The Right Thing

Sunday, June 28, 2026

Should you tell friends they’re competing for the same job?

If a friend tells you she’s applying for a job and another friend has already told you she is applying for the same job, should you let each friend know?

A reader we’re calling Ganesha wrote that two of her friends recently told her about a job for which they were both applying. Ganesha wants to know if she should tell each of her friends that she knows someone else is going after the same job, even if she doesn’t name the friends.

Disclosure might seem like the kindest and most honest thing to do. Given how long and stressful a job hunt can be, if you have information that affects a friend’s prospects, choosing to say nothing might feel like withholding valuable information. What value, however, would it serve to disclose to each friend that you know someone else is looking for the same job? Neither friend asked Ganesha if she knew if anyone else was applying. Presumably, many others are applying, not just Ganesha’s friends.

Neither of Ganesha’s friends told her about their intentions in confidence. Instead, they were looking for the kind of encouragement, advice, and support that might be expected of any friend. Given that many job searches are taking longer than they used to, such support can be particularly helpful. According to May 2026 data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average job search takes 26 weeks, up from 24.4 weeks in April 2026. Having been through a job search recently herself, Ganesha knows how valuable emotional support can be during the search. She is wrestling with whether disclosing her knowledge about one friend’s intention to another would add any comfort to her friends in what can be an arduous endeavor.

In the past, I’ve had friends, former colleagues and former students sometimes ask me for letters of recommendation for the same position. Occasionally, I’d already agreed to write a recommendation for another candidate for that job. When that has happened, I have told the requester that I had already written a recommendation for someone else for the same job, without disclosing who that other person is. That’s different from Ganesha’s conundrum. Since my recommendation became an actual part of the selection process for the job, disclosing that I had a conflict was appropriate.

Ganesha is not being asked to vouch for either friend. She is not being asked to do anything that might affect the competition for the job being sought. Neither friend has asked her for a written recommendation. If Ganesha were to share her knowledge of either friend’s intention with the other friend, it might not only be awkward, but it might inadvertently make either friend doubt her qualifications for the position more than they might already have doubted them.

There is no obligation for Ganesha to disclose to one friend that the other is applying for the same job. The right thing is for Ganesha to listen to each friend, avoid comparing her to other friends who might be applying, and be as supportive as possible. Avoiding introducing any information that isn’t asked for and doesn’t improve either friend’s chances to get the job should be avoided.

Ganesha is a good friend to worry about what’s best for both friends. If she can be supportive without introducing information that makes their job searches more complicated, she’d be doing them a solid.

Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Simple Art of Business Etiquette: How to Rise to the Top by Playing Nice, is a senior lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at Harvard's Kennedy School. He is also the administrator of www.jeffreyseglin.com, a blog focused on ethical issues.

Do you have ethical questions that you need to have answered? Send them to jeffreyseglin@gmail.com.

Follow him on Twitter @jseglin.

Sunday, June 21, 2026

Is rounding cash transactions fair?

Is it wrong for retailers to round up or down at the cash register now that the U.S. penny is no longer being produced?

A reader we're calling Kash recently returned from a grocery store in southern Massachusetts where a sign at the register explained that, because pennies are no longer being produced, cash purchases would be rounded to the nearest five cents. Totals ending in one, two, six, or seven cents would be rounded down, while totals ending in three, four, eight, or nine cents would be rounded up. This process is known as "symmetrical rounding." Customers paying by credit card, however, would still pay the exact amount.

His grocer's policy struck Kash as odd. He's become accustomed to seeing some businesses charge more for credit card purchases than for cash purchases to offset processing fees. He observed that he might now sometimes end up paying more with cash than with a credit card. Kash asked if that seemed fair.

If Kash's grocer is using rounding on cash purchases to deal with the penny's discontinuation, the most important issue is whether his grocer makes its policy clear and applies it to all customers. Some customers are going to benefit if their totals are rounded down. Others will end up paying a few cents more if their purchases are rounded up.

