Jobs, Ethics and the "Grey Area"

I talked about starting this thread a few days ago, but after seeing a new thread posted in which Dan will be sure to comment about how people should talk up, I decided to get this going now. I'm going to set up a quick introduction in this post, then follow it up with my personal situation.



Since many of us work in the service industry, most of us have jobs where we have to deal with clients or customers. As part of our jobs, we often times have policies set by management that we may not like or even agree with. However, as employees, we are required to adhere to those rules. Occasionally, we have to enforce the rules against others, be it customers or other employees. This can often cause a conflict as to how to address a situation, since we must support the business we work for, yet on the other side, we understand and maybe even agree with the customer/employee who is questioning the policy.

Example: In the Flashing Dealer thread, Paigowdan created quite a stir when talking about the ethics of "hole carding." At times, it was difficult to tell the line from CHEATING and using information to lower the house edge. While Dan lives by a much higher code of conduct than most gamblers, his casino-line stance on the issue upset a lot of people. Most dealers would absolutely take the approach Dan did WHILE WORKING, but may disagree entirely when on the customer side. Of course, on a forum like this, most dealers would agree with the player, understanding that point of view. But at work, they would have to tell the player they are wrong. See the conflict??

This thread is designed to discuss various jobs and where the conflicts come into play. I will have a very lengthy example from the retail industry in my next post. It's not intended to attack anybody (Dan, I only used your case as an example since it's what prompted me to start the thread), but rather bring up cases where as employees/managers/owners we are conflicted with what we would do if the shoe was on the other foot.

So now for my personal example. (I won't say the name of the firm, but the opinions expressed are my own... legal thing).

I work as a retail manager at a mid-sized department store. In training, it cannot be stressed enough that "The Customer is Always Right." This business philosophy really travels all the way down the business, through various services offered to our general demeanor with the customers. It's quite a pleasant shopping environment, and for retail, it's truly one of the best companies to work for, since customers are nearly always friendly and we are able to help them without many problems.

There is one policy, though, that the management will simply not bend in regards to customers. This policy regards "Price Adjustments."

Some background on this... We have a very loyal "Sale" shopper. We don't run traditional sales, but rather have a weekly markdown program that would be the equivalent of most stores clearance program. An item can be marked down up to four times, at set intervals, although time frames vary based on how well the item is selling at that markdown. I've seen items sit at first markdown for 12 weeks, and some items get marked down every week for three weeks until it's at its lowest selling price. It's hard to predict exactly when things will go down, and we tell the customers this.

Back to adjustments. When a customer buys an item, they have about 10 days to come back, and if the item has been marked down from the original price, they can receive a price adjustment. However, if they bought the item on "SALE," they can ONLY receive the item's sale price IF we have the IDENTICAL piece on the floor at that time. This means size, color, EVERYTHING identical (Reason being: if the customer could return one item and turn around and buy the exact same thing, it doesn't make sense not to grant the adjustment). If it's not identical, then NO ADJUSTMENT! PERIOD!

The conflict, using a recent example: There was a customer who came in, buying a particular item. She bought it a little over the 10 day time frame, but it had not been worn. She noticed the item went down in price, saving her another $100. Of course, she wanted the adjustment, but we didn't have the size on the floor. I told her that we couldn't grant the adjustment for the reason stated above. She went into a tirade about how this was ridiculous since the item was on the floor. I called the store manager over, who repeated what I said. The customer said she'd just return and rebuy the item, which we do not allow (we have to send it back to our warehouse if they threaten to do that). She then said she'd just call another person who would call us and have it transferred in from another store. The store manager said we couldn't stop her from doing that, and she proceeded to have the other person call and basically, through the other person, got the adjustment.

AS A MANGER, I have to uphold the policy. You could be my best friend, but while I'm at work, I cannot grant that adjustment under those circumstances. In fact, I would have to write up a report about what the problem was. If we granted adjustments like that in every circumstance, we'd lose a TON of money, I see that. We have customers who would buy at full-price and wait 4 months, only to want the adjustment. There is a very good reason this policy is in place...

