Social distancing at the workplace 

  The workplace is usually controlled by professional rules designed to ensure a convenient and safe work environment for employees and clients. Therefore, these rules guide employees through how to manage the daily work tasks based on the right approach so that employees and clients don't violate the rules or not either side exploited for whatever purpose, namely the management of code of conduct. Employees at different professional ranks have the power, and they are authorized to practice; these rules also regulate this power to ensure that it's not abused. However, it happens when employees, even high position holders, abuse their power, exploiting their co-workers who are at lower positions within the professional loop or influencing clients. Many ways of using power can happen at the workplace to achieve specific goals; it can be offering priorities or briberies, which can occur through the nepotistic relationships among the staff members or with the clients outside of the professional loop.

At this point, I am not going to go into the reasons and the motives behind power abuse at the workplace, as they are various and that requires profound analysis and highlighting it case-by-case to stand up on the circumstances under which a person at the workplace finds himself slipping into power abuse. Moreover, it's essential to consider that sometimes people violate the rules out of their hands, then in such a situation, we should give an excuse. We shouldn't be imperatively judgemental at first glance, ignoring any chance to understand a whole case of violation. The parties who committed the infraction may prove to be innocent. I also believe that one should be given another chance followed by disciplinary sessions or measures, and, of course, based on the surrounding circumstances, as things are sometimes deliberately carried out.

In this context, I would capture a moral issue that intersects one of our commitments to the professional rules at the workplace, which is the social distance with clients. This distance aims to create an environment where officials, managers, and ordinary employees can conveniently work away from clients' socialization. Still, many companies notify their employees on the code of conduct in the first workday, highlighting the significance of social distance policy to avoid potential exploitation. Otherwise, it affects the course of work, as they expect that opening up the door to social relations with clients will lead to negative consequences. For instance, clients might expect something from the employees afterward, and vice versa, and clients might exploit the employees, on the other hand, especially in regards to the secrecy of work and data might be exposed to the clients. 

I am not in contrast with these rules, they indeed guarantee a secure work environment, but I would, in this sense, argue over exceptionality. What is this exceptionality? Arguing over it, I would share my story first.

For a long time, I have been working as an online tutor for Arabic as a foreign language on an international digital platform, which is a company designed for linguistic services. I used to follow the rules, like avoiding discussing political, religious, and sensitive issues, keeping social distance, etc. However, during my long work experiences, I found out that the environment of this profession is conducive to making social relationships and even close friendships. Because the nature of teaching has a basis for discussing various topics, experiences, and adventures that sometimes surpass personal boundaries, it happened several times when my students suddenly began discussing their issues to practice Arabic and express themselves in the context. Each of them had their own goals to reach out through that digital platform. Of course, it includes building new personal and romantic relationships to move out of the country of origin or go through new experiences and adventures. Some students are interested in the melting pot with the other cultures and naturalization, as they are not interested in staying in their societies anymore. However, I should be careful with that when I feel that there is an interest in a serious and honest discussion with the other party's consent. And, if they first initiate this discussion for only the purpose of education and cultural exchange, I go for it, deflecting the sensitive matters. Apart from that, the character's nature and interests strongly indicate the person in the class. I, therefore, immediately deviate into another topic once the person on the other side initiates going into such issues because this person isn't the right person to go into this with them. After all, my intuition guides me on the right path sometimes.

But, the argument mentioned earlier regarding the applicable rules at the workplace refers to the fact that the rule is the rule. It means that topics that may lead to socialization with clients shall be avoidable without mentioning, for instance, if the client was the right one to socialize with, and then go for it. But, we are stuck with a contradictory point that completely negates the so-called neutrality policy in the code of conduct that stipulates all persons shall be treated on equal footing when applying the rules, no matter the person is indeed trustworthy for such socialization. Again, I'm not in contrast with that, though, but I'll move on with my argument to see whether things can be overruled at a certain point and whether exceptionalities are tolerable from the moral perspective. 

