As fuel prices have risen, used-car prices have come down. Prices have declined since 2006, Scotiabank reports. Those declines have accelerated across North America in 2008, and promise to continue well into 2009.
Nevertheless, I recently found myself in need of a used car.
Immediately my thoughts ran to the most recent Gallup poll that asked people to rate the honesty and ethics of various professionals. Once again car salesman placed next-to-last on the list, slightly ahead of lobbyists. Of the people surveyed by Gallup, 53 percent said that they had a low or very low opinion of car salesmen.
Maybe, I whispered to myself, the car salesmen I was about to deal with would go against the stereotype.
No such luck. Shopping online, I found a used car that matched what I was looking for. I requested more information and was contacted by the dealer, who asked me to come in for a test drive.
I went to the dealership, tried out the car and liked it well enough. But the price was more than the maximum that I wanted to spend. I asked the salesperson if she could do any better, and she said that she'd have to speak to her sales manager -- a first step in a dance that's not uncommon in the industry.
She spoke with him and he came back to talk to me. He pointed out the car's bluebook value and its ownership history, both of which I'd already looked up, and said that the dealership couldn't budge on price because it needed to make some money. The Internet prices, he told me, were the lowest he could go. Nevertheless he came down by $700.
Then he asked me how much I wanted to spend. The answer: another $800 lower than his original price.
The sales manager told me that he would have to call the dealership's owner to get permission for such a discount. I found it curious that the owner of this large dealership would take calls on the weekend of the Fourth of July, so I watched as the sales manager scurried to his office and chatted with another salesmen in an adjoining office, never once picking up his desk or cell telephone.
He returned about 10 minutes later to tell me that he had talked to the owner, but that the owner wouldn't budge on price. He lied.
I thanked him and left the dealership.
Now, I know that a certain amount of posturing is to be expected in used-car transactions, or indeed in most negotiated deals. That's fine. The salesperson and the sales manager played a little game with me, and the sales manager let me cool my heels while he ran some numbers. That's all to be expected, part of the art of the deal. Everyone indulges in some give and take and holds back a few things. I didn't come in and give my bottom-line price to the first salesperson I met, after all. I was ready to play the game.
But I draw the line at blatant, transparent lying. Yank me around, OK, but lie to me -- and do it obviously enough for me to spot it, which is not one of my skills -- and you've lost my business.
The right thing for the sales manager to do was to dance me around as much as he wanted, but to draw the line at lying to my face.
That not being the case, the right thing for me to do was to shop elsewhere, which I did.
The right thing for you to do, when faced with a liar who wants your business, is to walk away. Who needs to build an already-suspect business relationship on a foundation of outright lies?
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Sunday, July 27, 2008
SOUND OFF: FLY THE FAKE SKIES
Is it OK for newspapers to run fake ads to gauge reader interest? Readers were split, but -- in an unscientific poll on my column's blog -- 31 percent thought it fine, while 69 percent thought it represented a breach of trust with readers.
"Because time is such an increasingly precious commodity," writes Phil Clutts of Harrisburg, N.C., "it is unethical for an organization to seek to benefit from an action that totally wastes the time of a responding party."
But Jo Melis of Los Angeles writes that fake ads "sound like a clever way to determine the level of reader interest. If no money changes hands, I can't see the harm."
Chris Beale of Columbus, Ohio, thinks that the effectiveness of the fake ads will gauge their appropriateness.
"As in any business," Beale says, "you try out new marketing techniques. If it works you are a genius. If not, then downsizing occurs."
"Anyone with some minimal French knowledge would have picked up on the fake name of the airline (Derrie-Air)," writes Emmanuel Tchividjian of New York. "Keeping a sense of humor is good for society."
Check out other opinions here, or post your own or post your own by clicking on "comments" or "post a comment" below.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of The Right Thing, a Web log focused on ethical issues.
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@nytimes.com or to "The Right Thing," The New York Times Syndicate, 500 Seventh Avenue, 8th floor, New York, NY 10018. Please remember to tell me who you are, where you're from, as well as where you read the column.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
"Because time is such an increasingly precious commodity," writes Phil Clutts of Harrisburg, N.C., "it is unethical for an organization to seek to benefit from an action that totally wastes the time of a responding party."
But Jo Melis of Los Angeles writes that fake ads "sound like a clever way to determine the level of reader interest. If no money changes hands, I can't see the harm."
Chris Beale of Columbus, Ohio, thinks that the effectiveness of the fake ads will gauge their appropriateness.
"As in any business," Beale says, "you try out new marketing techniques. If it works you are a genius. If not, then downsizing occurs."
"Anyone with some minimal French knowledge would have picked up on the fake name of the airline (Derrie-Air)," writes Emmanuel Tchividjian of New York. "Keeping a sense of humor is good for society."
Check out other opinions here, or post your own or post your own by clicking on "comments" or "post a comment" below.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of The Right Thing, a Web log focused on ethical issues.
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@nytimes.com or to "The Right Thing," The New York Times Syndicate, 500 Seventh Avenue, 8th floor, New York, NY 10018. Please remember to tell me who you are, where you're from, as well as where you read the column.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Sunday, July 20, 2008
SOUND OFF: SHIPPING MARK-UPS
Recently I was asked if I thought that sellers who add a 100-percent markup on actual shipping costs to items sold in online auctions on eBay or similar sites were being ethical. I've decided to pass the question along to you.
As long as the shipping cost is made known to the buyer, is it wrong for online-auction sellers to charge customers more than it actually costs to ship the items? If you don't think a markup is wrong, is there a limit to how much the markup can be before it crosses into unethical territory?
Post your thoughts here by clicking on "comments" or "post a comment" below. Please include your name, hometown, and state, province, or country. Readers' comments may appear in an upcoming column. Or e-mail your comments to me at rightthing@nytimes.com.
You can also respond to the poll about this question that will appear on the right-hand side of the blog until polling is closed.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business (Smith Kerr, 2006), is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of The Right Thing, a Web log focused on ethical issues.
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@nytimes.com or to "The Right Thing," The New York Times Syndicate, 500 Seventh Avenue, 8th floor, New York, NY 10018. Please remember to tell me who you are, where you're from, as well as where you read the column.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
As long as the shipping cost is made known to the buyer, is it wrong for online-auction sellers to charge customers more than it actually costs to ship the items? If you don't think a markup is wrong, is there a limit to how much the markup can be before it crosses into unethical territory?
Post your thoughts here by clicking on "comments" or "post a comment" below. Please include your name, hometown, and state, province, or country. Readers' comments may appear in an upcoming column. Or e-mail your comments to me at rightthing@nytimes.com.
You can also respond to the poll about this question that will appear on the right-hand side of the blog until polling is closed.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business (Smith Kerr, 2006), is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of The Right Thing, a Web log focused on ethical issues.
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@nytimes.com or to "The Right Thing," The New York Times Syndicate, 500 Seventh Avenue, 8th floor, New York, NY 10018. Please remember to tell me who you are, where you're from, as well as where you read the column.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
THE RIGHT THING: YOU SNOOZE, YOU LOSE?
I don't generally order pizza from Pizza Hut, but I do shop at IKEA, the massive furniture-store chain known for its low prices and for do-it-yourself furniture assembly.
About a year ago readers of my column responded to a reader's concern that Pizza Hut was sending the wrong message by airing a commercial in which a customer rejoices when he believes that he's taken advantage of a delivery boy who charged him too little for three pizzas.
"That's only 5 bucks each, right?" the customer asks the delivery boy.
"Yes sir," the delivery boy answers.
