Jeffrey L. Seglin's Blog, page 65

The return of the power saw

I don't own a lot of power tools. On the odd occasion that I really need a power tool for a project, I tend to borrow it from my son-in-law, preferably with him in tow to operate the power tool.
But the occasion arose this summer where I needed to cut up large planks of wood from an old deck we were dismantling so we could re-purpose some of that wood. It would have taken far longer to saw the wood with a hand saw than it did to dismantle the entire deck. My son-in-law and his tools were not handy, so I decided to purchase a circular saw from the hardware store to do the job.
Once figuring out how to attach the blade to the saw for the first time (thank you, help boards on the Internet), the job went pretty easily. I sawed through large planks in seconds and created neat piles of short lengths of 2 inches-by-6 inches. All went well until I got to the last plank.
When I went to cut the last plank, the motor made an odd sound and the saw stopped working. I'd been using the power saw for less than an hour, but I let it sit idle for an hour or so in case I had somehow overtaxed the motor. But when I went to use the saw again, it still didn't work.
Since it was still early evening, I decided to return to the hardware store.
I told the clerk why I had purchased the saw, what had happened, and how the saw had stopped working. He asked if I still needed a saw to get the job done. If I did, he said, he'd be glad to exchange it for a new one. If not, he told me I could return the saw for a refund.
I told him that the job was practically done and that I could use a hand saw on the final board.
No problem, he told me. He took the saw back and refunded the purchase price.
A neighbor who had been checking up on my work throughout the day noticed that I was hand sawing the last plank and pointed out that essentially I had purchased the circular saw in the morning, used it for a job, and then returned it after I was almost done.
"Was that ethical?" he asked. His point was that I had used a piece of equipment without having to pay for it.
I had a choice. I could have done precisely what my neighbor suggested I did -- just go back to the hardware store and return the circular saw without explanation. I could have done this regardless of whether the saw had stopped working. But I tried to do what I thought was the right thing by explaining to the clerk exactly how much I had used the saw, as well as how I no longer needed it for the job.
Perhaps I was a bit more forthcoming than I needed to be with the clerk, but it seemed the right thing to do. What would you have done? 
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 a lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at  Harvard's Kennedy School . 
Follow him on Twitter: @jseglin 
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to  rightthing@comcast.net.  
(c) 2013 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNECONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

Must I take this job offer if a better one comes along?

Job hunting can be brutal for anyone. For recent college graduates facing a mountain of debt from student loans, it can seem even more overwhelming.
Granted, having an undergraduate or graduate degree can give someone an edge in landing a good position, but the often overwhelming debt that can go along with that earned degree can be daunting.
Recently graduated students are eager to have as many employment options as possible. Who wants to shut the door on an OK job if the job of your dreams might not be quickly forthcoming?
I wasn't surprised when I received a note from a recent graduate, asking: "Is it ethical to accept a job today with the possibility that I might renege at some later date?"
He wanted to know what happens if after agreeing to a job offer, a better one comes up. "Assuming I haven't started the first job, is it unethical to renege on this acceptance?"
The student wrestling with the question seems to believe that while the security of having a job offer in the back pocket while you continue to search seems comforting, there's something unethical about it, especially if he continues to job hunt after he's accepted that initial offer.
In an ideal world, I suppose, each of us would find one job we love and an employer who loves us and remained gainfully and fulfillingly employed for the rest of our careers. No one would ever have to worry about where the next job or stellar employee came from. That world doesn't exist for employee or employer.
Accepting a job implies a commitment to taking that job and doing your utmost to do good work for your new employer. It also implies that an employer will honor its commitment to providing the job promised when you interviewed. More often than not these days, these too can be ideal rather than real situations.
Just as things might change with an employer that make a job quite a bit different than what was promised, an employee's situation might change.
If a better offer comes along before the initial job offered commences is it wrong to take the better job? I don't believe so.
The right thing is to be forthcoming with the initial prospective employer as soon as possible and to let it know you've decided to accept an offer elsewhere. If possible, it's far better to do this before you start the job for a number of reasons. For one, the employer has not committed time and resources to training you for the new job. Plus, on a practical personal level, jumping from job to job after very short tenures can raise concerns among future prospective employers.
Honoring commitments is important. But just as few employers are likely to guarantee a job for life to an employee, an employee shouldn't be expected not to accept the offer that is in his best long-term interests. As long as he doesn't lie to a prospective employer and works to act as swiftly as possible in notifying the employer if he decides not to take a job offer, then he is on solid ground in doing what's right. 
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 a lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at  Harvard's Kennedy School . 
Follow him on Twitter: @jseglin 
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to  rightthing@comcast.net.  
(c) 2013 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNECONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

