Jeffrey L. Seglin's Blog, page 71

If something taxes your conscience, confront it

It's funny sometimes who considers us their friend.
A reader in the Midwest writes to tell me that one of her neighbors who considers my reader a friend runs a service business out of her home but has not reported any income for tax purposes for at least the past five years.
"We live in a good school district and I struggle to pay federal, state, city, and school district taxes," writes my reader who is a single parent. "It seems unfair that she would not have to pay her fair share."
But the reader observes that there seems to be some "unwritten code" that keeps telling her she should mind her own business and not turn her into the tax authorities -- especially since the neighbor considers her to be a friend.
The possible tax laxness is not the friend's only behavior that eats at my reader. She also doesn't care for some other choices she has made, like opting for cosmetic surgery while "telling everyone she cannot afford speech therapy for her son."
Not paying taxes is just "icing on the cake" when it comes to bad behavior, the reader writes, but it's something she perceives she can do something about.
She wants to know if turning her neighbor into the tax authorities is "the right and patriotic thing to do, or is it in some way wrong in this case?"
It's not wrong to alert authorities if you believe someone is violating the law. But the question for my reader has to be whether she's willing to alert the authorities without any proof other than the braggadocio of her neighbor.
Choosing cosmetic surgery over the needs of a child may call her neighbor's parenting skills into serious question. But unlike the results of the cosmetic surgery that my reader believes she can plainly see, without documentation or evidence of wrongdoing, if she notifies tax authorities she might be drawing attention to a neighbor who is guilty of nothing more than bragging about getting away with something.
If the neighbor seemed remorseful about having neglected to pay past taxes, my reader could advise her to consult a tax professional who specializes in helping to rectify such circumstances. Coming clean and looking for a way to make restitution seems a more favorable route than waiting for the tax authorities to catch her unlawful actions.
If the neighbor's actions truly disturb my reader, the right thing for her to do is to let her neighbor know that she finds her behavior objectionable. The reader can comment as much as she wants about the fairness of the situation and how if she has to pay taxes so should her neighbor. But ultimately, it should be the legal and civic responsibility that draws her to pay what she owes.
Then, the reader can offer to help the neighbor find a professional who will help her to set things straight. That's a first, reasonable response to the neighbor's alleged actions. Perhaps the neighbor will come clean about whether her claims are truthful. Perhaps she won't. But the reader will let her know in no uncertain terms that she finds her claims of being a tax scofflaw to be objectionable. 
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) 2012 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by Tribune MediaServices, Inc.

Do heirs have the right to dictate which mementos you sell?

Last year, when gold prices reached an all-time high, a number of people scrambled through old jewelry boxes to see if they had any underused gold lying around that they could sell. At more than $1,800 an ounce, even those who weren't strapped for cash recognized a unique opportunity to do some profitable house cleaning.
A reader from North Carolina seized the moment. He hadn't worn his college ring in decades, so he decided to take it to his local jeweler to see how much it might fetch.
He was surprised to be offered $479, so he accepted a check on the spot. His wife mentioned his good fortune to their adult daughter who lives a few hours away.
"She was quite upset, tracked down the jeweler on the phone, and managed to 'save' it," my reader reports. He picked his ring up the next day, returned the check, and gave his daughter the ring the next time he saw her.
"Our daughter is just more sentimental than I am and wanted to have it to remember it by," he says. "She loves me."
A similar situation arose recently after he decided to sell a couple of handwritten letters that had been addressed to him by a well-known author to thank him for some information. Believing his letters might get lost or damaged and would not be of interest to anyone down the line, he ended up selling them to a dealer for $100.
He received "a lot of flak" from a relative who told him he should have saved the letters for his grandchildren. "He reasoned that they could be worth much more years from now and said that it was 'unimaginative' . . . and, in effect, selfish of me to sell the letters now, especially since I don't need the money."
My reader says he has acquired a lot of things over the years and doesn't want to be second-guessed on what he chooses to dispose of before his next "and probably final" move. His children and grandchildren will, he says, be rewarded with money and things of sentimental value after his death.
As he gets older, however, he wants to get rid of some things that mean little to him. He also hopes to spare his children any conflict over who gets what when the time comes.
"Should I have to consult with the parents of our grandchildren on everything?" he asks. "Is it ethical to dispose of your once-prized possessions when they might have real or sentimental value to your heirs?"
It's my reader's stuff and the right thing is for him to keep whatever he wants and dispose of whatever he doesn't. He has no ethical obligation to seek the permission of his kids, grandkids, or other relatives about what he does with his stuff.
Knowing, however, that his daughter might be sentimentally attached to some of his belongings, it would be thoughtful for him to let her and his other children know when he's getting rid of something. But such notification could be more of a courtesy than a negotiation.
Some family members may take issue with how he decides to lighten his load. They're free to express their opinion. But ultimately, as long as he is prepared to withstand some possible criticism, the decision about what to keep and what to lose is his to make.
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) 2012 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by Tribune MediaServices, Inc.