The man runs inside and shouts, "Oh yeah! Honey, the Pizza Hut kid made the same mistake again! I got three medium Pizza Hut pizzas for the same price as those other guys!"
Now IKEA seems to be getting in on the action as far as it concerns ads that condone taking advantage of other people's mistakes.
Christine Blouke of Orange County, Calif., tipped me off to an ad that my wife had been telling me for months I should address in my column. In the ad, set in an IKEA store, a woman checks out with several bags of goods, then takes a look at her receipt. Her pace to the exit quickens and, as soon as she is out the door, she shouts, "Start the car!" four times to her partner waiting in the car. The final scene shows the couple driving off and the woman shouting "Woooooo!" at the top of her lungs.
Amid the scenes of glee, two separate pieces of text appear: "It's not a mistake" and "We're having a sale."
Blouke finds the commercial annoying, and thus switches channels whenever it appears.
"Does IKEA really want its customers to run for the door if there is an error in their favor?" she asks. "Is this behavior to be commended?"
She certainly doesn't think so. (You can view the Pizza Hut and IKEA ads below.) I have to admit that I find both the Pizza Hut ads and the IKEA ads amusing. They're deliberately meant to play on the ignorance of the customer who doesn't know about the advertiser's low prices. In each case it's the customer who comes off looking like a dope, not the business.
But do the ads send the wrong message, suggesting that it's OK to shortchange a store when a cashier makes a mistake? That's hardly a message that we want to send to our kids, and it's not one we should embrace ourselves.
As customers we expect stores to correct any mistakes that shortchange us, so by the same token the right thing is to correct a delivery person or cashier on his or her mistake, even if it's in our favor. It may turn out that there wasn't a mistake after all, but if you suspect that you've been undercharged or that not every item was rung up on checkout, the obligation falls on you to make the situation right.
What would either advertisement have looked like if, instead of depicting customers believing that they were getting away with something, it had featured a protracted argument during which the customer tried to convince the clerk that she must be wrong, when indeed she wasn't. Imagine the manager getting called in to confirm how low the prices are and then other customers chiming in. Chaos ensues, but no one takes glee in rushing to flee the scene of an assumed crime.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
IKEA AD PIZZA HUT AD
Sunday, July 13, 2008
THE RIGHT THING: A BLOOMING NUISANCE
Some ethical questions linger well past their freshness date.
A few weeks ago I received an e-mail from reader Louise Macaulay of Yorba Linda, Calif. The incident in question happened back in February, but she and her co-workers are still pondering whether the parties involved did the right thing.
On Valentine's Day a dozen roses were delivered to the office for one of Macaulay's co-workers. Within an hour, Macaulay writes, an identical bouquet was delivered. Her co-worker immediately called the florist to report the error and to make sure that her husband wouldn't be charged twice.
I suppose it never crossed her mind that her husband might deliberately have sent two stunning bouquets to emphasize his point. He hadn't.
The florist sent someone to pick up the flowers, and assured her that her husband would be charged only for the one bouquet.
Within an hour after the second bouquet was picked up, however, a third bouquet arrived, delivered by a different messenger from any of the earlier deliveries and pickup. The co-worker was out of the office when the third bouquet arrived, so another co-worker took it upon herself to call the florist to have the errant bouquet retrieved, even though she was not its intended recipient.
When the delivery person arrived to take back the third bouquet of flowers, the co-worker for whom they had been intended was upset.
"She had done the right thing the first time the florist made the error," Macaulay explains. "She felt justified keeping the third bouquet."
"It turned out to be a hilarious day for those of us watching the drama," she adds.
Once the laughter faded, however, she and her co-workers were left wondering two things: Was the co-worker who intercepted the third delivery out of line in notifying the florist about the error, given that the flowers weren't intended for her? And would the intended recipient have been justified in keeping the third bouquet, having already notified the florist of the first error and returned the second bouquet?
The third-party co-worker should have left it to the intended recipient to deal with the second errant delivery. While she may simply have wanted to save her co-worker a hassle, this wasn't her hassle to clean up. She shouldn't have called the florist, who in turn ought to have confirmed that it was the intended recipient who was reporting the error, not a third party. The florist might well have decided to let the woman keep the third bouquet as an apology for the time she'd wasted in sorting out three deliveries, two of them erroneous.
Unless the florist chose to do so, however -- and regardless of how much of a nuisance it undoubtedly was -- the intended recipient would not have been justified in keeping the third bouquet. Other people's ineptness is no license to help yourself to their property. The right thing was to call the florist and correct the error -- so the right thing was done, but by the wrong person. In any case, however, because the intended recipient knew that the extra flowers had not been purchased by her husband, the decision of whether or not she should keep them was the florist's to make, not hers.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
A few weeks ago I received an e-mail from reader Louise Macaulay of Yorba Linda, Calif. The incident in question happened back in February, but she and her co-workers are still pondering whether the parties involved did the right thing.
On Valentine's Day a dozen roses were delivered to the office for one of Macaulay's co-workers. Within an hour, Macaulay writes, an identical bouquet was delivered. Her co-worker immediately called the florist to report the error and to make sure that her husband wouldn't be charged twice.
I suppose it never crossed her mind that her husband might deliberately have sent two stunning bouquets to emphasize his point. He hadn't.
The florist sent someone to pick up the flowers, and assured her that her husband would be charged only for the one bouquet.
Within an hour after the second bouquet was picked up, however, a third bouquet arrived, delivered by a different messenger from any of the earlier deliveries and pickup. The co-worker was out of the office when the third bouquet arrived, so another co-worker took it upon herself to call the florist to have the errant bouquet retrieved, even though she was not its intended recipient.
When the delivery person arrived to take back the third bouquet of flowers, the co-worker for whom they had been intended was upset.
"She had done the right thing the first time the florist made the error," Macaulay explains. "She felt justified keeping the third bouquet."
"It turned out to be a hilarious day for those of us watching the drama," she adds.
Once the laughter faded, however, she and her co-workers were left wondering two things: Was the co-worker who intercepted the third delivery out of line in notifying the florist about the error, given that the flowers weren't intended for her? And would the intended recipient have been justified in keeping the third bouquet, having already notified the florist of the first error and returned the second bouquet?
The third-party co-worker should have left it to the intended recipient to deal with the second errant delivery. While she may simply have wanted to save her co-worker a hassle, this wasn't her hassle to clean up. She shouldn't have called the florist, who in turn ought to have confirmed that it was the intended recipient who was reporting the error, not a third party. The florist might well have decided to let the woman keep the third bouquet as an apology for the time she'd wasted in sorting out three deliveries, two of them erroneous.
Unless the florist chose to do so, however -- and regardless of how much of a nuisance it undoubtedly was -- the intended recipient would not have been justified in keeping the third bouquet. Other people's ineptness is no license to help yourself to their property. The right thing was to call the florist and correct the error -- so the right thing was done, but by the wrong person. In any case, however, because the intended recipient knew that the extra flowers had not been purchased by her husband, the decision of whether or not she should keep them was the florist's to make, not hers.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
SOUND OFF: OFF BY A YARD
Just in time to coincide with the world's longest yard sale -- this year it runs from Aug. 7 to Aug. 10 and stretches from Gadsden, Ala., to Defiance, Ohio -- we have reader responses to a recent "Sound Off" question about yard-sale pricing.
The results of an unscientific poll on my column's blog have 43 percent of my readers voting that you should tell the owners if items offered at a yard sale are worth far more than they're charging, while 57 percent disagree, arguing that all's fair when it comes to getting a good deal.