Disclosing one another's email addresses

A psychotherapist reached out to ask me if she thought a lawyer acquaintance had acted inappropriately. The psychotherapist regularly serves as a supervisor to visits that noncustodial parents have with their children. As a condition of the visit, a third party in addition to the noncustodial parent and child must be present to ensure the safety of the child. Because these visitations are often court ordered, the noncustodial parent's lawyer will often contact the psychotherapist to help set up the initial visits.
After one such meeting with the parent and child, the psychotherapist emailed the lawyer to report that one visit had occurred and to fill him in on the status of future visits. While the psychotherapist and lawyer had established a policy of keeping one another updated via email, the psychotherapist had a policy of not emailing her clients, but instead speaking with them by phone to set up appointments.
She was taken aback when the lawyer responded to her email by copying the noncustodial parent to suggest that they follow up with one another about future visits via email.
The psychotherapist wants to know if the lawyer crossed a line by copying the noncustodial parent, disclosing her email address and suggesting he email her.
I believe he did.
Where the lawyer went wrong was in not consulting the psychotherapist first to tell her that he planned to copy the client on his email to her and suggest the email contact.
Such gaffes occur regularly in other situations. When, for example, a friend decides that you might be able to help someone he knows with something and wants to introduce the two of you, he might send an email to each of you simultaneously rather than emailing you first to ask if you are OK with him doing this.
The right thing in such circumstances is to ask the recipients first before sharing their email addresses with others. Many people will agree to help via email, but it should be up to them before they are put on the spot.
Granted, many of our email addresses are widely available to anyone who wants to find them. But it should have been up to the psychotherapist how private she wanted her email to be and how she preferred to have contact with her clients.
The same is true for the rest of us.
We should be the ones to decide when and with whom to share email addresses or other contact information. Our professional acquaintances and friends should understand that just because they can share a colleague's or friend's contact information with anyone they want doesn't mean they should without clearing it with the colleague or friend first.
The psychotherapist says that what's done is done. Now that her client has her email address, she'll simply request that he continue contacting her by phone. But she plans to let the lawyer know that she'd prefer in the future that he not share her email address with existing clients without consulting with her first. She's hopeful that the lawyer will not bill the client for the time she spends clarifying this issue with him. 

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 a lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at  Harvard's Kennedy School .  Follow him on Twitter: @jseglin  Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to  rightthing@comcast.net.   (c) 2013 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNECONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

Who gets into the hall?

