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.

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.

(c) 2026 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

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.

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.

(c) 2026 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

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.

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.

(c) 2026 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.