> aren't hiring "their chums" out of some unethical sense of helping their friends who don't deserve it, they're hiring people they know and who they have good reason to believe are going to help them succeed
No one says "I'm going to unethically help people who don't deserve it," so let's discard that part.
They're cheating at the normal hiring practice, not allowing other candidates in, because they think it gives them some sort of advantage. And that doesn't look entirely ethical.
It's only deemed "business unethical" if someone can prove discrimination in court, though. And that's honest.
> They're cheating at the normal hiring practice, not allowing other candidates in, because they think it gives them some sort of advantage.
No, they're not "cheating," they are taking a shortcut to a known good candidate so they can get their job done quickly. If you need an employee and you know of one that would meet your needs, you have no obligation to search far and wide just in case there's someone else who's just as qualified out of some sense of fairness. The fact that some organizations behave as if that's a requirement is simply a self-imposed (or sometimes contractually-imposed by some other org e.g. via government contract) safety mechanism that helps reduce the opportunity for corruption (or the appearance of corruption).
I don't think that is being honest.
> aren't hiring "their chums" out of some unethical sense of helping their friends who don't deserve it, they're hiring people they know and who they have good reason to believe are going to help them succeed
No one says "I'm going to unethically help people who don't deserve it," so let's discard that part.
They're cheating at the normal hiring practice, not allowing other candidates in, because they think it gives them some sort of advantage. And that doesn't look entirely ethical.
It's only deemed "business unethical" if someone can prove discrimination in court, though. And that's honest.