"Ethics have no place at a yard sale!," writes Charlie Seng of Lancaster, S.C. "When someone has a yard sale, they have the responsibility of knowing the value of their sale items. It is not incumbent on the buyers who happen along to alert the seller about valuable items that they are mistakenly or foolishly selling at bargain prices."
Bill of Somerville, Mass., works in an antiquarian bookstore.
"It is not uncommon for another dealer to buy something from us, turn around and sell it for much more," he says.
Recently, he adds, a dealer from the United Kingdom purchased a book for $100 and then pointed out that the book included an old map of California that was alone worth at least $1,000. All the same, Bill writes, the bookstore is ethically obligated to offer customers a fair price for any book they bring in to sell, which is generally 50 percent of the sale price in trade or 30 percent in cash.
Check out other opinions here, or post your own or post your own by clicking on "comments" or "post a comment" below.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of The Right Thing, a Web log focused on ethical issues.
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@nytimes.com or to "The Right Thing," The New York Times Syndicate, 500 Seventh Avenue, 8th floor, New York, NY 10018. Please remember to tell me who you are, where you're from, as well as where you read the column.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
The results of an unscientific poll on my column's blog have 43 percent of my readers voting that you should tell the owners if items offered at a yard sale are worth far more than they're charging, while 57 percent disagree, arguing that all's fair when it comes to getting a good deal.
"Ethics have no place at a yard sale!," writes Charlie Seng of Lancaster, S.C. "When someone has a yard sale, they have the responsibility of knowing the value of their sale items. It is not incumbent on the buyers who happen along to alert the seller about valuable items that they are mistakenly or foolishly selling at bargain prices."
Bill of Somerville, Mass., works in an antiquarian bookstore.
"It is not uncommon for another dealer to buy something from us, turn around and sell it for much more," he says.
Recently, he adds, a dealer from the United Kingdom purchased a book for $100 and then pointed out that the book included an old map of California that was alone worth at least $1,000. All the same, Bill writes, the bookstore is ethically obligated to offer customers a fair price for any book they bring in to sell, which is generally 50 percent of the sale price in trade or 30 percent in cash.
Check out other opinions here, or post your own or post your own by clicking on "comments" or "post a comment" below.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of The Right Thing, a Web log focused on ethical issues.
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@nytimes.com or to "The Right Thing," The New York Times Syndicate, 500 Seventh Avenue, 8th floor, New York, NY 10018. Please remember to tell me who you are, where you're from, as well as where you read the column.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Daily Ethical Dilemmas on Fox 25
Anchor Kim Carrigan on Fox 25 Morning News posing reader questions about everyday ethical dilemmas to me this morning (July 8). Click on video below to play or click here.
And below is a segment with Gene Lavanchy from last fall (November 9) on "Taking Measures to Prevent Plagiarism" that was part of Fox 25's College Week. You can also find the segment on plagiarism here.
Sunday, July 06, 2008
SOUND OFF: POLL POSITION
Black candidates for state and national office in the United States regularly poll higher than their actual vote totals. Frequently referred to as "The Bradley Effect" or "The Wilder Effect" -- named after former Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley and former Virginia Governor Douglas Wilder to reflect their experiences -- this phenomenon presumably reflects respondents' reluctance to express socially unacceptable attitudes, such as racism, when talking to pollsters.
With Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill) running for president, this phenomenon has received elevated scrutiny. Here's this week's Sound Off question:
Is it a breach of ethics to misrepresent yourself to a pollster?
Post your thoughts here by clicking on "comments" or "post a comment" below. Please include your name, hometown, and state, province, or country. Readers' comments may appear in an upcoming column. Or e-mail your comments to me at rightthing@nytimes.com.
You can also respond to the poll about this question that will appear on the right-hand side of the blog until polling is closed.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business (Smith Kerr, 2006), is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of The Right Thing, a Web log focused on ethical issues.
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@nytimes.com or to "The Right Thing," The New York Times Syndicate, 500 Seventh Avenue, 8th floor, New York, NY 10018. Please remember to tell me who you are, where you're from, as well as where you read the column.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
With Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill) running for president, this phenomenon has received elevated scrutiny. Here's this week's Sound Off question:
Is it a breach of ethics to misrepresent yourself to a pollster?
Post your thoughts here by clicking on "comments" or "post a comment" below. Please include your name, hometown, and state, province, or country. Readers' comments may appear in an upcoming column. Or e-mail your comments to me at rightthing@nytimes.com.
You can also respond to the poll about this question that will appear on the right-hand side of the blog until polling is closed.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business (Smith Kerr, 2006), is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of The Right Thing, a Web log focused on ethical issues.
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@nytimes.com or to "The Right Thing," The New York Times Syndicate, 500 Seventh Avenue, 8th floor, New York, NY 10018. Please remember to tell me who you are, where you're from, as well as where you read the column.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
THE RIGHT THING: THE RIGHT JOB FOR THE MAN?
Finding a new job, a job for which your talents and your temperament fit, can be challenging. To help make a match, executive-search professionals often work hard to help prospective employees find the best possible professional home.
Because the process of finding a new job through an executive-search firm can take time, it isn't unusual for an executive-search pro to become friendly both with the candidate and with those who are seeking to fill the job. A reader from the Midwest who runs an executive-search firm tells me that this has been his experience recently.
"Within the past year," he writes, "I placed a candidate with a firm. Both the candidate and the manager at the firm are my `clients,' but are also my friends."
Now, however, the candidate is questioning whether his move to the new firm was the right one for him. The client firm, on the other hand, is "absolutely enamored" with the hire.
While the client firm pays for his services, my reader needs both client firms and prospective employees to keep his business thriving. Given that he knows the new employee seems not to be satisfied with the current position into which he's been placed, he asks: "What should I say, and to whom?"
He wonders, that is, whether he has an obligation to let the current employer know that the employee is not overjoyed with his new job.
Similarly, if the employer had confided in my reader that the employee wasn't all he had hoped for, should he say something to the employee?
Ah, to get stuck in the middle of two friends, regardless of the situation. In the seventh grade, when one friend tells another about something concerning a third, what to do, what to do?
Judging from my reader's question, he seems inclined to say something to the employer. He just isn't sure when or what to say.
My advice to him, however, is that, unless the employee has asked him to relay a message of dissatisfaction to his new employer, he should not pass on the news.
The fact that he helped bring together job and job seeker does not make him a permanent intermediary between the parties, nor does it ethically obligate him to resolve future problems that may arise.
The right thing, both as a friend and as the person who recruited him, is to listen to the employee and see if he can offer any advice on how to make his new job a better fit.
If the situation becomes unpleasant at work, he would be wise to advise the employee to talk to his supervisors to see if they can rectify the situation. If it becomes unbearable, the employee should consider seeking employment elsewhere once he meets any short-term commitments on the new job.
My reader will retain the employee's trust and, in the process, he will learn valuable information about the employer in case he plans to place future candidates there who might be a better fit.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Because the process of finding a new job through an executive-search firm can take time, it isn't unusual for an executive-search pro to become friendly both with the candidate and with those who are seeking to fill the job. A reader from the Midwest who runs an executive-search firm tells me that this has been his experience recently.
"Within the past year," he writes, "I placed a candidate with a firm. Both the candidate and the manager at the firm are my `clients,' but are also my friends."
Now, however, the candidate is questioning whether his move to the new firm was the right one for him. The client firm, on the other hand, is "absolutely enamored" with the hire.
While the client firm pays for his services, my reader needs both client firms and prospective employees to keep his business thriving. Given that he knows the new employee seems not to be satisfied with the current position into which he's been placed, he asks: "What should I say, and to whom?"