AS A CUSTOMER, I would have been pissed. Basically, I had to take a long route to get the same adjustment. It doesn't make sense to me why they wouldn't just do that. Frankly, if I was that customer, I probably would never shop at our store again. (I've seen her in since then).

This is where the conflict exists. It's difficult to toe the line sometimes... but if you sympathize or make the exception this "one time," you might as well just change the policy, because you'll end up making the exception every time.

I hope this thread brings about some interesting points of view. I've been mulling it over for days now.

I am guessing Syms. I find the policy terrible. I f I go to a store on Monday and find something I want, but KNOW it will be 10% cheaper if I come back tomorrow, it means I have to make 2 trips to the same store. The policy is poorly designed, as there are negatives for BOTH the store and the customer. I will not shop there anymore.

If I was the customer I'd be pissed too.

It sounds as if some kind of store and/or price adjustment policy needs some tweaking. That multiple mark-down thing may be part of the problem, either mark it at your lowest price right off the bat or don't. I understand the store is trying to maximize profits, by trying see which sucker bites at each price point, of course the higher the better for the store. Maybe an "All Sales Final" policy on certain things.

If this type of situation occurs a lot, your customers are probably going to go some place else, I would.

My comments probably don't help your thread ;-)

Quote: Alan

If I was the customer I'd be pissed too.

It sounds as if some kind of store and/or price adjustment policy needs some tweaking. That multiple mark-down thing may be part of the problem, either mark it at your lowest price right off the bat or don't. I understand the store is trying to maximize profits, by trying see which sucker bites at each price point, of course the higher the better for the store. Maybe an "All Sales Final" policy on certain things.

If this type of situation occurs a lot, your customers are probably going to go some place else, I would.

My comments probably don't help your thread ;-)

Actually, the system works a lot better than what it sounds like. I'm using the example more from the standpoint that there are times where what we want/like as consumers is different than what we like as enforcers of rules. The company I work for really is a good company, it's just this particular policy that can irritate if you're on the wrong end.

Quote: Tiltpoul

Actually, the system works a lot better than what it sounds like.

I sure hope so. It sounds horrible.

Quote: Tiltpoul

The company I work for really is a good company, it's just this particular policy that can irritate if you're on the wrong end.

This is the problem. The company needs to see it from the customer's point of view and see just how irritating it can be. I assume they know this, they just don't address it by changing their policies. What happens is the front line(you and your supervisors) has to take the heat, not the CEO who could probably care less-obviously.

I understand what you're saying about having to enforce a policy that you may not necessarily be in agreement with. And of course, if you're the customer you sure as hell aren't in agreement with it-because its bad.

We all know Dan's position about peeking, cheating whatever. But, he knows better than to cut his own throat and it doesn't seem to bother him when there are bad games out there. Take this for instance. Let's say he's dealing BJ at a 6:5 table and some unsuspecting 'gambler' walks up to play. He doesn't tell them there are better rules some place else(3:2), right? You know if he's going to play BJ he won't play at a 6:5 game, because he knows better. -I would have used Pai Gow Dan, but I have no clue about that game, so I used BJ instead. ;-)

Quote: Tiltpoul

The company I work for really is a good company, it's just this particular policy that can irritate if you're on the wrong end.

Acutally the policy reads as perfectly reasonable.

However, if such instances where you make exceptions are rare, I'd change the policy and allow adjustments there anyway. it's not worth angering a regular customer to save a few bucks. So unless such price adjustments are abused regularly, your employer should junk that exception.

Quote: SOOPOO

I am guessing Syms. I find the policy terrible. I f I go to a store on Monday and find something I want, but KNOW it will be 10% cheaper if I come back tomorrow, it means I have to make 2 trips to the same store. The policy is poorly designed, as there are negatives for BOTH the store and the customer. I will not shop there anymore.