In the long run, Kash can hope that the number of times his purchase price is rounded up is offset by those times it's rounded down. Or he can avoid guessing which way the purchase price will go by paying with a credit or debit card if he is able. Credit or debit transactions don't face the same challenge as cash transactions since electronic payments don't require a retailer to have pennies in the register to offer as change.

Kash's grocer's policy of adopting a symmetrical rounding system that sometimes benefits itself and sometimes benefits the customers might occasionally be annoying, but it doesn't strike me as unfair. If the rounding rules were set up so the customer always paid more, then Kash's concern about fairness might be warranted.

The grocer was wise to post clearly written signs like the one Kash saw when he got to the cash register. Kash didn't ask the cashier any questions, but the grocer should take the time to train all employees to be able to explain the rounding policy in case they are asked.

Kash joked about trying to figure out how to make purchases so that the final price would always be rounded down. I guess that's possible, but it's unlikely that customers will take the time needed to do that.

Is the rounding rule Kash faced fair? His grocer's rounding policy applies to all cash customers and is clearly posted. That strikes me as a fair response to a practical challenge rather than an attempt to squeeze more pennies out of customers.

The right thing is for Kash's grocer and other businesses to be clear and consistent in how they round cash purchases. Kash and other customers can decide whether such policies are fair. If they want to avoid having to guess whether they will gain or lose a few cents, they can either use an electronic payment method or always carry pennies with them so they can pay with exact change since pennies remain a form of legal tender.

Sunday, June 14, 2026

Should we challenge a friend’s stories about her health?

Is it wrong to call out a friend who seems to be exaggerating or making up illnesses?

A reader I’m calling Amelia wrote that she has grown increasingly concerned about a longtime friend whose stories about ailments, hospital visits and self-diagnosed conditions seem to shift depending on the audience. For years, Amelia has sympathized with her friend’s plight, but she now worries that failing to challenge her may be encouraging dishonest behavior.

While Amelia may suspect her friend is exaggerating, it’s often hard for any of us to know the details of another person’s health. Some medical conditions are difficult to see and hard to diagnose. Those of us who are not medical professionals are rarely in a position to judge another person’s condition. Certainly, Amelia’s friend may be exaggerating or lying, but it could be that she, like many others, isn’t particularly good at describing her condition.

Nevertheless, Amelia may be correct that her friend is making stuff up to garner sympathy or attention. But is it Amelia’s role to police her friend’s behavior?

If Amelia’s friend is spinning stories that do not appear to cause anyone immediate harm, then perhaps the best response for Amelia is to listen and, if these discussions annoy her, try to move the conversation onto a different topic. If the friend’s stories are affecting her and Amelia’s relationship, then Amelia would be right to try to figure out if their friendship can be maintained.

Friendships sometimes require difficult conversations.

Amelia can choose to talk with her friend about her concerns. If Amelia’s friend seems to be causing harm to herself or to others, then staying silent shouldn’t be an option.

Rather than try to call her friend out in public, Amelia’s better course of action may be to talk privately with her friend. She can tell her that she’s confused and worried because of the increased frequency or inconsistencies with her medical stories. There’s no need for Amelia to call her friend a liar. Calling her friend a liar rather than trying to discuss the situation with her is likely to shut down any conversation before it begins.

Amelia’s friend might admit that she has exaggerated or fabricated some of her stories. She may also insist the stories are true. But an honest and calm discussion may also reveal that she is struggling with something she has not known how to explain clearly. Amelia’s willingness to listen could help her friend address whatever is really going on.

She can find a way to speak honestly with her friend without judging her since she likely doesn’t have complete knowledge of the situation. Being a good friend doesn’t require Amelia to blindly believe everything her friend tells her, nor does it require her to call her out among other friends when she believes she’s acted fraudulently. There’s no upside to publicly exposing or shaming her friend. If she would like her friendship to continue, the right thing for Amelia is to figure out a way to show compassion while setting limits.

Sunday, June 07, 2026

Is it OK to share a GoFundMe link?