On the last Sunday in July, the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum in Cooperstown, N.Y., inducted its latest class of hall of famers. Typically, the sportswriters who vote on those Major League Baseball players who are eligible give at least one player a nod into the Hall. This year, no player got enough votes. Three people did get inducted -- a team owner, an umpire, a 19th-century catcher -- but they came via the veterans committee. All three were inducted posthumously.
It's not the first time sportswriters dunned the eligible crowd. The last time was 1996. But this year was different. It seemed to be a message that the sportswriters were closing the doors to the Hall of Fame to those who either admitted using performance-enhancing drugs while playing the game or are alleged to have used them.
The New York Times reported that Ozzie Smith, the Hall of Fame former shortstop for the St. Louis Cardinals, said that "being rejected by voters 'is one of the things you have to weigh when you decide to do something wrong. ... You have to realize you won't get in'."
Dennis McNamara, the nephew of Hank O'Day, the umpire elected into the Hall, told the crowd assembled in Cooperstown that the lesson of his uncle "is do your best with honesty and integrity -- a lesson that might be in the minds of some players not elected."
Perhaps Smith and McNamara are correct -- that if you get caught or suspected of using steroids to boost your performance, you don't deserve a place among the baseball immortals in the Hall. But do some of these players still deserve to be considered given their overall contribution to the game?
Some sportswriters obviously think so given the healthy percentage of votes some of the higher profile players suspected of steroid use received. Sports bars and baseball stadiums are littered with vocal supporters of these players.
Still others believe a spot in the Hall of Fame should be reserved for those players whose prowess was based on skills not amplified by steroids.
One former major league player told me that he thinks that, eventually, some of the players who had a storied career before their steroid use was obvious might find their way into the Hall, essentially arguing to discount their statistics after the steroid use began. If they juiced up from the get-go, he felt they had no place being honored.
This year's vote may have been meant as a symbolic message that steroid use will keep you out of the Hall. If that was the intent, then it's important that from now on the veterans committee holds true to this stance and restrains from letting in the biggest culprits. Otherwise, it's a hollow gesture.
The right thing falls back on assessing how people choose to behave when they decide to be together. If no one cares about steroid use in the league or among the fans, then there's no reason not to vote for players suspected of steroid use. But if the decision is made to base the votes to the best of their knowledge on letting in players whose performance was not enhanced by steroids, then the sportswriters sent the right message this year.
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 a lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at  Harvard's Kennedy School . Follow him on Twitter: @jseglin Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to  rightthing@comcast.net.


(c) 2013 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNECONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

Did you read my email?

An email arrived on a late Monday afternoon that seemed part question and part challenge.
A reader from Northern California wrote to say that in a typical week, he might send out five emails to members on the staff of various organizations with information that he believes they might find interesting. On weeks when relevant news is breaking, he says he might send out as many as 10 to 20 of these emails.
When he sends his emails out, he indicates that he usually clicks the box for "request a read receipt," which would allow his recipients who receive his emails to click if they want him to know they read his emails. "However," he writes, "my tracking record of confirmation feedback of a read receipt is less than 10 percent."
Assuming that not all of the emails he sends out go unopened or unread, the reader wants to know what ethical obligation his email readers have when confronted with this request for confirmation that they have read his email.
"It seems to me that from an ethical perspective if you are going to read the email you should acknowledge that simple act with an affirmation to this confirmation request," he writes. But he acknowledges that human nature probably causes people to believe that it really does not matter since the confirmation could be considered a reply which is their option and their choice.
His question seemed clear enough: Do recipients have an ethical obligation to click and send back requested read email receipts?
But as I was reading his email, sure enough, a box requesting me to click on it to confirm receipt of his email popped up on my screen. It seemed the reader had embedded a challenge as well as a question. His test was whether or not I would click on the box so he would know I received the email.
I did. But you are under no ethical obligation to do so.
Simply because an email writer clicks on this feature does not obligate the rest of us to take the time to use it. Some might not want to engage the original sender any further than his initial email and believe by sending the receipt they might send the wrong message that they wish to continue the conversation.
Many others might simply find that requested receipt feature to be a nuisance. (Of equal curiosity is the use of the "urgent" classification of an email that is accompanied by a red asterisk. I have yet to receive one of those that required any sense of urgency.)
There is no accepted practice among email users that every request from an unknown sender must or should be honored. It might annoy the sender that recipients don't comply in the manner he would like, but annoyances don't always translate to ethical transgressions.
Still, as a courtesy to a reader I clicked on the box and returned the read receipt. I also responded within a few minutes of his initial email's arrival and asked the sender a handful of questions. As of six days after my email was sent, I've received no response. 
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 a lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at  Harvard's Kennedy School . 
Follow him on Twitter: @jseglin 
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to  rightthing@comcast.net.  
(c) 2013 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by Tribune MediaServices, Inc.