I was guessing Syms too.

But I think it's an acceptable pricing plan.

soopoo's argument doesn't wash. Because whether you see it today, and come back tomorrow for the refund, or just come back tomorrow to buy it for the lower price, it's still two trips.

Offering to refund the difference only if there's an exact copy on the floor also makes sense. If no more remain, then there's no way of knowing if someone else would have purchased the before you returned. Only if the product is still on the floor does it mean you could have gambled on the price and waited to purchase. Therefore, the difference gets refunded only if it's still in stock.

Quite frankly, I think the policy is a good one. Rather than force you to gamble, or to hide the item where neither customer nor clerk will find it, to ensure that you can purchase it later at the lower price, the store lets you purchase it, and then gives you the difference when it is proven to have not mattered.

I don't know what store it is or even fully understand that pricing policy but if it so annoys the customers and encourages manipulative ploys, I don't see how it benefits anyone at all.

Filene's Basement used to have that X percent off each week ... and girls would sometimes hide the garment and come back later. Salesclerks would be particularly able to do this. Yet overall the policy worked very well.

Honesty?
There are always going to be some sharpies out to split a penny in two and argue with the clerk over which is the biggest piece.
Sometimes letting jerks get away with things is the price a store pays to keep the clerk happy and able to deal with other customers.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

I was guessing Syms too.

But I think it's an acceptable pricing plan.

soopoo's argument doesn't wash. Because whether you see it today, and come back tomorrow for the refund, or just come back tomorrow to buy it for the lower price, it's still two trips.

My argument washes fine. If there is a PREDETERMINED price decrease which I KNOW will occur, it makes buying the object at the known higher price unpleasant. Stores which will every now and then put a rack of clothes at a discount price is an entirely different concept. It is the CERTAINTY of the price going down which makes the buying experience unpleasant. I do not want to go into a store hoping to see an item that I will want to buy at a later date.... It may be acceptable for others, but they do not get my business because of it....

It's called "Supply and demand."


Have you ever asked a clerk if she knew when the item would be going on sale? Here they're telling you when the sale is gonna happen, and telling you that you can buy it now and come in for the difference, assuming that it's still available at that price.

Heck, most stores have the same policy with their standard items. If you buy it today, and it goes on sale within "x" days, bring in the receipt and get the difference.

The store tilt works at is actually providing better customer service by stating the date and the price, upfront.

Not too long ago, I needed to buy a television. I found one that I wanted at a local Wal-Mart. They were able to confirm for me that they had 10 in stock, but they would not sell one to me. The televisions were scheduled to go on sale two days later. The sale price was only $20 less, and I told the manager that I would happily pay the extra $20 to take the television that day, but I was refused. The sales associate who was originally helping me was sympathetic to my annoyance at the policy and the manager, but it was obvious that they were both following whatever policies are in place. I just thought it was silly. If they were obviously willing to sell the televisions for $20 less in 2 days, why not take the $20 to sell it now? Of course, they may have advertised that they would have 10 of those televisions available on the sale date, but I seriously doubt that. Further, if the televisions were going on sale in 2 days, and they knew they couldn't sell any of them before then, they shouldn't have had the television on display for me to even ask about.

In my own job, I set the rules. I don't believe in the customer always being right. If anything, the customer is usually wrong. I don't disagree with the concept of customers being important, but my business model is set up in such a way for me to make money. That's why I started a business in the first place. If the customer is willing to oblige by the dictates I have set forth, then they are wonderful and great and I treat them with the utmost respect and care. But customers who fell that they are "always right" and things should be done to suit them, are not welcome, and I don't care if they never come back.

As an example, city ordinance requires that I obtain the name, address, and phone number of all my customers. There normally isn't any problems with this. Occasionally, I'll have someone ask why we require this information. I simply tell them about the city ordinance that relates to my particular business license, at which point the person just nods understandingly and continues.