He wonders, that is, whether he has an obligation to let the current employer know that the employee is not overjoyed with his new job.
Similarly, if the employer had confided in my reader that the employee wasn't all he had hoped for, should he say something to the employee?
Ah, to get stuck in the middle of two friends, regardless of the situation. In the seventh grade, when one friend tells another about something concerning a third, what to do, what to do?
Judging from my reader's question, he seems inclined to say something to the employer. He just isn't sure when or what to say.
My advice to him, however, is that, unless the employee has asked him to relay a message of dissatisfaction to his new employer, he should not pass on the news.
The fact that he helped bring together job and job seeker does not make him a permanent intermediary between the parties, nor does it ethically obligate him to resolve future problems that may arise.
The right thing, both as a friend and as the person who recruited him, is to listen to the employee and see if he can offer any advice on how to make his new job a better fit.
If the situation becomes unpleasant at work, he would be wise to advise the employee to talk to his supervisors to see if they can rectify the situation. If it becomes unbearable, the employee should consider seeking employment elsewhere once he meets any short-term commitments on the new job.
My reader will retain the employee's trust and, in the process, he will learn valuable information about the employer in case he plans to place future candidates there who might be a better fit.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Sunday, June 29, 2008
THE RIGHT THING: UNBREAKABLE
When Richard Robinson tried to use a $50 bill to pay for $38 worth of tickets to the Oakland Zoo, he was told that the zoo did not accept payment with any bill larger than a $20.
Soon after the zoo incident, Robinson tried to pay for an order at McDonald's with a $100 bill. Again he was told, "We do not accept any bill larger than a $20."
Robinson protested, arguing that it states right on the bills, "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." In neither case, however, could he convince the cashier to accept the bill.
And yes, I admit that I had to take a bill out of my wallet to confirm that the bills actually do carry this proclamation.
Robinson wants to know if such refusals constitute unethical behavior by the companies concerned.
Let's get the law out of the way first: Robinson is correct that the cash is legal tender, regardless of the denomination. According to the U.S. Treasury, the Coinage Act of 1965 makes the money legal to use for payments. There is no federal law in the United States, however, that requires retailers -- or anyone else -- to accept any form of legal tender as payment, unless there is a state law that requires them to do so. There are comparable statutes in Canada.
In short, while it's an annoyance to be refused service because you have only large-denomination bills, it's not illegal.
As longtime readers of my column know, however, I believe that the fact that a given action is legal does not always make it ethical. Too frequently, individuals or corporations use the law to justify behavior that is blatantly unfair or unjust.
Are companies being unfair to Robinson by refusing the large denominations with which he chooses to pay? Should he have to carry around smaller bills, or pay with a credit card, when it's inconvenient or when he simply doesn't want to?
It may be a major inconvenience for some customers, but there is nothing unfair about the policy as long as it is posted clearly for all to see.
Businesses miss the ethical mark, however, if they don't make their policies clear before their customers place their orders. The right thing is both to post it clearly on site and also to include it in any other marketing materials such as Web sites -- as indeed the Oakland Zoo does on its Web site. If Robinson had known the McDonald's policy before he arrived, for example, he could have made sure that he had the right currency on hand.
Robinson has a choice, of course. He doesn't have to carry around smaller bills or use credit cards if he doesn't want to. If he finds doing so excessively inconvenient, he can choose not to do business with establishments that place limits on what currency they will take.
There's nothing unethical about a company setting its own policy, but there's also nothing unethical in Robinson responding by taking his business elsewhere.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Soon after the zoo incident, Robinson tried to pay for an order at McDonald's with a $100 bill. Again he was told, "We do not accept any bill larger than a $20."
Robinson protested, arguing that it states right on the bills, "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." In neither case, however, could he convince the cashier to accept the bill.
And yes, I admit that I had to take a bill out of my wallet to confirm that the bills actually do carry this proclamation.
Robinson wants to know if such refusals constitute unethical behavior by the companies concerned.
Let's get the law out of the way first: Robinson is correct that the cash is legal tender, regardless of the denomination. According to the U.S. Treasury, the Coinage Act of 1965 makes the money legal to use for payments. There is no federal law in the United States, however, that requires retailers -- or anyone else -- to accept any form of legal tender as payment, unless there is a state law that requires them to do so. There are comparable statutes in Canada.
In short, while it's an annoyance to be refused service because you have only large-denomination bills, it's not illegal.
As longtime readers of my column know, however, I believe that the fact that a given action is legal does not always make it ethical. Too frequently, individuals or corporations use the law to justify behavior that is blatantly unfair or unjust.
Are companies being unfair to Robinson by refusing the large denominations with which he chooses to pay? Should he have to carry around smaller bills, or pay with a credit card, when it's inconvenient or when he simply doesn't want to?
It may be a major inconvenience for some customers, but there is nothing unfair about the policy as long as it is posted clearly for all to see.
Businesses miss the ethical mark, however, if they don't make their policies clear before their customers place their orders. The right thing is both to post it clearly on site and also to include it in any other marketing materials such as Web sites -- as indeed the Oakland Zoo does on its Web site. If Robinson had known the McDonald's policy before he arrived, for example, he could have made sure that he had the right currency on hand.
Robinson has a choice, of course. He doesn't have to carry around smaller bills or use credit cards if he doesn't want to. If he finds doing so excessively inconvenient, he can choose not to do business with establishments that place limits on what currency they will take.
There's nothing unethical about a company setting its own policy, but there's also nothing unethical in Robinson responding by taking his business elsewhere.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
SOUND OFF: WORDS JUMBLED
[UPDATE: July 29, 2008, Scrabulous is no longer available to users of Facebook in the U.S. and Canada.]
[UPDATE: On July 24, 2008, Hasbro filed a lawsuit against Scrabulous creators.]
One reader felt torn about playing the online word game Scrabulous on the Facebook networking site, because the game's developers hadn't sought permission from Hasbro -- which owns the rights to Scrabble, the board game that Scrabulous replicates. I asked my readers to decide whether it is OK to continue playing Scrabulous if they feel that it infringes on Hasbro's rights.
The results of an unscientific poll on my column's blog have 10 percent of my readers voting it OK to continue playing Scrabulous, 37 percent voting it not OK and another 53 percent voting it not OK -- but adding that they'll continue playing anyway.
Patrick Burris of Charlotte, N.C., believes that it should be left to the courts to decide whether one company's game infringes upon another's intellectual property.
But Carroll Straus, an attorney in Orange County, Calif., points out that the doctrine of fair use takes into account the degree to which such usage confuses the public and reduces the profitability of the original owner's use of its trademarked product. It will fall upon Hasbro to show how it has lost sales due to Scrabulous, she writes.
Check out other opinions here, or post your own or post your own by clicking on "comments" or "post a comment" below.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of The Right Thing, a Web log focused on ethical issues.
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@nytimes.com or to "The Right Thing," The New York Times Syndicate, 500 Seventh Avenue, 8th floor, New York, NY 10018. Please remember to tell me who you are, where you're from, as well as where you read the column.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
[UPDATE: On July 24, 2008, Hasbro filed a lawsuit against Scrabulous creators.]
One reader felt torn about playing the online word game Scrabulous on the Facebook networking site, because the game's developers hadn't sought permission from Hasbro -- which owns the rights to Scrabble, the board game that Scrabulous replicates. I asked my readers to decide whether it is OK to continue playing Scrabulous if they feel that it infringes on Hasbro's rights.
The results of an unscientific poll on my column's blog have 10 percent of my readers voting it OK to continue playing Scrabulous, 37 percent voting it not OK and another 53 percent voting it not OK -- but adding that they'll continue playing anyway.
