Re: Ethics, credit cards and government leaders

Why is it our resposibility if we don't get reimbursed?
You as a manager order the travel, tell us when where and how and then want us to pay the expenses out of our own funds until someone gets around to issue us a check.
What hogwash! I did not want this card, but was FORCED to take it. If it offical travel, why dosen't the government pay it like the purchase card?

Re: But What About the Grey Areas?

Are you serious? You don't understand why LUGGAGE is considered a personal item...yes, it's travel related just like a toothbrush is, but it's still PERSONAL. No gray area here..you should have used either your own cash, or your own credit card. You didn't "save" the government an ATM fee, as the gov't doesn't pay ATM fees for personal withdrawals of cash. What you read into your supervisor's expression was clearly your imagination as there simply isn't any gray area here. You misused the card; however, certainly, the counseling you received was an appropriate response.

Yes, employees are ultimately responsible for paying the debts, but they are using the government's credit (not their own) to ascertain their purchases. Further, if they don't pay it the banks may write off the expenses which creates problems for the government's credibility.

Re: But What About the Grey Areas?

1) The exigencies of travel required something to carry back the materials in. I opted for a suitcase that I would not have otherwise purchased. There may have been personal considerations as well, but each decision contains some element of personal baggage. If, while engaged in my job, I take an action that I would not otherwise take, then it is work related.

2) I did not put it on my own card because I did not have it. I do not use cards, except for travel, and did not bring mine because I had the government card. I did not expect any non-work related charges, and did not have any (See item 1 above).

3) When we use our cards in ATM’s the ATM charges a fee. We report it in block 18 of the DD 1351-2, include a copy of the slip, and get reimbursed for it.

4) My supervisor was a very intelligent lady who appreciated the incongruity.

5) I do not depend on government credit for a card. I can get one.

6) "If" I don't pay? If my aunt had testicles, she'd be my uncle.

Re: But What About the Grey Areas?

Your smugness doesn't dismiss the fact that you used the gov't card for a personal purchase. you had several options - 1. carry the stuff back yourself; 2., call your office and request authorization to mail the material back; 3. this is the "no-brainer" that many people would have thought of - take an empty bag with you in foresight. Lack of planning doesn't make what you did right. Your misuse isn't particularly serious, and didn't warrant anything other than a counseling, but your lack of understanding your responsibility is troublesome.

Re: But What About the Grey Areas?

1) I did carry the stuff back myself. That's why I wanted the suitcase. OOPS! That's a mistake -- I didn't want it. As I said, I would not have otherwise purchased it.

2) I didn't need permission to mail or ship. That was not a viable option. It was after hours in a small town with no Pac Mail and I had to be on a flight first thing in the morning with no time to mail it.

3) I considered the paper bag. Didn't think it would be adequate.

If I am smug, it is because I am right. If I erred, it was in my original flip response to the article -- the seeming incongruity of a suitcase not being travel related was too good to pass up on. I didn't err in my actions. I didn't go shopping for a suitcase; I took the best solution in a situation without any good solutions, and it resulted in a rather silly technical violation.

Now, tell me something I've been wondering about. What's an ER Specialist?

Re: But What About the Grey Areas?

Lead Staff Accountant certainly is good at explaining which rules he will and will not follow, and why. Has he thought of running for President?

Re: But What About the Grey Areas?

1) I never said I didn't follow the rules. I strongly disagree with the rule, and I think the rule itself has ethical problems, but the ethical problems of the rule does not create ethical problems for me, as say, a rule requiring me to run the gas at Treblinka would. I do follow the rule, though I disagree with it. This problem was not over following the rule, but over an interpretation of the rule. Is a suitcase, needed because of an exigency that arose WHILE ON TRAVEL a valid use of the travel card? Remember, I was told I could have drawn the funds and used cash with no problem. So is it appropriate to place restrictions on the card that are not on the funds themselves?

2) Considered it, but it's too much trouble. I'd rather be the guy that pulls the strings, like Richelieu. Or better than that, Vice President. Collect a fat paycheck to play golf and attend state funerals.

3) Does reformed conservative mean Libertarian?

Re: But What About the Grey Areas?

That was a very good response, Lead Staff Accountant. 10 points for you! :D

Nope, not Libertarian; I don't think Libertarianism is feasible in a group larger than about 10 people. Just another disaffected voter! There seem to be many voters like me--not conservative, not liberal, just disgusted with politics as usual--but few politicians seem interested in courting us.

Re: But What About the Grey Areas?

An Employee Relations Specialist gives managers advice on responding to employees much like yourself who don't follow rules.

Just one question: Did your agency reimburse you for the luggage? If not, then it was PERSONAL! Case closed.

Re: situational ethics

Ah! But there seems to be a built in assumption on this point that following the regs is ethical. What if the regs themselves are not ethical? Would you pull the switch to drop the pellets at Auschwitz because the regs said to do it?* An extreme case, perhaps, but it is in the extremities that modes tollens** raises its ugly head. Our regs require us to accept responsability for governmental expenses until such time as the government can get around to reimbursing us for them. Is that ethical? Was it unethical for Ghandi to make salt? If not, then is it unethical for us to skirt the charge card regs?

*Actually, an experiment showed that a surprising number of people are willing to do simply horrible things if someone else agrees to take responsability for it.

**If P implies Q is true, and Q is false, then P must be false. In other words, if a premise leads to a false conclusion, then we must reject the premise, no matter how much sense it seemed to make at the time.

Re: situational ethics

As a supervisor, I'm not sure I could trust someone in a fiduciary position if they did not feel following regulations was ethical. The travel regs are not unethical, and it is not your call whether or not they are.

By the way, what happened to the suitcase when you returned to work?

Re: situational ethics

I understand your hesitation. People who think regs are optional have a special talent for getting their supervisors into trouble. Luckily, I don’t think that following regs is unethical, but blindly following them can be. Also luckily, my supervisors trust my judgment on when to make the call enough to make me a lead accountant.

I see an ethical problem with travel cards on the part of the government. The government makes them our responsibility, then limits how we can use them. If the government wants the cards to be their cards, then they should take responsibility for them. This doesn’t mean that I abuse mine. The suitcase was a decision I made in a small town after normal business hours when I didn’t see any better choices.

I still have it. I didn’t want it, but didn’t think it would fly if I filed for reimbursement. If I had, it probably would have ended up at DRMO and I could have bought it back at auction for $2.

Re: situational ethics

So, Lead, are you unethical or blind? You keep stepping all yourself trying to explain your way out of this. The answer is as plain as the suitcase in YOUR closet. It doesn't belong to the government, never did, and therefore, the government was correct in not reimbursing you for it to begin with. I think your supervisor was laughing because they couldn't believe you thought you'd get away with it. And stop with the "killing" analogies. They don't fit the situation, just like your suitcase.