A good deed deserves good customer service

What would you do? It's a common question used to follow any number of theoretical circumstances in which you might find yourself.
If you knew an employee you manage was going to be laid off in a couple of weeks and she came to you asking for advice on putting a down payment on a house, would you tell her that job was soon to be gone even though the company asked you not to disclose the information? If an ATM spit out twice the money you asked for and there's no record of that excess, would you return the money?
For a reader in the Ohio, the errant ATM disbursement is no theoretical exercise. A few years ago, at an ATM near his office, he made a deposit and requested $20 cash back. To his surprise, two 20-dollar bills came out along with a printed receipt that showed the correct deposit but a cash withdrawal of only $20.
He quickly called the branch of the bank (a large national bank) nearest to his office and asked to speak with a service representative. "When I explained what happened and tried to report the cash overpayment, their reply was simply astonishing."
The service rep told him that the branch he called had nothing to do with the ATM from which he withdrew his cash. He told him he should call another branch in Chicago. The service rep refused to call on my reader's behalf.
Of course, when he called Chicago, the service rep there told him to call his local branch. Explaining that he had tried this, the service rep in Chicago promised to correct his account.
In retrospect, he believes he let his bank, with which he has had an account for more than 30 years, off too easy.
When bank customers make mistakes, he reasons, say, overdrawing their accounts by as little as one dollar, his bank (and others) charges a substantial overdraft fee. If banks charge outrageous error fees, he believes it's only fair that when banks make a mistake, they should also be responsible for compensating those customers.
"More than 20 minutes of my life was wasted, undivided attention spent on the phone, begging (the bank) employees to correct the exasperating ATM mistake," he writes.
He doesn't seriously expect banks to ever compensate their inconvenienced customers, but, he asks "would it be unethical for suffering customers to ask bungling banks for similar idiot charges?"
There would be nothing ethically wrong with asking the bank to compensate him for his time straightening out an error it made and seemed reluctant to try to correct when a longstanding customer tried to make things right. But then, the bank has no ethical obligation to honor such a request.
But the bank is obligated to treat its customers with respect and to honor its stated commitment to customer service. Passing off a customer who wants to set accounts right reflects poorly on the bank and its practices. My reader did the right thing by trying to return the cash he knew was not his. The bank should have done the right thing by empowering its representatives to be responsive to its customer rather than sending him on a wild chase to figure out how to return the cash. 
And it wouldn't have killed the bank to thank my reader for his honesty, something it never bothered to do.
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) 2012 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by Tribune MediaServices, Inc.

Slow down, you're moving too fast

A reader frequently visits a friend who lives in a neighborhood that has many children playing in the area, although the friend has no children herself.
The reader has grown concerned about the number of young children, most looking to be 4-8 years old, wandering around the neighborhood "completely unsupervised."
"They dart out into the street," my reader reports, "ride their bikes in the street unsupervised, and play right at the end of their driveways where it would be very easy for them to get injured."
Complicating matters are the adults who walk their children and dogs in the street. "There are perfectly good sidewalks on both sides of the streets throughout the entire neighborhood, and yet they just don't use them."
"How can you expect a small child to understand the dangers of playing in the street when their parents make no effort to teach them?" my reader asks.
All of this came to a head a few weeks ago, when my reader reports she was driving to see her friend and was going four to five miles under the posted speed limit. A group of parents who were gathered with many small children in a neighbor's yard shouted, "Slow down!"
"The comment made me so angry I pulled over," she writes. She told them that it's inappropriate to shout things at cars, especially since she was going slower than the speed limit.
Several adults leaned into the window and told her they would call the police on her for driving so fast when there were so many children present.
The reader told them she didn't want to argue with them in front of their children. "Yeah, but you would be just fine hitting one of them with your car," a neighbor suggested.
"I'd like to just let it go, but they aren't going to," she says. "They have already purchased those yellow 'Slow: Kids at play' men and they place them in the street."
She says she is now afraid that they will retaliate when they see either her or her car. "I don't know what to do."
Parents certainly have a responsibility to supervise their children to keep them out of harm's way. If children are truly in peril because of negligent parents, then the parents should be held accountable.
It's not clear that that's the case here. Buying and placing signs to urge cars to slow down suggest that the parents care about their children's safety and want to send signals to drivers to take care. That they walk in the streets with their children might not be optimal, but still, they are accompanying their kids.
The fear of retaliation may be real, but the evidence suggests the neighbors only approached the reader's car after she stopped to confront them about shouting "Slow Down." It's not clear that shouting this was all that threatening. Positioning plastic yellow men hardly seems retaliatory.
The right thing is certainly for the parents to monitor their kids, but it's also right for my reader and others driving through any neighborhoods with a heavy population of children to drive with caution regardless of the posted speed limit. If someone shouts "Slow down," it might be good to consider it a sign of concern rather than a threat.
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) 2012 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by Tribune MediaServices, Inc.

