged, and has to be pointed out. What’s obvious to one has to be pointed out to another.

We wrestle with conclusions we don’t want to reach. Sometimes the more we toss the thing around, the more sides to it we see.

I have many times found it necessary to help others reduce their dilemna to it’s most simple element so they can make an important decision by ruling only on that part of the issue.

Let’s see how something simple can be cluttered up with details that make the obvious become a cloudy mess. We’ll use an entirely fictitious situation.

1)Juan Rodriquez’s boss demands that he use his print technology expertise to alter a document that mimics one which if authentic would be worth $12,500.00.

2)Juan refuses, citing the illegality.

3)The boss persists and will not back down. He demands to at least see what a similar document would look like. Juan makes one.

4)Juan, not wanting to break the law, offerers his resignation.

Juan, we can agree, is justified in quitting and would qualify for unemployment compensation.

Let’s make it more complicated, just to see if the same conclusion may be reached without changing any facts.

At step 1) the boss points out that if the document had been printed six months prior, it would be authentic anyway, which is true. There fore, he reasons, it is as legitimate to predate it as to have printed it at the earlier time.

Does this change the situation? The boss reasons that if other people believe the changed date, then that legitimizes the document in their mind and so it is as good as original.

Juan rejects this, saying that for the document to be legitimate it had to be printed on the original date, not made later and altered. He believes that the alteration is deceptive.

5)His boss does not agree. Juan is a valuable long time employee. The boss rejects the resignation and demands that Juan stay on.

Juan explains that he is not quitting only on this issue only, but because of numerous previous acts of deception and abuse by the boss which makes continued employment with him risky and untenable. Juan is afraid to stay and doesn’t want associated with corrution. The boss asks if Juan thinks he runs a shady operation.

The boss refused to pay vendors, had employees sign contracts that they were not responsible to pay, withheld money from clients, altered commission rates in reports to underpay vendors and employees, offered benefits that were never honored, and shorted employees in their wages. Juan is stunned when he adds it all up.

His boss promises to make right some of the abuses and asks for time.

6)Juan remains employed to train his replacement making it clear that he’ll leave immediately if the old practices are found to continue.

None of the previous abuses are set right. The boss explains, “it’s complicated”.

After four months, Juan determines that the replacement is adequately trained and attempts again to resign. This is rejected and he is told that the training is hardly complete.

A month later, Juan discovers that no effort has been made to repair any of the former issues and that in fact one of the major issues has gotten worse. His retirement plan is said to be missing money, which he learns from his replacement who slipped up and revealed that in answer to an inquiry as to why the year end statements have not been distributed. He senses that something is seriously amiss and that the boss is working not to fix, but to hide what ever it is. Seven months into this entirely fictitious scenario Juan responds by resigning. The resignation is rejected. The boss demands written notice and says he doesn’t have time to discuss this. Juan quits anyway and returns his office key.

Questions now arise. If Juan did not quit at the trigger event of this fictitious situation but remained on staff another seven months, was he really justified in quitting? Maybe it was just an excuse.

Juan, after all, is an expert kayak maker and would love to start his own business building wooden ocean going kayaks. His work is excellent, and it’s what he does after work most nights in his garage.

Juan begins to believe that this is the time to do that. He does not trust his employer because of a long observed history of the employer taking advantage of vendors, clients, employees, and even Juan. He realizes that the love of money and a preoccupation with dominating has led his boss to vast wealth.

Juan has only sold two kayaks in his whole life. He is not a business man. He has no customers, no orders, and no business through which to operate. He decides to file for unemployment.

Should he do it? Juan realizes that in quitting, he must present reasonable justification. Doing so would expose inner workings of his former company, possibly harming the enterprise and thereby it’s employees. He realizes that his boss is crazy dedicated to the almighty buck, and could react in ugly ways. Since his boss has built a life largely dependent on deceptions, that is his area of expertise.

If Juan simply walks away, his savings will quickly deplete. The retirement fund, which has already been seriously gutted by the boss who did not carry through with promises to replenish it with company distributions  as a retention tool, is hinted to be underfunded by the boss. It may have been wiped out, leaving Juan without anything. To seek unemployment funds, Juan must expose his boss using his first hand knowledge of deceptive practices. Juan has no job prospects. He’s too old. The boss potentially has millions of dollars available and can hire the best attorneys to do battle. Juan will not have to face that goliath if he simply walks away and says nothing, reveals nothing as previous employees decided to do.

The boss nods and says, “Now, you’re getting the hang of it.”

Simple?

Juan can take his chances and rely on his kayak making ability, but has no idea how to build a business. It could work, or he could discover that Kayaks are not in big demand or that his can not compete at a price point that keeps him fed and watered. He could be financially destroyed.

His boss will fight the bid for unemployment not on principle, but simply to teach Juan a lesson. To quote from the movie, “Matilda” he’s thumping his finger in Juan’s chest and reminding him, “I’m big. You’re little. I win. You lose.” At the end, he blows a thick billowing breath from his stoogie into Juan’s eyes. Then he says, “Kapeesh? Do we understand? ” In a condescending tone he adds, “Now go play.”

Juan realizes that he can join the ranks of all the others who have been brushed off like insects and be left alone to rise of fall on his own merits. The loyalty he’s unfailingly shown his boss, even to the keeping of his embarrassing little secret was simpy a perk that the boss expected.

Juan wonders, if his boss has built his empire on the labors of others, aided by rich application of deceptions then what lengths could his boss go to secure victory over this insolent little worm who dares to defy him? Few know the extent to which their association with this fellow is a ruse and many would defend him unawares with vigor.

Who knows, perhaps the boss could use his influence to do serious harm. It’s a mismatch of power.

Thank god it’s all imaginary.

If not, then Juan, Juan! What have you stepped in?

Should he file for the unemployment benefits, or simply walk away? He faces monsterous possibilities either way, and both are pretty predictable. Or they would be, if any of this were real.

Black and White can be very colorful!