Patrick Burris of Charlotte, N.C., believes that it should be left to the courts to decide whether one company's game infringes upon another's intellectual property.
But Carroll Straus, an attorney in Orange County, Calif., points out that the doctrine of fair use takes into account the degree to which such usage confuses the public and reduces the profitability of the original owner's use of its trademarked product. It will fall upon Hasbro to show how it has lost sales due to Scrabulous, she writes.
Check out other opinions here, or post your own or post your own by clicking on "comments" or "post a comment" below.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of The Right Thing, a Web log focused on ethical issues.
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@nytimes.com or to "The Right Thing," The New York Times Syndicate, 500 Seventh Avenue, 8th floor, New York, NY 10018. Please remember to tell me who you are, where you're from, as well as where you read the column.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Sunday, June 22, 2008
SOUND OFF: FAKE ADS
In early June The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Philadelphia Daily News ran a series of fake advertisements to see how well online and print ads performed. One ad in particular, for a fake airline called Derrie-Air, attracted a sizable number of readers who clicked on the online ad.
Many observers felt that, in running the fake ads, the newspapers were deceiving their readers. As a result, they said, readers might distrust other information in the newspaper.
What do you think? Is it OK to run fake ads to gauge reader interest? Or is it a breach of trust? And did the newspapers damage their credibility as a result?
Post your thoughts here by clicking on "comments" or "post a comment" below. Please include your name, hometown, and state, province, or country. Readers' comments may appear in an upcoming column. Or e-mail your comments to me at rightthing@nytimes.com.
You can also respond to the poll about this question that appears on the right-hand side of the blog.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business (Smith Kerr, 2006), is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of The Right Thing, a Web log focused on ethical issues.
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@nytimes.com or to "The Right Thing," The New York Times Syndicate, 500 Seventh Avenue, 8th floor, New York, NY 10018. Please remember to tell me who you are, where you're from, as well as where you read the column.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Many observers felt that, in running the fake ads, the newspapers were deceiving their readers. As a result, they said, readers might distrust other information in the newspaper.
What do you think? Is it OK to run fake ads to gauge reader interest? Or is it a breach of trust? And did the newspapers damage their credibility as a result?
Post your thoughts here by clicking on "comments" or "post a comment" below. Please include your name, hometown, and state, province, or country. Readers' comments may appear in an upcoming column. Or e-mail your comments to me at rightthing@nytimes.com.
You can also respond to the poll about this question that appears on the right-hand side of the blog.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business (Smith Kerr, 2006), is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of The Right Thing, a Web log focused on ethical issues.
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@nytimes.com or to "The Right Thing," The New York Times Syndicate, 500 Seventh Avenue, 8th floor, New York, NY 10018. Please remember to tell me who you are, where you're from, as well as where you read the column.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
THE RIGHT THING: THE PRICE IS RIGHT ... FOR NOW
I envy no one who has to go through the process of buying a house.
An endless search for a house that suits your needs and matches your budget. Negotiating a price that seems fair to the buyer and acceptable to the seller. Mind-numbing paperwork and details to get the deal closed and then, finally, you can collapse into your dream house ... and get to work on broken screens, rusty storm doors, suspicious traces of pests among your woodwork, peeling paint and the fireplace that blows smoke into your living room.
The process is no less taxing for a seller. After months of trying to unload your property, you finally find the perfect buyer. But he can't sell his former house, can't get financing or reneges on the deal because the building inspector tells him that an outlet plate in the garage is missing and an attic door is short a few screws.
Sellers mistrust buyers. Buyers mistrust sellers. It's a wonder any house ever changes hands.
While it would be nice to think that a handshake and someone's word were enough to seal a deal, they aren't. Even when specific conditions are written and agreed to as part of a sale, it's often a challenge to hold all parties to their commitments.
A reader from Ohio learned the importance of getting everything in writing not long ago, after he and his wife decided to sell their house and move to Florida. One of their longtime neighbors expressed an interest in buying their house, so, instead of putting it on the market, my reader had it appraised, after which he and the neighbor agreed on a selling price. Because they hadn't listed the house with a broker or advertised its sale, there were no counteroffers.
The day before he was to leave, however, the neighbors - one of whom is a real-estate agent - told my reader that her bank had appraised the house for $14,000 less than the agreed-upon price. With the move upon him, my reader negotiated and was able to get his neighbor up slightly, but the final price was still $6,000 less than the original agreement.
My reader's brother believes that the neighbor used the pressure of the imminent move in an unethical way by not revealing the lower appraisal earlier, enabling her to use it to coerce a lower price. He asked what I think.
It's impossible to get inside the head of the buyers to know what motivated them. All the same, it wasn't right for them to wait until the absolute last minute to change the deal. The right thing would have been for them to get the appraisal before they agreed to the price in the first place. There's no virtue in making a last-minute change, especially in doing so at what had to be the most inopportune time for the seller.
But my reader also had a responsibility to protect his and his wife's interests by getting that offer in writing. He may have been well-intentioned and trusting, but he was reckless with his family's fortunes. While he was able to salvage some of the lost price, the right thing would have been for both parties to agree to a deal in writing and stick to it.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
An endless search for a house that suits your needs and matches your budget. Negotiating a price that seems fair to the buyer and acceptable to the seller. Mind-numbing paperwork and details to get the deal closed and then, finally, you can collapse into your dream house ... and get to work on broken screens, rusty storm doors, suspicious traces of pests among your woodwork, peeling paint and the fireplace that blows smoke into your living room.
The process is no less taxing for a seller. After months of trying to unload your property, you finally find the perfect buyer. But he can't sell his former house, can't get financing or reneges on the deal because the building inspector tells him that an outlet plate in the garage is missing and an attic door is short a few screws.
Sellers mistrust buyers. Buyers mistrust sellers. It's a wonder any house ever changes hands.
While it would be nice to think that a handshake and someone's word were enough to seal a deal, they aren't. Even when specific conditions are written and agreed to as part of a sale, it's often a challenge to hold all parties to their commitments.
A reader from Ohio learned the importance of getting everything in writing not long ago, after he and his wife decided to sell their house and move to Florida. One of their longtime neighbors expressed an interest in buying their house, so, instead of putting it on the market, my reader had it appraised, after which he and the neighbor agreed on a selling price. Because they hadn't listed the house with a broker or advertised its sale, there were no counteroffers.
The day before he was to leave, however, the neighbors - one of whom is a real-estate agent - told my reader that her bank had appraised the house for $14,000 less than the agreed-upon price. With the move upon him, my reader negotiated and was able to get his neighbor up slightly, but the final price was still $6,000 less than the original agreement.
My reader's brother believes that the neighbor used the pressure of the imminent move in an unethical way by not revealing the lower appraisal earlier, enabling her to use it to coerce a lower price. He asked what I think.
It's impossible to get inside the head of the buyers to know what motivated them. All the same, it wasn't right for them to wait until the absolute last minute to change the deal. The right thing would have been for them to get the appraisal before they agreed to the price in the first place. There's no virtue in making a last-minute change, especially in doing so at what had to be the most inopportune time for the seller.
But my reader also had a responsibility to protect his and his wife's interests by getting that offer in writing. He may have been well-intentioned and trusting, but he was reckless with his family's fortunes. While he was able to salvage some of the lost price, the right thing would have been for both parties to agree to a deal in writing and stick to it.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Sunday, June 15, 2008
THE RIGHT THING: PARTY OF THE OTHER PART
I don't write about etiquette. If you're looking for advice on how many months you have to give a couple a gift after their wedding or whether you should wait for a hostess to unfold her cloth napkin before you unfold yours, I'm not your guy.
