Hypothetical moral dilemma

[philmophlegm]

This isn't me I hasten to add. But I would appreciate your thoughts on this modern moral dilemma.

Miss B works for a large professional services firm. She has worked for three months on a secondment to a client a couple of hundred miles away. She travelled by train (first class, which she was entitled to because the journey was more than two hours) to and from the client a couple of times each week.

The train operator awarded her with some free first class tickets - sort of like a frequent flyer thing.

Now here's the moral dilemma:

Rather than use the free tickets to go away for the weekend or something (she possibly fancied some time at home after being away all summer), she has used them on further journeys to the same client, and has then claimed from her employer the cost of a standard rail ticket on expenses.

So, has she done anything morally wrong? On the one hand she has claimed as expenses something which did not cost her anything, but on the other hand it did cost her the use of the free tickets she had been given (and arguably she saved her employer money by only claiming a standard fare).

Those of you who don't work for a 'large professional services firm', answer the question "Was this morally wrong?". Those of you who do, please also answer the question "Do you think this broke the rules?"

Comments

[chainmailmaiden]

We wouldn't have been allowed to use the tickets for personal use where I work. We would have had to use them for business purposes and we certainly would not have been allowed to claim the money back, because it wasn't our money in the first place. However this is the place that made me write down every single free pen I got at an exhibition, in case I was corrupted by all the free stuff...

If it had been me in that situation I wouldn't have claimed the cost back from the employer, but then I wouldn't have had that situation as I wouldn't have used them for work. She's obviously thought about it, as she didn't claim the full first class fare, which suggests she thinks she's on dodgy ground. I'm not sure I'd go as far as saying it's morally wrong, but I do think it breaks the rules. It was her choice to use them for work, she didn't have to and she is making her employer pay for her freebie even if she did save them some money.

[jane-somebody.livejournal.com]

Skordh's ultimate employer being not dissimilar to yours, the same sort of rules apply. A few weeks ago he was hideously delayed on the way back from a work trip north, arriving home several hours late. The train company sent him vouchers for train journeys in compensation, but work rules say they can only be used for work journeys. I can see why this rule is in place, but I do think in this case this isn't fair - here it means work is getting something for nothing, since their working day hadn't been affected (and of course Skordh doesn't get overtime or anything for the travelling time), while Skordh, who suffered serious inconvenience, gets nothing. In Miss B's case it is different - here *she* is getting the something for nothing, since the travel vouchers were given specifically because of what work did (i.e. paying for expensive tickets). She suffered no personal inconvenience to be compensated for - on the contrary she had already had the perk of the first-class travel. I can see that it might be difficult to write The Rules in such a way as to take into account what seems to Common Sense to be an obvious distinction between the cases, and therefore they need to err on the side of disallowing anything that could look like fiddling (especially in the case of the public sector; obviously I don't know The Rules of Miss B's work). But regardless of The Rules I do think what Miss B did is clearly morally wrong.

[bunn.livejournal.com]

Not morally wrong as such.

BUT (as I said before) exactly the kind of thing I'd expect to lead to confusion and potential trouble and people looking worriedly through The RuleZ - and therefore, best avoided.

[wellinghall.livejournal.com]

I agree with bunn

[ladyofastolat.livejournal.com]

I think she was morally wrong. Someone else paid for the ticket, therefore the loyalty reward belongs to them, not to her. I think she should have declared them, and handed them over - though the company could, if it wanted, give them back to her and tell her to use them for her next work-related journey.

[chainmailmaiden]

You can tell you're public sector too :-) We have to declare everything over £30 (It's just my department that makes you declare every sodding free pen).

[ladyofastolat.livejournal.com]

We were once told that we weren't allowed to accept any gifts at all, because the same policy was written to cover everyone from the Chief Exec. to lollipop ladies. If a little old lady came doddering in at Christmas and gave us a cake to thank us for supplying her with Catherine Cooksons, we were supposed to say, "No! You're trying to bribe me! I cannot accept it!" It's now been changed so we are allowed to accept small gifts, but only if they can be shared between all staff in that work place. A box of chocolates is okay, but a single chocolate isn't.

[chainmailmaiden]

Not really related, but the teashop I used to waitress in gave cake & other baked goods to Catherine Cookson (because she lived nearby & the owner was a fan) and she gave us signed copies of her latest book as a thank you for supplying her with cake. She apparently really liked my mince pies (even though she wasn't supposed to have things with citrus fruit in, she thought they were so nice she ate them anyway) *beams*

[wellinghall.livejournal.com]

Gifts? Hah! No gifts here mate ... muttermuttermutter ...

[bunn.livejournal.com]

Isn't it different if there is an explicit no-free-gifts policy though? If you are not allowed to accept gifts, then doing so is deliberately disobeying the rules of your job, so it's clearly wrong.

If you are allowed to accept personal gifts though, surely it becomes less clear-cut? I think most private companies do allow staff to take 'tips' or freebies. Don't remember there being a policy on it when I worked for a university either, though there may be one now.

When I worked for an ISP, the best of the tech support guys often got presents sent in by customers they had helped. It was seen as a sign of 'going the extra mile' and outstanding knowledge and patience, and if anything, encouraged as a performance-related bonus that the company didn't have to pay for!

It's also worth considering the intention of the giver of the freeby. I would say most freebies are given with the intention of building a personal relationship with an individual, not as gifts to the ultimate signer of the cheques.

I would say the point at which the above example got to the 'I wouldn't do that' stage for me was when the expenses system got involved. That moves it out of the realm of freebies of little monetary value, into the area of cash, which is much more sensitive.

