I have many thoughtful readers who regularly strive to do the right thing. Several of them have found it challenging during the coronavirus pandemic to decide whether or not it is appropriate to avail themselves of opportunities to save money or improve their financial condition when they know they are not facing quite as difficult a time as the many people who find themselves unemployed or otherwise financially challenged.
M.L., a reader from Northern California, writes that she is in her mid-70s, retired, and lives comfortably on a monthly fixed income. In retirement, M.L. worked as a part-time teacher several hours a week. She didn't depend on the extra $300 per week she earned, but when the shutdown occurred back in March, she struggled with whether or not to apply for the new unemployment benefits that became available through the end of July.
"Clearly I am not in the state of need that many laid off workers are in and that the new law was passed to address," she writes. "When I told my sister that I might apply for the benefit, she asserted that it would be wrong to do so because the law was not meant for people in my less-than-destitute condition."
M.L. wrestled with the ethics of applying for the unemployment benefit, half of which she indicated she would donate to charities helping those more in need than she is.
Several hundred miles west in Columbus, Ohio, P.A., another longtime reader, has noticed online posts from friends who have worked with their mortgage and credit card companies to get three months free of payments, or no interest accrual, or waived fees. P.A. writes that she's happy companies are helping people during this time.
But she points out that she and her husband have been lucky and each has kept their job. "Would it be unethical for us to take advantage of these deals given that we can still pay our bills?" she asks. She thinks it would probably be wrong to do it. "It would feel like I am taking advantage of the situation and the companies."
Both M.L. and P.A. are struggling with the same central question: Should they try to improve their finances by taking advantage of offers that seem to be intended to ease the burden of others who have not fared as well during the pandemic?
If any of the programs M.L. or P.A. might apply to are specifically set up for those who meet a specific income or asset threshold and they don't meet those requirements, then obviously they should not try to get a little something for themselves.
But even during non-pandemic times, it always makes sense to manage your personal finances as wisely as possible. If you can refinance a mortgage for a much better interest rate, for example, it always makes sense to explore such possibilities. If M.L. or P.A. meet the eligibility requirements of programs being offered during the pandemic and they want to apply then they should apply.
The right thing, of course, would be for those companies or agencies offering special funds or arrangements to make clear who is and who is not eligible and implement barriers to keep the ineligible from taking advantage. If the goal is to address the needs of those most affected by the pandemic, then the program should be clearly designed to do so.
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 answered? Send them to jeffreyseglin@gmail.com. Follow him on Twitter @jseglin.
(c) 2020 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.
No comments:
Post a Comment