But there are occasions when questions about ethics, which involves the moral rightness of a decision, and etiquette, which is concerned with how you should behave in social situations, overlap.
A reader from California writes to me that she is known for her "wonderful dinner parties." For these sit-down events she sets two tables, one for 12 people and the other for six. She places her married guests apart from their spouses so that they can mingle with people who will be "new and interesting."
Both tables are in the dining room, but the smaller table is slightly closer to the kitchen.
At a recent dinner party, one couple called her after they had left -- while the party was still going on -- and screamed at her that they had never been so humiliated in their lives.
"You are so Beverly Hills," the couple yelled. "You put us at the B table! Why did you put us with those old people instead of our friends?"
As someone who spends little time in Beverly Hills, I have no idea what they meant by "so Beverly Hills," but I do know that it wasn't meant as a compliment. My reader provides some guidance by noting that the callers seemed particularly incensed because there was a celebrity at the larger table, which in their minds made it the A table. She adds that she had deliberately separated the couple from their friends because the pairs had been giving one another the cold shoulder for several weeks.
"I found the rudeness uncalled for," my reader writes. "What should I have done?"
It was probably a breach of etiquette for the couple to berate their hostess while the party was still going on, but was it also a lapse in ethical judgment?
I believe so. They might have expressed their disappointment at not being seated with their friends in a civil manner, but instead chose to verbally attack my reader and accuse her of deliberately slighting them. Their behavior crossed into ethical territory when they decided to attack her. Not sending a thank-you note would have been a breach in etiquette, but shouting expletives about being seated near the kitchen goes a step further. That they called while the party was still in progress makes it a full-blown leap into doing the wrong thing.
The right thing for my reader to do was to let them know that she was sorry they were upset, explain that she had a dinner party to get back to and then seriously consider striking them from her list of future invitees.
Treating people badly lands firmly in unethical territory. Granted, how people behave at a swank dinner party ranks low on anyone's list of most egregious ethical lapses. It's how we behave in our day-to-day dealings that ultimately defines who we really are, though. Learning to be gracious is a lesson that will improve both our etiquette and our ethics.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
But there are occasions when questions about ethics, which involves the moral rightness of a decision, and etiquette, which is concerned with how you should behave in social situations, overlap.
A reader from California writes to me that she is known for her "wonderful dinner parties." For these sit-down events she sets two tables, one for 12 people and the other for six. She places her married guests apart from their spouses so that they can mingle with people who will be "new and interesting."
Both tables are in the dining room, but the smaller table is slightly closer to the kitchen.
At a recent dinner party, one couple called her after they had left -- while the party was still going on -- and screamed at her that they had never been so humiliated in their lives.
"You are so Beverly Hills," the couple yelled. "You put us at the B table! Why did you put us with those old people instead of our friends?"
As someone who spends little time in Beverly Hills, I have no idea what they meant by "so Beverly Hills," but I do know that it wasn't meant as a compliment. My reader provides some guidance by noting that the callers seemed particularly incensed because there was a celebrity at the larger table, which in their minds made it the A table. She adds that she had deliberately separated the couple from their friends because the pairs had been giving one another the cold shoulder for several weeks.
"I found the rudeness uncalled for," my reader writes. "What should I have done?"
It was probably a breach of etiquette for the couple to berate their hostess while the party was still going on, but was it also a lapse in ethical judgment?
I believe so. They might have expressed their disappointment at not being seated with their friends in a civil manner, but instead chose to verbally attack my reader and accuse her of deliberately slighting them. Their behavior crossed into ethical territory when they decided to attack her. Not sending a thank-you note would have been a breach in etiquette, but shouting expletives about being seated near the kitchen goes a step further. That they called while the party was still in progress makes it a full-blown leap into doing the wrong thing.
The right thing for my reader to do was to let them know that she was sorry they were upset, explain that she had a dinner party to get back to and then seriously consider striking them from her list of future invitees.
Treating people badly lands firmly in unethical territory. Granted, how people behave at a swank dinner party ranks low on anyone's list of most egregious ethical lapses. It's how we behave in our day-to-day dealings that ultimately defines who we really are, though. Learning to be gracious is a lesson that will improve both our etiquette and our ethics.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
SOUND OFF: SICK CALLS
I asked my readers whether or not it is OK to call in sick when you're not really sick, and the vast majority who responded came down firmly on the side of it not being OK. The results of an unscientific poll on my column's blog have 47 percent voting it not OK, 17 percent voting it OK, 19 percent voting it sometimes OK and another 17 percent voting it not OK but adding that they've done it anyway.
"If a person is not sick, they have no right to call in sick," writes Delaine P. Whitehead of Tustin, Calif. "A person can use any number of euphemisms to excuse such behavior, but it is still just a lie."
"If a large number of people are not honest with employers," writes Brenda Levy of Richmond, Va., "then the employer may be forced to change its policy, which would put everyone at a disadvantage."
Madilyn Bruening of Riverton, Utah, highlights how one employer has addressed such issues.
"A good friend has a job where employees are given two extra sick days per year to be used for their well-being," she writes. "The idea is that, when her job gets too stressful, she then can take one of these days to ditch work and recuperate."
Check out other opinions here, or post your own or post your own by clicking on "comments" or "post a comment" below.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of The Right Thing, a Web log focused on ethical issues.
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@nytimes.com or to "The Right Thing," The New York Times Syndicate, 500 Seventh Avenue, 8th floor, New York, NY 10018. Please remember to tell me who you are, where you're from, as well as where you read the column.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
"If a person is not sick, they have no right to call in sick," writes Delaine P. Whitehead of Tustin, Calif. "A person can use any number of euphemisms to excuse such behavior, but it is still just a lie."
"If a large number of people are not honest with employers," writes Brenda Levy of Richmond, Va., "then the employer may be forced to change its policy, which would put everyone at a disadvantage."
Madilyn Bruening of Riverton, Utah, highlights how one employer has addressed such issues.
"A good friend has a job where employees are given two extra sick days per year to be used for their well-being," she writes. "The idea is that, when her job gets too stressful, she then can take one of these days to ditch work and recuperate."
Check out other opinions here, or post your own or post your own by clicking on "comments" or "post a comment" below.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of The Right Thing, a Web log focused on ethical issues.
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@nytimes.com or to "The Right Thing," The New York Times Syndicate, 500 Seventh Avenue, 8th floor, New York, NY 10018. Please remember to tell me who you are, where you're from, as well as where you read the column.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
The Right Thing Stories
For the weekly newspaper ethics column I write for the New York Times Syndicate called "The Right Thing," I am always looking for stories of ethical challenges, dilemmas, and perplexing situations. If you have such a story or question based on an incident and would like it to be considered for the column, please email it to me at rightthing@nytimes.com. (Or you can post it here by clicking on "comments" or "post a comment" below.
Please make sure to include enough details about the story, the issue that you're wrestling with, and your name and the city and state or province where you are located. Include a way for me to contact you.If you know of others who might have interesting stories, please forward this email on to them.
If you're local paper doesn't carry The Right Thing column and you'd like it to, you can send an email to the editor of the paper suggesting they contact the New York Times Syndicate. Contact information is available at http://nytsyn.com/saleinfo.html. (Or contact Sales Manager Ana Muñoz at munoza@nytimes.com or 212.499.3333 and tell her the name of your local newspaper that you believe should be carrying the column.)
Thanks in advance for your stories.