[ladyofastolat.livejournal.com]

The way I see it, the important thing here is that she didn't earn the gift. If someone had given her a reward for good work that she had done, then it would be different. Instead, they gave her a gift merely because her employer had footed the bill for a lot of journeys. Their money earned the gift, so I think they should be the ones who benefit.

What if instead of giving the free tickets, they'd said "10% off your future journeys." Would she be right, then, to keep on charging her employer £100 a journey (say) when she was consistently only paying £90?

[bunn.livejournal.com]

No, I'm not arguing that - at that point the free gift intersects with the expenses system and she'd be claiming money for something she didn't pay for, which I'd feel uncomfortable about.

However, I would say that was different from receiving a free gift, assuming that the policy of the company is that free gifts may be kept by the person to whom they are given. I don't see a problem with her taking the free tickets and using them on a day off, only with her claiming money back for them.

Even if you have not specifically earnt something, freebies can act as an excellent incentive. When I went to trade shows, people who weren't going would often ask me to pick up a mousemat or something for them, and I genuinely think that (for example) receiving a free Intel Beanie Baby brightened their day and made them feel more positive about their jobs.

Incidentally, I think it's relevant that the firm in question itself gives 'promotional' gifts to people who cannot really be said to have 'earnt' them, and expects them to keep and enjoy them.

Last year even my little company sent out some freebies : the recipients were carefully chosen and I'd be a bit miffed if they'd been the cause of bureaucratic formfilling, because they were intended to make people feel cheerful, not remind them they work under the iron thumb.

[ladyofastolat.livejournal.com]

I'd never really thought about freebies at shows as being the same as gifts. At librarian conferences, everyone goes into a mad feeding frenzy on the publishers' stalls, grabbing bookmarks, pencils, badges, soft toys, proof copies of books, posters etc. Most do tend to end up back at work, used as prizes etc., because they're children's book-related things, but some do sometimes end up at home. I seem to remember Chainmailmaiden talking about having to fill in endless forms declaring every single paper clip picked up at a trade show, but it's never occurred to me that I ought to declare the armfuls of publisher freebies.

Okay, I'll admit that there's a fine line of morality here. :-)

[sigisgrim.livejournal.com]

I used to work for a large US telecommunications company which is owened by Mormons. We were not allowed to recieve any form of gift whatsoever, including being bought lunch to a free pen. While that may sound a fairly draconian appraoch it does remove all opportunity for misunderstanding.

To answer the questions:
Yes, it was morally wrong; she didn't buy the tickets that she's claiming for.
Yes, she did break the Rules; claiming expences for something that didn't cost you anything is against the rules.

What she should have done is to speak to her manager (either direct or sufficiently high up the chain to make a decision on the matter) to clarify what could and couldn't be done.

In my first job I had to travel from Southampton to Yorkshire on a number of occasions for training, work paid for the train ticket. I asked if work would buy me a Young Person's Railcard as well as the first ticket (much higer cost than the non-discounted ticket) and allow me to use the railcard for personal journys. The answer was yes, everyone won, nobody got into trouble.

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

OK - that seems to be pretty much a consensus. It was morally wrong. Interesting, because initially I thought the opposite. I'm not normally one to be swayed by other people's morality though even if it seems to be the consensus opinion.

In fact this wasn't a hypothetical scenario. It happened as I've described it and Miss B's usually easy going employer is accusing her of fraud and has examined her last five years of expense claims. They have queried every single expense claim that does not have a receipt (even one where there is a receipt and it is for three pence MORE than the claim). I know about this because two of these expenses were approved my yours truly and she thinks they may start asking me questions.

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

A second moral dilemma.

Mr A took a long train journey (first class) that was much delayed because of a mechanical fault on the train. His journey was delayed by more than two hours, which entitles him to a full refund for that leg of the journey - £144.

The delay caused Mr A to arrive at his destination more than two hours after the end of his normal working day.

The moral dilemma is this:

Does Mr A have to give the refund to his employer (because they paid for the train ticket) or can he keep it for himself (because it was his spare time that he lost)?

[king-pellinor.livejournal.com]

If the train company has compensated Mr A for the inconvenience they have caused him, then he can keep it. If they have given him a credit note, then arguably not.

I would argue that they have compensated him, and based the compensation on the amount of the fare he paid.

I might take a different view if the employer counted the additional two or more hours as working time, and gave him appropriate time in lieu or overtime payments, as in that case it is the employer that is suffering the incomvenience.

By the way, I think Miss B is being unfairly tret. My employer, for example, specifically states (IIRC) that it allows one to claim the cost of travel up to the price of a second-hand train fare, even if one doesn't actually take the train (though I'd be surprised if anyone claims that, they probably just take the mileage even if it exceeds that price). I wouldn't expect them to say, for example, that driving to a client cost me nothing because I already own the car and the petrol, so the immediate cash cost to me is nil - I'm still using up something I own. So I would say that she is sticking to the rules.

I would also say that the free tickets are hers, not the employer's. I think (with my Clapham Omnibus hat on) that freebies are normally given to the passenger or customer, not the person paying the bills. The employer has no entitlement to the freebies - it would not be in a position to complain if she'd done something to disqualify herself from getting them, for example (eg not entering the programme. To relate it back to Mr A, if Ms B got a free coffee for the train being delayed, should that come out of her lunch allowance on the grounds that it's a freebie and the company's paid for it?

[jane-somebody.livejournal.com]

Ah, see my replay to Delia above...

[parrot-knight.livejournal.com]

Also (belatedly) in the morally wrong camp, and glad to see that others share my instincts on this.