tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21166579.post5218146955393843777..comments2024-02-19T08:12:53.815-05:00Comments on The Right Thing: THE RIGHT THING: A SHATTERING REALIZATIONJeffrey L. Seglinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15648051034425906705noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21166579.post-55446326324796642822008-09-29T13:21:00.000-04:002008-09-29T13:21:00.000-04:00While well intentioned, this customer is guilty of...While well intentioned, this customer is guilty of embezzlement. There is no rationale by which you can justify taking someone else's property and converting it to your own (albeit benevolent) ends. You may not like the use to which another uses his property but you have no right to take this Robin Hood approach.<BR/><BR/>Did you not consider that there may well be other consequences of your actions? The company and employee entrusted you with their property (your traded-in frames) to minimize your inconvenience and you repaid their generosity by converting the entrusted property to your own use. The company may well need to account for the incoming frames and hold the employee responsible for any shortfall. At minimum if the company fails to get entrusted frames returned they may well change the policy and require return of the old frames when the new order is placed, inconveniencing future customers. Actions like yours are why companies enact self-protecting (but seemingly bizarre and customer unfriendly) policies. <BR/><BR/>How can you claim you are working for the greater good when you can't properly account for the harm you've inflicted? Where was the harm in simply asking if you could donate them?!?<BR/><BR/>William Jacobson<BR/>Cypress, CA<BR/>Orange County Register (and blogspot.com)Bill Jacobsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05109292381489849674noreply@blogger.com