Received the Wrong Lens

[table1349]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IoU3bEFUw...eSvbMy4C1Q/s1600/Calvin+And+Hobbes+Ethics.jpg :mrgreen:

 

[cfusionpm]

Not exactly the same thing. Taking a car because the keys were in it takes a concious action on your part to take the car. A better scenario would be if you bought a new car without leather seats or navigation, but the one they gave you had leather seats and nav. Goes directly back to my original analogy to Monopoly: Bank error in your favor. Collect $200.

So keeping an item that YOU know is wrong is not a conscious action? So you are unconscious then?

Nothing has been done wrong by the recipient at the point of transaction. How it's handled from that point by the customer is where things get gray and its up to the individual to decide how to handle it. I don't believe there is a single, universal constant when it comes to decisions like this, and they should be addressed on a case by case basis. For example, when I worked at a grocery store, if one of my items were rung up incorrectly or an item was skipped, both myself and the checker could lose our jobs. But if a checker misrings or skips an item for a customer, relatively speaking its no big deal. Customer gets the item, checker may not even get talked to. These things just happen and its all about context.

I suppose this view has come from getting "screwed over" by a handful companies and business in the past. But it also comes from working within and understanding the difference between Shrink issues and Loss Prevention issues. The difference comes from designating intent. Did the seller intentionally try to short the company by discounting or giving away items? (Grounds for getting fired) Or did the seller make an innocent mistake which may or may not have any significant impact on the business? (Grounds for a "talking-to").

This is why I feel that this kind of situation doesn't have a strong argument for "doing the right thing." If it makes someone sleep better at night, then more power to them; I just don't see it that way in this particular case.

 

[table1349]

Not exactly the same thing. Taking a car because the keys were in it takes a concious action on your part to take the car. A better scenario would be if you bought a new car without leather seats or navigation, but the one they gave you had leather seats and nav. Goes directly back to my original analogy to Monopoly: Bank error in your favor. Collect $200.

So keeping an item that YOU know is wrong is not a conscious action? So you are unconscious then?

Nothing has been done wrong by the recipient at the point of transaction. How it's handled from that point by the customer is where things get gray and its up to the individual to decide how to handle it. I don't believe there is a single, universal constant when it comes to decisions like this, and they should be addressed on a case by case basis. For example, when I worked at a grocery store, if one of my items were rung up incorrectly or an item was skipped, both myself and the checker could lose our jobs. But if a checker misrings or skips an item for a customer, relatively speaking its no big deal. Customer gets the item, checker may not even get talked to. These things just happen and its all about context.

I suppose this view has come from getting "screwed over" by a handful companies and business in the past. But it also comes from working within and understanding the difference between Shrink issues and Loss Prevention issues. The difference comes from designating intent. Did the seller intentionally try to short the company by discounting or giving away items? (Grounds for getting fired) Or did the seller make an innocent mistake which may or may not have any significant impact on the business? (Grounds for a "talking-to").

This is why I feel that this kind of situation doesn't have a strong argument for "doing the right thing." If it makes someone sleep better at night, then more power to them; I just don't see it that way in this particular case.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IoU3bEFUw...eSvbMy4C1Q/s1600/Calvin+And+Hobbes+Ethics.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3169/3111720610_76fd0c0aa9_o.png

Moral Compass on Dilbert.com

 

[chito beach]

Not exactly the same thing. Taking a car because the keys were in it takes a concious action on your part to take the car. A better scenario would be if you bought a new car without leather seats or navigation, but the one they gave you had leather seats and nav. Goes directly back to my original analogy to Monopoly: Bank error in your favor. Collect $200.

So keeping an item that YOU know is wrong is not a conscious action? So you are unconscious then?

Nothing has been done wrong by the recipient at the point of transaction. How it's handled from that point by the customer is where things get gray and its up to the individual to decide how to handle it. I don't believe there is a single, universal constant when it comes to decisions like this, and they should be addressed on a case by case basis. For example, when I worked at a grocery store, if one of my items were rung up incorrectly or an item was skipped, both myself and the checker could lose our jobs. But if a checker misrings or skips an item for a customer, relatively speaking its no big deal. Customer gets the item, checker may not even get talked to. These things just happen and its all about context.

I suppose this view has come from getting "screwed over" by a handful companies and business in the past. But it also comes from working within and understanding the difference between Shrink issues and Loss Prevention issues. The difference comes from designating intent. Did the seller intentionally try to short the company by discounting or giving away items? (Grounds for getting fired) Or did the seller make an innocent mistake which may or may not have any significant impact on the business? (Grounds for a "talking-to").

This is why I feel that this kind of situation doesn't have a strong argument for "doing the right thing." If it makes someone sleep better at night, then more power to them; I just don't see it that way in this particular case.

Wow what impresses me is how some people can justify a wrong action. Whether or not someone else has done wrong does not make it right for you too.

 

[Arch]

so much drama... and going no where.