Correcting a shelving error

A couple of weeks ago, a reader from northern New Jersey ordered a large bookcase from a major discount retailer. "I still love my books and have not given in to a Kindle or Nook!" she writes. The bookcase was on sale for "an excellent price" and the reader also received a discount by using her store credit card for the purchase.
A couple of days after she placed her order, a huge, heavy box arrived on her doorstep. "I was delighted to begin filling up the bookcase," she writes.
Then, two days later, another huge, heavy box arrived. She and her son dragged the box inside.
"It was another bookcase!" she writes. "I immediately checked my account online to see if I had been charged twice, but a charge for only one bookcase appeared."
Her dilemma, my reader figures, is: "Do I keep the extra bookcase without reporting the store's error or should I return it?"
The reasons for not keeping it without reporting the store's error include not feeling guilty every time she looks at the bookcase. On the other hand, she feels this bookcase is a "drop in the bucket" for a store as large as the one from which she purchased it. What's more, she would need help to return it since it is so heavy. Even if the store offered to pick it up, "that would require the inconvenience of someone being here for the pickup."
"As you can see," she writes, "I am trying to justify just keeping the 'free' bookcase, but I have that nagging feeling that it would not be the right thing to do."
She says she has "this thing about karma," and she doesn't want "to get a knot in my stomach every time I take a book off one of the shelves," so she wants to do the right thing.
My reader faces a common conundrum. It wasn't her mistake that led to the extra bookcase being sent, so why she wonders should she have to return it. Still, she knows it doesn't feel right to just keep it and not acknowledge the error.
She's right to want to acknowledge the error. Most readers know it would be wrong not to notify a bank if its ATM gave out too much money when you went for a withdrawal. But it doesn't always feel as clear cut when a retail store makes an error. The error may be the store's, but the right thing is still to notify the store that the extra bookcase has been sent in error.
It's perfectly reasonable to make the case to the customer service department that she's been a longtime customer of the store, hopes to remain one, and that the hassle of having to return the bookcase is significant. If the store personnel wants to let her keep it, that's up to them.
Ultimately, the right thing is to call attention to the error and find the best solution about which both sides can agree.
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) 2012 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by Tribune MediaServices, Inc.