Is it wrong to post GoFundMe links to fundraising efforts? How can you make such posts without making your followers and friends feel obligated to contribute if they’d prefer not to?

A reader we’re calling Tavish has an adult daughter who with her partner has made a personal decision to do something that’s going to be costly. They’ve decided to raise money through a GoFundMe campaign.

Tavish wants to support his daughter. But he’s concerned that by sharing a link to her GoFundMe page, his friends or colleagues might feel obligated to contribute. He’d like them to if they want to, but he doesn’t want them to feel pressured to do so solely because of his post. He’s also concerned that if he doesn’t post a link to his daughter’s site, she could take that as a sign that he doesn’t really support her.

There’s nothing wrong with Tavish sharing the link if he wants to. Anyone who sees his post is perfectly capable of deciding whether to contribute to the cause or not. Not every fundraiser appeals to everyone, even if they’re important to our friends. Each of us should feel free to ignore any appeals we want.

Granted, it’s much easier to ignore a request from a stranger than it is from someone we know, even if we don’t know him well. It’s fair for Tavish to be concerned that especially close friends and associates might feel obliged to consider giving.

That concern shouldn’t stop Tavish from posting a link if he wants to. But he should make clear in his post that readers should feel no obligation to contribute or respond to his post. If he wants to lessen sending the message that he is urging them to give regardless of their genuine interest in doing so, Tavish would also be wise to post the link once rather than continuing to campaign for funds, with a simple: “For those of you who might be interested here’s the link.” The more persistent Tavish is in posting his request, the more likely it will feel like he’s pressuring people to do so.

Tavish might also consider where he posts the link. If he uses one platform more to connect with family friends and another to connect to his professional audience, he might limit his post to the more personal platform to avoid something that could come off as awkward or inappropriate.

If he wants to avoid trying to shame people into giving, he should avoid the temptation of writing something like “only if you care” or “if you don’t care, don’t give,” which might suggest that he believes those who don’t care are uncaring galumphs.

Even if Tavish is careful about how and what he posts, some readers might feel obligated to give. Tavish can’t really control this, nor should he try. Make the post and let people decide for themselves whether they give. Don’t judge those who don’t.

Tavish can support his daughter and respect his friends and colleagues simultaneously. Share the link once, make it clear he has no expectation that anyone will give, and avoid any language that might instill guilt. The right thing is for Tavish to offer the opportunity for others to help with his daughter’s campaign, without judging those who do or don’t.

Sunday, May 31, 2026

When "my Uber is waiting" isn’t true

Is it wrong to leave a place by telling the host you have an Uber waiting if you simply want to leave?

A reader we’re calling Janice has noticed that people are increasingly using a new excuse when they want to leave a gathering. Rather than simply telling the host they have to get going, that it’s a work night, or that they have an early morning ahead, it’s not uncommon for guests to say “My Uber is waiting” as a way to make a quick exit. Janice wonders whether this shift is harmless shorthand for “I’m ready to leave,” or whether it crosses an ethical line when it’s just an excuse.

The Uber line works because it’s efficient and discourages any pleas from the host to stay a little longer. Few hosts want to be responsible for making you miss your ride. With the Uber excuse, the guest signals that the decision to leave has already been made, closing the door on negotiation.

But what if the “Uber is waiting” line isn’t true? Is this simply a white lie meant to ease a social interaction, or is it a serious lapse in honesty?

If you’ve actually ordered a ride and it’s waiting outside, there’s no deception. But if you haven’t, the statement becomes a convenient fiction. It may seem harmless. Most hosts care less about your reason for leaving than that you take a moment to thank them and say goodbye. But it’s still an unnecessary untruth, offered in place of something simpler and more direct.

There are many honest alternatives to achieve the same goal without lying. A simple “I’ve had a great time, but I’m going to head out,” or “I need to call it a night,” makes your appreciation clear while also making it clear you are going to leave. There’s no need to tell a host you’re bored or eager to escape. Courtesy doesn’t require that level of candor. But neither does it require inventing a reason when a straightforward one will do.

