Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to An ethical challenge >>>>>
jollyjeff - that's the truth of it and I'd like to say that the thought of
keeping it all never crossed my mind but it certainly did, right up to the second I told the guy and even then there were doubts.
posted by
gomedome
on February 18, 2006 at 1:42 PM
| link to this | reply
I like to think I would have done the same thing
but you never know until you're actually faced with a situation.
posted by
jollyjeff
on February 18, 2006 at 1:04 PM
| link to this | reply
aha!!!!
a prophet for our times!!!!
posted by
Xeno-x
on February 18, 2006 at 9:52 AM
| link to this | reply
gome
what you did. there is always a consequence to our choices
posted by
MysticGmekeepr
on February 17, 2006 at 2:21 PM
| link to this | reply
strat -- it's funny - may lightening strike me down if I am lying but
I just got off of the phone with the same client. He's back for another sizeable purchase, there have been quite a few since the that time period.
posted by
gomedome
on February 17, 2006 at 1:45 PM
| link to this | reply
Captain_Gulliver - that's a different question and a good one at that
Certainly a good portion of my motives in doing the right thing, were self serving. In a relatively small manufacturing community, not poisoning the perception that prospective clients may have of me, being the number one consideration. The scenario you describe has a different set of parameters. Our perceptions of large financial institutions would definitely affect the decision making process. I think that most individuals would attempt to manufacture any justification that they could think of to keep the money. But, if you look at it as objectively as possible, a person's motivation not to do the right thing in a case such as this, is premised solely on the institution's ability to absorb the loss. It isn't right but I think the majority of people would take the money.
posted by
gomedome
on February 17, 2006 at 1:42 PM
| link to this | reply
Actually, I think your solution was pretty sound.
Yeah, economic fluctuations are a fact, and if one really wanted to pin you to that, they could have written some caveat(Or so I assume) similar to locking in a mortgage rate, to cover such a situation.
Nonetheless, what you did is smart business all the way around, methinks. You still got a good bonus out of the deal; you positively cemented a business relationship by making an effort to cut the other guy some slack; and most important, by doing that, you seem to have preserved a good reputation on the invisible grapevine telegraph, which you so astutely pointed out, can make or break a business.
And, you can sleep at night and look in the mirror without wincing. That's probably worth 60 grand. Definitely worth 10, anyway.
posted by
strat
on February 17, 2006 at 1:18 PM
| link to this | reply
Bud-Oracle - does it have to be from dogs?
Are you saying that you are currently between opportunities?
posted by
gomedome
on February 17, 2006 at 1:08 PM
| link to this | reply
Ouch...touch delima...
LOL...are you wanting a conversation on business ethics? But I like philosophical dilemmas...Is it terrible to make a distinction between some faceless bank being short the difference in such an exchange rate, as opposed to a client and potential repeat customer? What I mean is would I feel bad if somehow, through some stroke of bizarre international economics, I found myself the recipient of $60,000? I doubt I would even think twice about accepting the bonus. Now, on the other hand if I were dealing with a client, that brings up a whole new set of ethical standards. I mean, does it necessarly show a lack of integrity to be so nonchalant toward a faceless entity, but yet have a new feeling when the client is talking to you on the phone, and you have a business relationship with them? Do ethics change depending on the situation?
posted by
Captain_Gulliver
on February 17, 2006 at 12:57 PM
| link to this | reply
I wish that I can make $50.00/day picking up dog shit !
posted by
Bud-Oracle
on February 17, 2006 at 12:42 PM
| link to this | reply