Three cheers and you're out

Commencement should be a joyous time of year. Witnessing students receive diplomas earned after completing their course of study is a ritual of which any parent can be rightfully proud.
Reports of two incidents, one in South Carolina and another in Ohio, however, raise questions about just how far the celebration should go when children receive their diploma -- and raise even more questions about how strongly an institution should respond to keep over-the-top celebration in check.
The first incident occurred in Florence, S.C. Spectators were told they would be removed from the Florence Civic Center if they cheered for students as they received their diplomas from South Florence High School. Shannon Cooper cheered for her graduating daughter nonetheless and was escorted from the building by police into a van outside the building. She told reporters that she was then taken to the Florence County Detention Center and held until she posted a $225 bond. She subsequently pleaded not guilty to disorderly conduct and requested a trial by jury, which is scheduled for September.
The second incident occurred in Cincinnati, at Mt. Healthy High School's commencement ceremony. After graduating senior Anthony Cornist's family was deemed to have engaged in excessive cheering, he was informed that his diploma was being withheld -- and told he must complete 20 hours of community service before receiving it.
Having attended commencement ceremonies over the years, I'm familiar with the regular incantations from the administrators to withhold all applause until after all graduates have received their diplomas. I'm also familiar with the fact that rarely if ever does an audience of family members and loved ones comply with these requests.
That everyone ignores the pleas for restraint doesn't make things right. But it does raise the question of what's an appropriate response to cheering that's deemed to be "excessive."
If the attendees at South Florence High School's commencement ceremony were clearly warned that excessive cheerers would be removed from the ceremony, it seems fair to expect that it would not be an idle threat. But removing someone from the hall is one thing. Arresting the excessive cheerer as well seems a bit overboard. If attendees were warned that they would not only be removed but charged with disorderly conduct, however, then at least those breaking the rule were the ones being punished.
That doesn't seem to be the case in Cincinnati. There, the students were held responsible for the behavior of the spectators cheering them on. It hardly seems fair to punish a graduating senior because his family and friends can't contain their enthusiasm. It would seem akin to punishing a high school athlete because his loved ones got into a brawl during a game.
The right thing is to make the rules clear, but to make sure the rules hold the violators directly responsible for their own actions. Punishing graduating seniors who presumably were well behaved themselves throughout the ceremony sends a warped message about fairness and accountability.
Rules are rules and if they're made clear people can be expected to abide by them or risk facing consequences. But it would also serve school administrators well to examine whether the rules they set for a celebratory occasion are out of whack to begin with and some re-education is needed to not cast a pall on an otherwise joyous occasion. 
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) 2012 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by Tribune MediaServices, Inc. 

I can see clearly now

Chris, a reader from Columbus, Ohio, knows a good deal when he finds one. The challenge is that he needs his reading glasses to be able to spot a good deal close up when shopping.
That's no problem, since he's managed to find a great deal on reading glasses at the dollar discount store he frequents. There, he regularly purchases a pair when he needs one. They generally range in price from $4 to $6.
"I keep the package and receipt in case I need to return them," writes Chris. "Sometimes the pin will fall out. Sometimes the lens will fall out or the lens will get scratched."
He maintains he is not a "skinflint" nor does he want to make waves, but he has regularly returned a pair of glasses for an exchange if something goes wrong with them.
Over the past several months, Chris says he returned about six pairs with no problem in making the exchange.
A few weeks ago, however, the dollar store manager told him enough was enough. The returns are entered onto the cash register, so after his sixth return, the manager decided to step in and put a stop to it.
Chris explained to the manager that it said right on the package that the reading glasses are good for one year. Given the inexpensive nature of the product, Chris wonders whether he was in the wrong for trying to return glasses for a new pair when something went wrong with them.
Granted, the dollar store may be banking on the fact that by charging such a low price for its reading glasses that readers will be more likely to purchase a new pair if something goes wrong than to ask the store to make good on its returns policy. (I suspect that I'm not alone in purchasing several pairs at my local discount store so that at any given time I have a half dozen or so lying around in case one is lost or broken.)
But as long as whatever goes wrong with his reading glasses is based on regular wear and tear, Chris is doing nothing wrong by seeking a replacement. If there are no stipulations on the package about how often the reading glasses can be returned, or anything about the returns being based on a store manager's discretion, then the right thing is for the store to honor its return policy and give Chris a replacement without moaning about how often he has made such a return in the past.
The challenge for the consumer when purchasing such low-cost glasses is that the quality is likely not to be great and regular breakage may not be all that uncommon. It can be a hassle and a waste of resources to continue to have to replace the reading glasses. The challenge for the store is that if it is going to sell things that are cheaply made and offer a money-back guarantee on those products, then the store's management needs to honor that commitment regardless of how few customers take advantage of it.
It takes a shortsighted manager to try to make a customer feel guilty for taking advantage of the store's own policy.
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) 2012 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by Tribune MediaServices, Inc.