You look, you pay

In March, a retail store in Brisbane, Australia, which sells gluten-free foods, began charging customers $5 for the privilege of browsing.
"I have to wake people up, everything in life is not free," the owner of the shop told the Brisbane Times. "I'm not a charity, and I'm not doing community service."
The owner faces what many bricks-and-mortar retailers face, namely, how to compete with lower prices offered by big-box discount stores or online retailers. Some large discounters, including Target and Best Buy, began addressing the issue by agreeing to match online prices during holiday sales, but have since adopted year-round online price-matching programs.
It's likely more challenging for the smaller independent retailer, such as the shop in Brisbane, to match online prices and still turn a profit.
The owner of the gluten-free shop points out that she will apply the $5 toward the price of any purchase made in the store that day and that she has no plan to charge the disabled, "regulars," "pensioners" or "kids." In fact, she told the Brisbane Times that she rarely needed to enforce the policy and has only had one person complain about it.
Still, the owner believes it's only fair that if browsers come into her store to tap her dietary wisdom about gluten-free products or to seek free samples that they should pay something.
A colleague who pointed out the news report about the "browsing fee" mentioned that she "would love to believe that independent stores can fight back in ways other than charging for browsing."
I agree that a "browsing fee" might do more to scare away new business than to strengthen the bottom line. After all, if the owner only seems to be assessing the fee to her non-regulars, then that's hardly presenting a hardy welcome to prospective new shoppers.
But does it cross ethical lines to assess a fee for just looking around?
While it may represent a self-sabotaging marketing strategy, there's nothing inherently unethical about the idea of assessing a browsing fee.
Problems could arise, however, if the policy is applied inconsistently. Already, it seems the owner makes exceptions and waives the fee for a variety of categories of people. Her exceptions might seem sensible now, but they quickly could be viewed as arbitrary, particularly by groups not included.
If store owners are going to entertain establishing similar "browsing fees," then the right thing is to make sure the policy is made clear to customers, that it is consistent in its enforcement, and that it isn't used as a way to discourage particular groups from entering the store at all.
But if a store owner truly wants to survive in a hyper-competitive environment, then the right thing is to ask herself if charging "browsing fees" really accomplishes what it sets out to do.
Providing great selection and expert advice tailored to individual customers could go a long way toward converting browsers into regulars. It might not win all of their business from the competitors, but capturing some with great service and selection is a good thing.
Besides, just because a policy isn't, on the surface at least, unethical doesn't mean it isn't silly. 
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 a lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at  Harvard's Kennedy School . 
Follow him on Twitter: @jseglin 
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to  rightthing@comcast.net.
(c) 2013 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by Tribune MediaServices, Inc.

Striking out to set the record straight

What do you do when someone else gets blamed for a mistake you made?
An assistant coach of a Babe Ruth League baseball team had to make that decision after an erroneous report in his local newspaper.
In an article about the retirement of a long-time umpire of youth sports throughout Cape Cod, Mass., the reporter mentioned an incident that occurred during the final game of the umpire's 36-year career.
With runners on first and third, the reporter wrote that the coach of the team shouted out to his pitcher that if the batter should decide to bunt the ball, the pitcher should "throw it at his head." Strategically, the coach may have had good intentions, but from a safety and sportsmanlike perspective, his instruction to his pitcher was egregiously inappropriate.
Still, the reporter noted that the umpire stepped in after the opposing team's coach started yelling at the offending coach about his instruction. The umpire broke up the argument and observed that the coach "didn't mean to say what he said," but had been caught up in the excitement of the moment.
Perhaps a questionable observation by the umpire who could have thrown the offending coach out of the game as a signal that such behavior is unacceptable in the league.
The worst part? The reporter got the name wrong of the coach who made the questionable instruction to his pitcher. He erroneously attributed the shout to throw the ball at the batter's head to another coach in the game. The coach who actually challenged the instructions given was the coach who got mistakenly blamed.
Eventually, the reporter caught on that a reporting error was made. A corrected story was posted to the online version and a correction was published in the print version the following week.
Was that enough? Granted, the wrong coach had been pegged for giving such bonehead instructions to his young pitcher, but by virtue of the correction being publicly made, the record had been set straight. Did the coach who actually shouted the instructions have any obligation to do more?
He appears to believe he did. In a lengthy letter published in the newspaper right after the event but before the correction appeared in print, the offending coach immediately identified himself as the coach who gave the instructions.
He went on to apologize to readers, acknowledged that he never should have given the instructions, and that he should have been thrown out of the game. He called the father of the batter to apologize and then spoke to the child who was at bat to explain to him how wrong he was.
He finished his letter by explaining that the game in question was his last as a youth baseball coach -- wishing it had ended under better circumstances. Still, he wrote that he hoped his mistake could be used to help future coaches not to repeat his error.
Was the coach obligated to offer a public apology? No, but in trying to set the record straight and make sure that a fellow coach wasn't excoriated for something he didn't do, he did the right thing by owning up to what he had done and articulating why it was wrong. 
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 a lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at  Harvard's Kennedy School . 
Follow him on Twitter: @jseglin 
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to  rightthing@comcast.net.
 (c) 2013 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by Tribune MediaServices, Inc.