Best,
Jeffrey Seglin
Please make sure to include enough details about the story, the issue that you're wrestling with, and your name and the city and state or province where you are located. Include a way for me to contact you.If you know of others who might have interesting stories, please forward this email on to them.
If you're local paper doesn't carry The Right Thing column and you'd like it to, you can send an email to the editor of the paper suggesting they contact the New York Times Syndicate. Contact information is available at http://nytsyn.com/saleinfo.html. (Or contact Sales Manager Ana Muñoz at munoza@nytimes.com or 212.499.3333 and tell her the name of your local newspaper that you believe should be carrying the column.)
Thanks in advance for your stories.
Best,
Jeffrey Seglin
Sunday, June 08, 2008
SOUND OFF: YARD-SALE SCORES
As summer approaches and yard sales pop up around the country, a frequent question from my readers is whether it's OK to take advantage of an unsuspecting seller who is offering what you know to be a valuable item for a fraction of its true worth.
I've previously written about specific instances of yard-sale finds in the column. (See Found Art and Knowing More than You're Telling.) In general, however, do you think it's right to take advantage of a yard-sale seller's ignorance of an item's value? Or should you point out to the sellers that they might want to do some quick research on their Faberge egg before putting it out with the shrimp-cocktail glasses at a nickel apiece?
Post your thoughts here by clicking on "comments" or "post a comment" below. Please include your name, hometown, and state, province, or country. Readers' comments may appear in an upcoming column. Or e-mail your comments to me at rightthing@nytimes.com.
You can also respond to the poll about this question that appears on the right-hand side of the blog.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business (Smith Kerr, 2006), is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of The Right Thing, a Web log focused on ethical issues.
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@nytimes.com or to "The Right Thing," The New York Times Syndicate, 500 Seventh Avenue, 8th floor, New York, NY 10018. Please remember to tell me who you are, where you're from, as well as where you read the column.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
I've previously written about specific instances of yard-sale finds in the column. (See Found Art and Knowing More than You're Telling.) In general, however, do you think it's right to take advantage of a yard-sale seller's ignorance of an item's value? Or should you point out to the sellers that they might want to do some quick research on their Faberge egg before putting it out with the shrimp-cocktail glasses at a nickel apiece?
Post your thoughts here by clicking on "comments" or "post a comment" below. Please include your name, hometown, and state, province, or country. Readers' comments may appear in an upcoming column. Or e-mail your comments to me at rightthing@nytimes.com.
You can also respond to the poll about this question that appears on the right-hand side of the blog.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business (Smith Kerr, 2006), is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of The Right Thing, a Web log focused on ethical issues.
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@nytimes.com or to "The Right Thing," The New York Times Syndicate, 500 Seventh Avenue, 8th floor, New York, NY 10018. Please remember to tell me who you are, where you're from, as well as where you read the column.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
THE RIGHT THING: DOG-DAY AFTERNOONS
"I know it's spring when the dog calls start," says Bill Hedrick, first assistant city prosecutor for Columbus, Ohio.
Hedrick has had city residents call his office in the wee hours of the morning -- "almost in tears," he says -- and leave voicemail messages saying, "Listen to this," followed by the sound of neighbors' dogs barking incessantly.
I spoke with Hedrick after a reader from Columbus, himself a dog owner, e-mailed to tell me that, every time a particular neighbor leaves her house, she leaves her dogs on her sun porch to allow them access to the backyard.
"They bark at every moving thing when the owner is not home," my reader writes.
After having had his fill of the noise one weekend, my reader went next door to talk with the owner. When there was no answer he left, but returned later with a printout of tips on how to control barking dogs. When there was still no answer, he left the tips along with his name, address and telephone number, as well as a note asking the owner to call him. She never called.
"At least six other neighbors agree that the dogs bark excessively," he says. "I'm at my wit's end."
While it's always risky to confront a neighbor you don't know, particularly in the middle of the night, my reader did the right thing by contacting his neighbor and trying to resolve the issue between them. Her lack of responsiveness, however, forces him to enlist his fellow neighbors and take the next step.
Some municipalities have no laws regulating barking dogs. Columbus is not one of them, though: Its "noisy animals" law is Article 2327.14 of the city's general-offenses code. So, if a dog barks excessively and the owner can't or won't curtail it, residents don't call animal control, they call the city attorney's office -- which is where Hedrick comes in.
If owners don't respond to a warning letter, Hedrick says, his office will schedule mediation. If mediation doesn't alleviate the problem, prosecution is possible. Fines run as much as $150, plus court costs, but cases rarely make it past the mediation stage.
"Typically," Hedrick says, "the warning letter takes care of the problem."
Hedrick's office does not disclose to the dog owner the name of the person who filed the initial complaint.
If a warning letter doesn't do the trick -- and, given her lack of response to my reader's note, it might not -- my reader and his neighbors may have to take the step of requesting mediation to resolve the problem.
There's nothing unethical about reporting the situation to the authorities. If the dogs' barking is a neighborhood-wide issue, it's entirely proper to want it stopped. It's not "tattling" to pursue peace and quiet, and my reader has gone out of his way to resolve the problem without involving the city.
At least one of my reader's neighbors has already shown willingness to put his name and face behind the complaint, and other neighbors should step up and do the same, if they agree that the dogs are a problem.
The more who come forward, the less likely it is that the dogs' owner can claim that the complaints come from a single neighbor with whom she has personal issues, as is often the case in such matters.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Hedrick has had city residents call his office in the wee hours of the morning -- "almost in tears," he says -- and leave voicemail messages saying, "Listen to this," followed by the sound of neighbors' dogs barking incessantly.
I spoke with Hedrick after a reader from Columbus, himself a dog owner, e-mailed to tell me that, every time a particular neighbor leaves her house, she leaves her dogs on her sun porch to allow them access to the backyard.
"They bark at every moving thing when the owner is not home," my reader writes.
After having had his fill of the noise one weekend, my reader went next door to talk with the owner. When there was no answer he left, but returned later with a printout of tips on how to control barking dogs. When there was still no answer, he left the tips along with his name, address and telephone number, as well as a note asking the owner to call him. She never called.
"At least six other neighbors agree that the dogs bark excessively," he says. "I'm at my wit's end."
While it's always risky to confront a neighbor you don't know, particularly in the middle of the night, my reader did the right thing by contacting his neighbor and trying to resolve the issue between them. Her lack of responsiveness, however, forces him to enlist his fellow neighbors and take the next step.
Some municipalities have no laws regulating barking dogs. Columbus is not one of them, though: Its "noisy animals" law is Article 2327.14 of the city's general-offenses code. So, if a dog barks excessively and the owner can't or won't curtail it, residents don't call animal control, they call the city attorney's office -- which is where Hedrick comes in.
If owners don't respond to a warning letter, Hedrick says, his office will schedule mediation. If mediation doesn't alleviate the problem, prosecution is possible. Fines run as much as $150, plus court costs, but cases rarely make it past the mediation stage.
"Typically," Hedrick says, "the warning letter takes care of the problem."
Hedrick's office does not disclose to the dog owner the name of the person who filed the initial complaint.
If a warning letter doesn't do the trick -- and, given her lack of response to my reader's note, it might not -- my reader and his neighbors may have to take the step of requesting mediation to resolve the problem.
There's nothing unethical about reporting the situation to the authorities. If the dogs' barking is a neighborhood-wide issue, it's entirely proper to want it stopped. It's not "tattling" to pursue peace and quiet, and my reader has gone out of his way to resolve the problem without involving the city.
At least one of my reader's neighbors has already shown willingness to put his name and face behind the complaint, and other neighbors should step up and do the same, if they agree that the dogs are a problem.
