What is a subordinate to do?

I recently read an article published in early March about the suspension of 16 current and former registered representatives of State Farm VP Management Corp for misconduct involving FINRA's Continuing Education requirements for registered representatives.
Nine of the sanctioned representatives were supervisors who directed or allowed subordinates to take a proficiency test for them. One was a supervisor who directed a subordinate to take the test for other registered representatives. Six of the sanctioned representatives completed the proficiency test for their supervisors. What the article does not include is the number of subordinates, if any, who were asked to take the test for their supervisor and refused. If there are any out there, I offer my heartfelt thanks for taking the ethical high road in a situation that could have cost you your job.
While I have never been asked to take a test for a supervisor I have been asked by a supervisor to cover claims that were clearly not covered. I am happy to say that I refused and there were no repercussions from that refusal. The supervisor just went ahead and issued the payment himself. While I could not stop the payment, at least I had the piece of mind that it did not come from me.
So how do you react when asked to do something by a superior that violates your personal code of ethics? How do you weigh the possible consequences, such as losing your job, when faced with this type of dilemma? This situation has always been a hard one for me to deal with. First, what kind of supervisor puts an employee in this position? The supervisor has violated the trust given by both the employer and the employee. And how can the employee refuse without serious consequences? Most companies will have a human resources representative who can help out the employee. But many are still afraid to give specifics about the bad behavior of their supervisor because of fear of reprisals.
What this boils down to, at the most basic level, is an abuse of power. Those who are invested with power over others should be held to a very high ethical standard by their employers. To paraphrase Dr. Norm Baglini - "A company is only as ethical as its most unethical employee."

Conflicts of interest

I know many people in the Restoration business as well as many people who are adjusters. I am dismayed to learn of a practice that is occurring, wherein restoration vendors are rewarding adjusters with 25 dollar AmEx gift certificates every time they receive an assignment. I do not know how prevalent this practice is. But even if it is occurring only with one particular vendor and one particular adjuster, that is too often. Adjusters are required to sign conflict of interest statement that prohibit them from accepting gifts from vendors. Now, many if not all of these policies have so wiggle room in them, with language that says if a vendor buys you lunch you can accept it as long as you reciprocate the lunch on another date. And some of these policies may even give a dollar threshold like 25 dollars. But if there is a practice of routinely accepting vendor's gifts that are designed to fly under the radar of the conflicts policy, then the practice is unethical and should be stopped. I understand that many adjusters feel overworked, underpaid and under appreciated. I certainly did when I did the job. And I also know that many will rationalize the gift by saying that it really does not influence their decision about who to give the restoration assignment to. While this may be true, it does give rise to the appearance of impropriety. And the appearance can be just as devastating as the real thing. Imagine what this looks like from the outside looking in.
No one is perfect and everyone will have an occasional lapse in judgement. But a continued practice of accepting gifts is the first step to a more egregious lapse. No one becomes unethical overnight. It occurs in little increments, each one pushing you just a tiny bit more over the line. Then suddenly one day you wake up to find an attorney general at your door with a subpoena.
The vendors in this scenario are just as guilty as the adjusters. The insurance industry is heavily invested in its relationships with vendors. We need them in order to keep our promises to our insureds. They need us to grow their business. With such a symbiotic relationship, why would a vendor jeopardize the relationship and the individual adjuster by making such an offer? What ever short term advantage is gained will ultimately be undermined when the practice comes to light and the vendor is tossed off the "approved" list.