Conversation with Maria Stephanos (Fox 25 News) over Rolling Stone cover controversy

I spoke with Maria Stephanos of Fox 25 News this evening about the controversy over the Rolling Stone cover. The full text of the article without pictures appears here. A video of the discussion with Maria Stephanos appears below. Boston News, Weather, Sports | FOX 25 | MyFoxBoston

San Francisco TV station incorrectly reports Asiana pilot names

I spoke with Jarrod Holbrook of Boston's Fox 25 News about the mis-reporting of Asiana pilot names by a San Francisco television news station ...

Boston News, Weather, Sports | FOX 25 | MyFoxBoston

How table squatters can ruin a perfect cup of coffee

Many of us have found ourselves in a crowded restaurant or fast-food establishment where there is self-seating. We find ourselves waiting in line, hoping that some of the occupied tables will become free by the time our order is complete.

Theoretically, if we and other patrons wait until we each get our food before occupying a table, then it's possible that the flow of traffic will be such that there will be enough available seating for everyone -- or at worst, a short wait for a spot to open up. 

But many of us have also found ourselves in these establishments witnessing customers grabbing empty tables as soon as they walk in and well before they order or pay for anything. 

These folks, writes T.D., a reader from Boston, Mass., are in the wrong ... or at least he believes them to be and he would like some validation.

He writes with (I hope) some exaggeration: "I'm desperate for an answer to this everyday dilemma. If I don't get an answer soon, there may be an incident."

What's eating at T.D. is whether or not it's acceptable to simply take an open table at a coffee shop before getting in line or purchasing something at the shop. "Isn't this action an outright affront to those waiting in line?" he asks.

To T.D.'s way of thinking, tables are for paying customers, or more specifically, customers who have already paid. "Regardless of their intent, I hold that people who have not yet ordered anything, much less paid for it cannot be considered customers."

He wants some validation.

"Taking a table in this manner is objectionable and should not be allowed by staff or true patrons," he writes. "Right?"

I agree with T.D. that custom at most self-seating restaurants would have it that you wait until you've placed your order and paid for it before claiming a spot at a table. It's certainly the courteous thing to do.

But there are times when it seems clear that it's simply impractical to engage in the customary practice. An adult with a half dozen or so toddlers or small children in tow, for example, might actually be doing other customers a favor by finding a place to seat the kids as soon as possible rather than have them scramble under foot. Few would find fault with allowing someone who is using a cane or walker to sit upon entering the establishment. It might be equally acceptable for a woman who is clearly pregnant to sit while a companion places their food or drink order.

But for most of us, if the custom is to order and pay and then find a place to sit, that custom should be honored. It's one of those times that how we decide to behave when we are together comes clearly into focus.

If that custom is not clear to other patrons, then the establishment's management might make it clear to patrons that the expectation is that they will order and pay before sitting down. Customers shouldn't be expected to confront one another with their disappointment in others' inability to show common courtesy.

Will the world come crushing down if we have to wait a bit longer because someone breaks custom? Not likely. But it would make T.D. happy to know that others show him the same courtesy he shows them when he wants to sit and enjoy a cup of coffee. 

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 a lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at  Harvard's Kennedy School .

Follow him on Twitter: @jseglin

Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to  rightthing@comcast.net.

(c) 2013 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by Tribune MediaServices, Inc.