Back to my profession, recently, an intelligent, multilingual student began the course very motivated and jubilant. After the first two classes, she began showing pessimistic attitudes, reasoning that to the new environment in the new country where she lives. She pursued new academic experiences at the university and improved her Arabic language. She complained that the surrounding people didn't understand her, maybe because her speech was unclear and funny even though they were sarcastic about her performance, although she tried to immerse herself in the new culture. Later on, seemingly some barriers held her attempts back, and then she explained other reasons that I couldn't understand. Then she cried and cried heartily! I tried to calm her down, saying encouraging words, like "your linguistic performance in the new language is incredible! Try to keep off the negative things, naysayers, etc." Indeed, it was not a mere courtesy; her performance was incredible! Arabic isn't an easy language.

Afterward, my attempts didn't work out for calming her down, and then I offered my assistance as she lived in my country. If she couldn't overcome her despair at a certain point, I would call anyone of my family or friends to try to do something for her. The next class was the same even her situation was worse than in the previous lesson, she wept distressfully, and the scene was gloomy. That concerned me, and I realized that something serious could not be neglected. I even doubted that she was making up a story for triggering my sympathy for a specific purpose, and there was no context to start such a story, though or nothing to be attainable at that moment. Again my frequent attempts to calm her down and offer whatever practical assistance didn't work out, but she kept weeping, giving the same previously mentioned reasons. It turned out that she was alone without close friends to support her in such a situation, in which the pressure of culture shock probably caused that grief. That's why I found myself in a case where it's morally necessary to offer the proper assistance irrespective of my position as a teacher and student. At such a point, I found myself putting the professional rules of social distancing from clients aside to behave based on the values I grew up in them. 

Furthermore, there is an inescapable fact that we are all human beings who have emotions and feelings. We may pass through the same experience, as the circumstances sometimes control us. Therefore, under certain circumstances, our moral boundaries will imperatively drive us to sympathize and stay in solidarity with each other in a hard time. But, the dilemma that could occur is if your client showed up in such a situation and assisted him, then it turned out that he was making up a story, and then you'll regret having helped him. It makes you lose trust in all clients even though another one has claimed to have difficulties pleasing certain assistance and proved to be honest. Yes, here is the dilemma distrusting people around, looking at them from the same lens though some are honest, because an exploitation case was filed. Therefore, tackling such a dilemma takes us back to applying the rules of code of conduct that stipulate that the ordinance shall be used to all people indiscriminately, no matter they are honest or not.

That's a practical approach to follow, which means if a client claims to have had troubles and is in urgent need of help, you at your position should think wisely about how to handle such cases. The whole situation is like a conflict we live under between the code of conduct and the ramifications of overstepping them. On the one hand, the concerns of exploitation hover over the scene all the time. And the moral perspective of sympathizing with some clients who may prove to have believable heart-breaking stories. Eventually, no one wishes to be fired from his job because of violating the rules, and meanwhile, many of us like to behave humanly and morally with people who require help.

Here is the argument that what comes in the code of conduct may be overruled under exceptional circumstances, under which we find ourselves overruling certain items. Meanwhile, the code of conduct at the workplace is indispensable, while behaving according to it guarantees that the course of work will run, keeping the employees and the clients in the safe zone away from potential exploitation from either side. I reconfirm that it doesn't mean if a client one day showed up broken down and if we offered help would be violating the professional rules at the workplace. The argument is again that such a thing is not for encouraging people to abuse their power and break the rules but to be innovative and wisely handle the issues at the workplace. To ensure that you're still in the safe zone, once you're encountered with such attitudes, you should promptly inform the staff members or the boss who'll consult it with you to ensure whether a particular issue is safe to go into by yourself or not. In addition to that, regular discussions of morality and sympathy at the workplace and how to apply them in the proper context are highly recommended topics for which organizations or whatever aspects should design workshops and courses.