The more who come forward, the less likely it is that the dogs' owner can claim that the complaints come from a single neighbor with whom she has personal issues, as is often the case in such matters.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Sunday, June 01, 2008
THE RIGHT THING: THE PRICE IS RIGHT ... OR IS IT?
In a well-landscaped neighborhood in southern California, a new homeowner got involved with her homeowners association shortly after she moved in. Not long thereafter she became treasurer of the association's board.
As the new fiscal year approached and the association's budget was being updated, one of its service providers -- the landscaping service -- raised its rates by 67 percent compared to the previous year. The treasurer asked the board to entertain competitive bids to make sure that the rate increase was warranted, but the rest of the board refused.
Soon afterward the janitorial-service provider indicated that it was raising its rates by 20 percent. Again the treasurer asked the board to consider getting competitive bids to determine whether the increase would bring the service charges up to market rate or if they were exorbitantly out of whack. Once again the board refused.
"My frustration isn't that we're paying a lot," the treasurer writes. "It's that we don't know if we're paying a lot."
Perhaps the association was getting great deals in the past, she explains, and the service providers are merely bringing their charges up to established market levels. Then again, they may have raised their rates way above the current market.
"I just hate that we're making decisions out of ignorance or laziness," she says.
She asks if her board has an ethical responsibility to validate that it is spending the homeowners' money as efficiently as possible, rather than being carefree with expenses.
That's a loaded question, of course, since any board officer -- and I am myself on the boards of a couple of not-for-profit organizations -- knows that it's never ethical for any board to be reckless with its constituents' money.
My reader wonders, however, if she is being arrogant in insisting that her idea of getting competitive bids is correct, and can't decide whether her choice to be a thorn in the sides of the other board members by pushing them to live up to their responsibilities is worth it.
The information about the association's budget and its expenses is not hidden from the home owners. Most of the time, however, homeowners pay scant attention to specific details of the association's business. Only a quarter of the homeowners in my reader's neighborhood chose to attend the association's most recent annual meeting.
Still, their disinterest isn't a license to ignore their interests. The right thing for the board to do is to inform the homeowners about the sizable increases in the service providers' rates. It may be the members who decide how to proceed, or they may choose to leave that decision to the board. It doesn't matter -- what's important is that the issue should be raised.
My reader has a point, though. It may be that the homeowners like the service they're getting so much that they are willing to pay a premium for landscaping and janitorial work. Without knowing what others charge for comparable services, however, they have no way of knowing if they are paying above market rates.
It's the board's responsibility, as a steward for the families it represents, to see that they do know what the market rates are. The community members can't make an informed decision, one way or the other, unless the board does its job and alerts them to these significant increases and provides them with the information they need to understand the situation.
If they decide to stick with the current providers, well and good -- the board still will have done its job of protecting the interests of the homeowners it represents.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
As the new fiscal year approached and the association's budget was being updated, one of its service providers -- the landscaping service -- raised its rates by 67 percent compared to the previous year. The treasurer asked the board to entertain competitive bids to make sure that the rate increase was warranted, but the rest of the board refused.
Soon afterward the janitorial-service provider indicated that it was raising its rates by 20 percent. Again the treasurer asked the board to consider getting competitive bids to determine whether the increase would bring the service charges up to market rate or if they were exorbitantly out of whack. Once again the board refused.
"My frustration isn't that we're paying a lot," the treasurer writes. "It's that we don't know if we're paying a lot."
Perhaps the association was getting great deals in the past, she explains, and the service providers are merely bringing their charges up to established market levels. Then again, they may have raised their rates way above the current market.
"I just hate that we're making decisions out of ignorance or laziness," she says.
She asks if her board has an ethical responsibility to validate that it is spending the homeowners' money as efficiently as possible, rather than being carefree with expenses.
That's a loaded question, of course, since any board officer -- and I am myself on the boards of a couple of not-for-profit organizations -- knows that it's never ethical for any board to be reckless with its constituents' money.
My reader wonders, however, if she is being arrogant in insisting that her idea of getting competitive bids is correct, and can't decide whether her choice to be a thorn in the sides of the other board members by pushing them to live up to their responsibilities is worth it.
The information about the association's budget and its expenses is not hidden from the home owners. Most of the time, however, homeowners pay scant attention to specific details of the association's business. Only a quarter of the homeowners in my reader's neighborhood chose to attend the association's most recent annual meeting.
Still, their disinterest isn't a license to ignore their interests. The right thing for the board to do is to inform the homeowners about the sizable increases in the service providers' rates. It may be the members who decide how to proceed, or they may choose to leave that decision to the board. It doesn't matter -- what's important is that the issue should be raised.
My reader has a point, though. It may be that the homeowners like the service they're getting so much that they are willing to pay a premium for landscaping and janitorial work. Without knowing what others charge for comparable services, however, they have no way of knowing if they are paying above market rates.
It's the board's responsibility, as a steward for the families it represents, to see that they do know what the market rates are. The community members can't make an informed decision, one way or the other, unless the board does its job and alerts them to these significant increases and provides them with the information they need to understand the situation.
If they decide to stick with the current providers, well and good -- the board still will have done its job of protecting the interests of the homeowners it represents.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
SOUND OFF: WHAT'S IN A NAME?
My readers had various opinions as to whether the owner of a Philadelphia restaurant that opened in 1949 should change its name -- Chink's Steaks -- since it might well offend a particular ethnic group. The results of an unscientific poll on my column's blog have 57 percent of readers voting that the name should not be changed and 43 percent voting that it should.
"The owner has every right to keep the name," writes Maggie Lawrence of Culpepper, Va., "and people who want to be offended have every right to not eat there."
"There will always be someone who is offended by something," writes Jerry Wright of San Juan Capistrano, Calif. "Since the name has been around for years, it should remain so."
"On probably more than half of the reviews I read of Chink's, customers said that they liked the cheesesteaks despite the name," writes Kim Liao of Somerville, Mass. "Why force customers to `get over' an obvious linguistic issue in order to recommend your product?"
"Anything that might possibly be construed as a racial or derogatory term, as such, should not be a source of financial gain or empowerment at the emotional expense of others," writes Patrick Burris of Charlotte, N.C.
Check out other opinions here, or post your own or post your own by clicking on "comments" or "post a comment" below.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of The Right Thing, a Web log focused on ethical issues.
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@nytimes.com or to "The Right Thing," The New York Times Syndicate, 500 Seventh Avenue, 8th floor, New York, NY 10018. Please remember to tell me who you are, where you're from, as well as where you read the column.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
"The owner has every right to keep the name," writes Maggie Lawrence of Culpepper, Va., "and people who want to be offended have every right to not eat there."
"There will always be someone who is offended by something," writes Jerry Wright of San Juan Capistrano, Calif. "Since the name has been around for years, it should remain so."
"On probably more than half of the reviews I read of Chink's, customers said that they liked the cheesesteaks despite the name," writes Kim Liao of Somerville, Mass. "Why force customers to `get over' an obvious linguistic issue in order to recommend your product?"
"Anything that might possibly be construed as a racial or derogatory term, as such, should not be a source of financial gain or empowerment at the emotional expense of others," writes Patrick Burris of Charlotte, N.C.
Check out other opinions here, or post your own or post your own by clicking on "comments" or "post a comment" below.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of The Right Thing, a Web log focused on ethical issues.
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@nytimes.com or to "The Right Thing," The New York Times Syndicate, 500 Seventh Avenue, 8th floor, New York, NY 10018. Please remember to tell me who you are, where you're from, as well as where you read the column.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)