Being dishonest can affect our ability to be straightforward in how we communicate. Why lie when being honest is a simple option? If we begin to tell small lies because it’s convenient to do so, it becomes too easy to see lying as an acceptable option in how we deal with other people.

Being direct, while still being kind, signals respect. It suggests you trust your host to accept your departure without needing a specific justification or an invented detail. Most hosts are unlikely to be offended by a gracious thank you followed by a simple statement that it’s time for you to go.

It may be more convenient to say your Uber is waiting. But unless it actually is, the right thing is to be honest about your need to leave, expressed as politely as you can.

Janice’s observation highlights an increasingly common choice guests face. When we want to leave, we can rely on easy excuses, or we can choose simple honesty. How we respond can define how we choose to communicate with others and ultimately the type of person we hope to be.

Sunday, May 24, 2026

Should you work for free to get a job?

Is it ever OK for a prospective employer to ask a candidate to do work for free?

A reader we’re calling Rosmerta is currently a finalist for several jobs. Two of the prospective employers have asked her to create materials for projects the companies might otherwise have had an employee complete. One company offered to compensate her for the work. The other expected her to complete the assignment without pay. Rosmerta wonders if it was wrong for the second company to ask for her time and effort without compensation.

t’s not unusual for job candidates to provide materials that demonstrate they can do the job and have the necessary skills. It’s reasonable for employers to want to see how applicants might approach the kind of work they’d be expected to do.

But it’s wrong for an employer to go beyond reasonably evaluating a prospective employee’s skills and instead use the situation as an opportunity to get unpaid labor.

It’s fair, for example, to ask for a short writing sample or an analysis of a problem. If the goal is to understand how a candidate works, rather than to have them create materials the company would otherwise have to pay for, then the request is reasonable. Prospective employers should remember that candidates are not yet paid employees.

If a company asks a candidate to develop a marketing campaign, draft detailed proposals or produce materials that could be put into practice, it should expect to compensate the candidate for their time and expertise. Once significant time, expertise and originality are required, it’s difficult to justify not paying for that work.

In Rosmerta’s experience, one company recognized the value of what it was asking by offering compensation. The other did not. It would be reasonable for Rosmerta to use that difference to gauge how each company approaches fairness and respect.

Candidates do not have to accept the premise that their time and expertise aren’t worth anything to a prospective employer. At a minimum, Rosmerta should ask whether her work will be used solely to evaluate her or if it could be used for actual company projects. She can also propose alternatives, such as providing examples of prior work or explaining her approach in an interview. If what a company asks her to do resembles work she would typically be paid for, she can ask about compensation or decline the request.

Employers should also remember that while they are evaluating candidates, candidates are evaluating them. How a company treats people during the interview process sends a message about whether it’s the kind of place someone would want to work.

Rosmerta shouldn’t automatically rule out the company that made the unpaid request. But she should weigh that request—and any offer that follows—carefully. The company that offered to pay her demonstrated respect for her time and expertise. The one that didn’t sent a different message.

Employers are entitled to assess candidates, but the right thing is not to benefit from their labor without acknowledgment or compensation. When companies cross that line, candidates like Rosmerta are right to question it—and to let the answer guide their decisions.

Sunday, May 17, 2026

What dictionaries make of our words, right or wrong

In a Right Thing column I wrote about five years ago, I responded to a former student who asked whether I had really used the word “jamoke” in a 1998 Inc. magazine column about laptop cases. I had. She and a friend had debated whether “jamoke” carried any derogatory connotation. When they looked it up in Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary, she was surprised to find one of my sentences used as an example. I reassured her there was nothing derogatory about the word.

Since then, I’ve discovered that Merriam-Webster has used other sentences I wrote long ago to illustrate how it defines certain words. In that same laptop case article, I had used the word “schmear.” The dictionary also cites two words from a sentence I wrote in a 2019 Right Thing column: “peddle” and “condone.” In that column, I wrote: “There’s no excuse for items promoting racist tropes to be peddled to the public nor for the rest of us to condone them.” I was responding to a reader who had found an item at a big-box office-supply store bearing a supposedly inspirational quotation that could be interpreted as an ethnic slur.