No thanks for money finder

Who doesn't like to feel appreciated for doing something good? Particularly when an act requires a little bit of extra effort, it seems natural to want to feel some gratitude.
As a reader from Southern California was walking to her car in a bank's parking lot near where its ATM was located, she found $200 scattered about.
"I am unemployed and $196 overdrawn in my checking account," she writes. Nevertheless, the next day she went to the bank and asked the manager if someone had reported the money missing. Luckily, the manager told her, they had indeed received a call from a customer who had lost her money in the bank's parking lot.
The manager asked her to leave her name and number with him. He told her that he would forward the information to the woman who had reported losing the money. The plan was for the manager to return the money if the woman could identify how much and where she lost it. He would also pass along the name of the person who had found and returned the lost cash.
Indeed, when the woman was called she identified the amount she had lost and where she had lost it. She retrieved her lost funds from the bank's manager who told her the name of the woman who had found her money.
"The woman never even called to say thank you," my reader says. "I didn't return the money expecting anything, but a thank you would have been nice."
She's angry that the woman did not call to thank her and she is "seriously regretting" her decision to give the money back, especial with her "financial dire straits."
"I am hopeful that there truly is karma, and that I made the right decision," she says.
In The Call of Stories: Teaching and the MoralImagination (Houghton Mifflin, 1990), Robert Coles writes that character "is how you behave when no one is looking."
My reader was certain no one was looking when she found the cash in the bank's parking lot. It would have been easy for her to simply scoop up the cash strewn about the parking lot and use it for her personal expenses. Clearly, she was in need of the funds. But she believed that the right thing to do was to make an effort to see if anyone had lost the cash. She showed great character.
Did she do the right thing? Yes, she did.
It also would have been the right thing for the person who lost the money to acknowledge the person who found it and returned it.
That she didn't may say something about her character, but it shouldn't change the reader's understanding that she acted with great character when she tried to get the cash to its rightful owner. After all, she didn't try to return it because she wanted a thank you, but because she believed it to be the responsible thing to do.
She can certainly regret that the money's owner didn't acknowledge her. But she can only control how she behaves, not how others do...even though the money loser might take a lesson in civil behavior from my reader.
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) 2012 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by Tribune MediaServices, Inc.

It would be so nice if you weren't here

As the summer bears down on us, the anticipation of holidays and family gatherings is not far behind. A reader from Southern California observes that while she looks forward to the joy a family holiday can bring, she also approaches each with some trepidation. "If families get along great, it's all wonderful," she writes.
But, she asks, what if the family doesn't all get along? "What if a Hatfield-McCoy type feud lingers on?"
Even worse, she writes, is when everyone in her household hates one family member so much they want to cut him out of any holiday gatherings in her home.
"How do you really get rid of that person when you grew up with him and you still have deep memories of the good times in the past and the current situation breaks you up inside?" she asks. "It tears your soul and you know that taking that person out of your life holds consequences. Then again, you also know that it will be better to exclude him because life with your current family means more to you than anything."
She aaks: "What do you do in that situation? Someone out there must be going through a similar situation and feeling the same thing."
The reader recognizes that this relative is not perfect. He likes attention and speaks louder than he should. He doesn't take no for an answer. "Above all else, he's confronted me whenever I have asked him to leave."
In the past, the reader has tried before to eliminate the relative from events and, she writes, it made her "a different person inside."
"Is it ethical for people to ask to eliminate a family member from gatherings just because everyone doesn't get along with him?"
There is nothing unethical about my reader's family members asking that someone not be invited to gatherings because of his past behavior. But if my reader is the person who takes responsibility for organizing and planning family events, there is nothing unethical about her deciding to invite the fellow anyway.
Her challenge is to figure out how to weigh the desires of her immediate family to avoid having contact with someone they deem unpleasant against her own desire to be as inclusive as she can when it comes to family gatherings.
She may decide it sets an uncomfortable precedent to single out family members for exclusion. Or she may be concerned that it sends a message of intolerance she doesn't want to convey. If these are true, then she's likely to want to keep inviting him, making it clear why to those requesting his absence.
But if she decides that he is simply so disruptive and uncontrollable at events that any hope of a joyful event is lost, then she's not obligated to invite him.
Ultimately, the choice is hers. Given that excluding him in the past has torn her up inside, it would seem the best right thing is to continue to invite him but to be clear with her family members why. They, in turn, should respect her decision.
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) 2012 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by Tribune MediaServices, Inc.

The right thing stories

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@comcast.net.


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. Also 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.
You can check out recent The Right Thing columns along with reader comments on the blog at  http://www.jeffreyseglin.com or at http://www.tmsfeatures.com/columns/advice/the-right-thing/

For information about carrying The Right Thing in your print or online publication, contact information is available at http://www.tmsfeatures.com/contact/ or e-mail a Tribune Media sales representative at  jscameron@tribune.com.