However, once in a great while, I get the person who decides to be irate and upset over the fact that I'm asking for this information, which usually ends with them yelling at me, "I don't understand why you require this information!" To which, I normally reply, "I don't understand why Target requires me to wear pants when I shop there. But they do, and so I do. Do you wear pants when you go to Target, or do you argue with them that you don't understand their corporate policy regarding pants? My policy is that you need to provide this information. If you don't want to, you're more than welcome to go somewhere else that doesn't require this information."

For me, pricing works a bit differently, but I'll still have people that want to give me grief over it once in a while. I respond with, "That's how I make money. I'm not in this business to break even or lose money. I'm here to make money; to make a profit. If you don't like the concept that I want to make money, then that's fine, and you can go somewhere else. But you should realize that 99% of the retail outlets available to you are all interested in making a profit."

konceptum -

That Wal-Mrt thing sucks. Were you able to get it two days later?

And, I hesitate to ask, but what kind of work do you do? I can understand people being hesitant to provide personal info....

It's sad to admit how much of a slave I am to television, but I could not wait the two days. I guess it would be more appropriate to state that I did not wish to wait the two days. I ended up buying a television from Target later that same day, for roughly the same price, and it was a larger television. In the end, I was happy with that purchase.

I am basically a liquidation agent, which is a fancy way of saying that I sell off other people's failed businesses. Mainly, I deal in the consumer goods portion of the failed businesses. If you've been to any of the large "going out of business" sales for places like Circuit City, that's very similar to what I do. Only, I'm one small person and that means I don't get the large companies like that.

I got a hell of a good deal on a front door(was building my house at the time) from a liquidation guy. About a $2,000 door for $300. I had to drive about 9 hours round trip to get it but I'm happy. So you go boy, good for you.

I enjoy the job, and especially the people I meet, but the profit margins are thin. Especially if you want to give people a good deal, which I do. It's still amazing to me when people get upset that I don't deliver. Geez.

So why do they want customer information from you?

Maybe to track stuff if someone claims it's stolen? Kind of like these metal recycling places. Bubba brings 200# of copper to a recycling place to get whatever(although it was stolen of off a radio tower the night before). I'm in Texas, so we do have Bubba's. ;-)

I have a Second-Hand Dealer's license. The city requires the tracking of said information because the vast majority of people with that kind of license are buying and selling to people off the street. The city is worried about stolen merchandise in that situation. Even though my business doesn't do that, I still fall under that category because of my license, and thus have to collect the information.

About "The customer is always right"...

It took me a long time to understand this saying and what it means. It always seemed so hypocritical when someone in management would say it and clearly not believe it. And to take it literally is quite absurd. Is the customer right when they want to take items and pay for them later, without setting up an approved account? Don't think that hasnt been tried.

But now I am of the opinion that it means there is a type of argument that you don't ever need to get into with a customer who has a non-valid problem, and that is whether company policy is right, and whether the customer is wrong. 99% of the time, anyway. They are going to drop it if they don't have a leg to stand on, yet never have to be told they are wrong, exactly; if at the same time the person handling the complaint does indicate "regrets" then it is the best face for the company.

People can really be ridiculous and try to get away with murder. An item they bought has a great big scratch; they want to bring it back saying they don't know how the scratch got there, without being able to claim delivery people did it. Believe it or not they try this. Most places of business: they have to be told that the warranty doesnt cover "don't know how it got there." It is not necessary to say, "you are wrong. Clearly a scratch doesnt come out of nowhere."

I'm certainly not saying customer complaints can be handled by waving a magic wand or that there is anything easy about that job. Some people don't "drop it", even when they are wrong. But upper management pretty much knows it was handled wrong if their people keep getting into big arguments with customers about who is right. If the problem gets to them [mistake #1 btw] and all they hear is all the things the buyer heard that was about who was right and who was wrong, then maybe things are getting handled badly. With some customers, the company should be making an effort to accommodate them in order to keep them, even when they are wrong. That it's time to make it clear there are better ways to handle problems might result in hearing someone try to explain, "the customer is always right."