When I wrote that sentence about racist tropes, I meant it. But does it matter that that sentence was later used, on its own, to illustrate a dictionary definition? I didn’t write it for a dictionary. I wrote it in a specific context, for a particular audience, and with the purpose of responding to a reader’s experience.

Now that the sentence stands on its own, it might carry a broader authority than I originally intended. Does the editor (or algorithm) who selected it know that I stand behind the broad moral judgment expressed in that sentence, even though it was written about a particular incident? I don’t believe the editor knows me, so that seems unlikely, although the algorithm might have a good idea of where I stand based on scouring the internet for other things I’ve written.

Most writers give considerable thought to the words they choose. When I used “jamoke” and “schmear” in that earlier column, I did so deliberately, aiming for a particular tone with a particular audience in mind. Word choice is rarely accidental by most writers.

I appreciate the credibility that comes with being cited by Merriam-Webster. Still, I find myself wondering what happens when our words take on a life of their own beyond their original purpose. A sentence pulled from a column to serve as a general example of usage may carry more weight than it did when it first appeared. Within a column, I have some control over how my words are understood. Outside of that, I have very little.

That loss of control raises an interesting challenge. We can’t anticipate every way our words might be reused, nor should we become timid or overly cautious in writing. Yet this experience is a reminder that what we write can have a long shelf life, reaching audiences and serving purposes we never imagined.

We can’t control how our words will be reused. But we can try to control whether they hold up when they are. The right thing is to write as if any sentence might one day stand alone, and to make sure that if it does, it still says what we believe.

Sunday, May 10, 2026

What do you owe someone who helped you?

If you do a favor for someone should you be disappointed when you receive no favor in return?

That’s the question that a reader I’m calling Nigel asked. For about a decade, he helped a former colleague find work. When that colleague was between jobs or looking to supplement his income, Nigel made introductions, passed along leads, and even helped him secure occasional work at his own workplace.

The colleague has now had a steady job for about two years and appears to be in a position to help Nigel find similar opportunities. Nigel says he made clear he’d welcome any leads, yet the colleague has made no effort to assist.

Expecting some measure of reciprocity isn’t unusual. When someone has been consistently supportive, it’s natural to hope that support might be returned. Professional relationships, like personal ones, often rely on a sense of reciprocity, even if it’s not formally stated.

But favors don’t always create clear obligations. While it would have been thoughtful and generous for the colleague to return the help, he may not view Nigel’s past support as something that requires repayment. People don’t always keep track of these exchanges in the same way, and some may simply not recognize when an opportunity to reciprocate presents itself.

Once Nigel expressed interest in finding additional work, however, the absence of any response becomes harder to ignore. Even if the colleague wasn’t in a position to help, a brief acknowledgment would have been thoughtful. Nigel may have taken his silence to be dismissive.

If this lack of reciprocity nags at Nigel, he could try talking to his former colleague. He could tell him that he’s tried to be supportive over the years and had hoped for similar consideration. There’s a chance that the colleague simply hasn’t thought about the situation from that perspective.

If being helpful is part of how Nigel wants to be, his former colleague’s inaction doesn’t have to change that. He’s not required, however, to keep engaging in a relationship that feels one-sided. Setting limits seems a reasonable response to any relationship that seems out of whack when it comes to mutual concern.

If his colleague asks for help again, Nigel can choose to help as he has in the past, lessen how much assistance he offers, or just decline to help. He could tell the colleague that he’s hoping for more mutual support in the future. The right thing is to set expectations without turning past generosity into a running tally. That would allow Nigel to continue to be helpful but also let his colleague know that he hopes for occasional help in return.

A challenge of being generous and kind to others is that it works best if you truly want to be generous or kind rather than expect something in return. Don’t get me wrong: Receiving generosity and kindness from others can spark all kinds of joy. But doling it out with the expectation that it will always be given back in equal measure is bound to be disappointing.