[edits]

Quote: odiousgambit

About "The customer is always right"...

It took me a long time to understand this saying and what it means. It always seemed so hypocritical when someone in management would say it and clearly not believe it. And to take it literally is quite absurd. Is the customer right when they want to take items and pay for them later, without setting up an approved account? Don't think that hasnt been tried.

Excellent point. It's more about how you handle certain situations. In the particular case I was talking about, we never told the customer that they were wrong; obviously, she was able to get around our policy, and we couldn't tell her she couldn't do that (we did after the fact though). If you treat the customer with respect, it makes decisions easier for them to swallow. Ironically, a complaint to corporate almost always gets it the customer's way, even in extreme examples where the customer may have STOLEN merchandise. Those decisions get raised eyebrows even from managers who completely play by the books.

The thread has wandered and focused a lot on my personal example, which wasn't the intention. Does anybody have any other examples where a policy they don't agree with has to be upheld?

Quote: odiousgambit

About "The customer is always right"...

The first step is to define "customer", and to decide if you want that person as a customer or not.

Quite often it is better off not.
Quite often the "boss" thinks otherwise, being penny-wise and pound foolish.

There's a very entertaining site called "Not Always Right" It's worth looking it up.

Quote: Tiltpoul

I talked about starting this thread a few days ago, but after seeing a new thread posted in which Dan will be sure to comment about how people should talk up, I decided to get this going now. I'm going to set up a quick introduction in this post, then follow it up with my personal situation.



Since many of us work in the service industry, most of us have jobs where we have to deal with clients or customers. As part of our jobs, we often times have policies set by management that we may not like or even agree with. However, as employees, we are required to adhere to those rules. Occasionally, we have to enforce the rules against others, be it customers or other employees. This can often cause a conflict as to how to address a situation, since we must support the business we work for, yet on the other side, we understand and maybe even agree with the customer/employee who is questioning the policy.

Example: In the Flashing Dealer thread, Paigowdan created quite a stir when talking about the ethics of "hole carding." At times, it was difficult to tell the line from CHEATING and using information to lower the house edge. While Dan lives by a much higher code of conduct than most gamblers, his casino-line stance on the issue upset a lot of people. Most dealers would absolutely take the approach Dan did WHILE WORKING, but may disagree entirely when on the customer side. Of course, on a forum like this, most dealers would agree with the player, understanding that point of view. But at work, they would have to tell the player they are wrong. See the conflict??

This thread is designed to discuss various jobs and where the conflicts come into play. I will have a very lengthy example from the retail industry in my next post. It's not intended to attack anybody (Dan, I only used your case as an example since it's what prompted me to start the thread), but rather bring up cases where as employees/managers/owners we are conflicted with what we would do if the shoe was on the other foot.

Okay, given the nature of how "Is Counting Cheating" has gone, I would like to revitalize this post. I hope we can get it off the ground, and I really don't want people to focus on my personal example. Rather, let's discuss how our jobs and what we deem ethical could potentially conflict with what we believe.

Quote: Tiltpoul

Okay, given the nature of how "Is Counting Cheating" has gone, I would like to revitalize this post. I hope we can get it off the ground, and I really don't want people to focus on my personal example. Rather, let's discuss how our jobs and what we deem ethical could potentially conflict with what we believe.

Its odd that no one wants to "overpay" for an item but would complain if a company laid people off. I sold ladies shoes in college and if people started that crap with me I told them by paying the higher price they were reserving their size and just because it went on sale was irrelevant if they pushed I give them a 10% adjustment but would mark the receipt and box " Final Sale non returnable"!

I think the customer needs ethics too but it is always the store that gets the bad wrap. Stores deal with overhead, labor costs, expensive inventory and shrinkage all of which gets built into the prices. I'll personally pay more to support a business that gives great service and treats employees well.