What's the right thing to do?
 

Well I think I know the right thing but just in case here is my question.. I typically buy my business tickets well in advance of planed meetings like a $1,300 ticket to HNL next month for a business trip. The problem...I just resigned today...CO says the ticket is non-refundable and the name can not be changed under any circumstances. Is the right thing what I think...leave it behind? Thanks!

The ticket is a contract between you and the airline, so it cannot be put under another name. The value of the non-refundable ticket could possibly be used toward the purchase of another (in your name).

Had a similar situation happen to me with NW.

You can cancel the ticket, and apply the price of the ticket to future travel. You will have to pay the $75 change fee, but only once.

They gave me up to 1 year to rebook another flight, BUT I don't have to use up my entire $1200 in one flight. When I book my next flight, they will give me the difference in non-transferable/non-refundable travel vouchers. I then have 1 year from that point to use the vouchers. I will only have to pay the $75 fee once.

Now, this is how it was explained to me on several seperate occasions by NW customer service. If anyone has a different opinion, feel free to reply!

[This message has been edited by mat123 (edited 06-01-2000).]

When I left my last position, I had several sets of non-refundable tickets in hand. I thought for I while this would be a nice parting gift, but this was short-lived. The corporate travel person ordered me to send them back. She said the airlines would allow them to apply the value of the tickets to future corporate travel. Not sure what the official rules are, but airlines can obviously break the rules when they choose to.

Mat123 is right; you can take a credit towards future travel with the airline. I have had this happen on DL--I purchased a non-refundable ticket (for business), then plans changed; there was a $150 fee (it was international), plus I had a credit remaining on DL (the new ticket was less costly). My father has done the same on US, and carried the credit for the full year before rebooking.

Of course whether this belongs to you or the company (Pudding Guy's comment) is an entirely different matter. It depends on whether it's your money on the line, or theirs (whether you have been reimbursed yet), and if it is still your money outstanding if they would give you the cash instead.

You didn't say who purchased the tickets, you directly or a corporate travel office. Also, did you pay for them yourself, or were they charged to the office.

Our corporate travel agent is usually able to apply the tickets of people who have left that they have booked towards other's flights. Don't know how they do it, but they always do, and it usually works out.

As others have said, you can change the tickets for some other dates or maybe apply the cost to some other routes depending on your airline for the $75 change fee if you want to. Lots depends on how they were purchased, and who paid for them.

If the company has paid for them, either directly or through reimbersment, then the Tix belong to the company.

If you have not yet been reimbersed, they are yours. That is unless you can negotiate reimbersment as part of your seperation.

If you have a non-refundale ticket for $1300 you can pay $75 to change that ticket to any other non-refundable ticket. If your new ticket is less than your original ticket you will get a voucher for the difference. That voucher can be use by anybody no matter what the name on the voucher is. I only know this for sure on AA.

Every couple of years our corporate travel people seem to have an "amnesty" month, where unused non-refundable tickets can be returned for credit. This just occurred.

If your ex-employer has any size behind it, they may be able to do the same.

I think you have answered your own question.

Yes I think regardless of what you can actually do with the ticket if the company purchased it, it is theirs. That said, on what terms did you leave the company? If it was favorable and this ticket has some value to you, you may want to approach you old boss (give him time to forgive you for leaving if necessary, then say you were cleaning out your breifcase, etc and found it) and explain to hiim that you dont thing it is refundable etc and ask if since they cannot use it if it would be alright if you kept it. Who knows maybe he still likes you and you have fulfilled your moral responsibility but still get to go to HNL!

Agree-think you answered your own question! Regardless of whether or not it is refundable, if the company paid for it, it should go back to the company. As others have suggested, if you parted on good terms, try to negotiate the use of it, and get it in writing.

Non-refundable tickets to Hawaii usually incur a $75.00USD service charge to reuse ticket as credit toward a new non refundable ticket to any destination by same carrier for same passenger, occasionally that fee is $100.00USD on the Hawaii market. If the ticket is on AA, the ticket is valid indefinitely.

Best of everything to you in your future endeavours!

Interesting that Pudding Guy says the airlines will allow the company to apply the ticket value to some other employee's travel. Of course, the airlines won't do that for individuals http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif.

I was on the losing end of this situation in a "divorce" two years ago: I had paid for tickets for my partner and me to visit my parents. Of course his ticket was in his name, and the airlines wouldn't budge even though it had been my charge card. The split was less than amicable, so no, he didn't reimburse me.

Since then, I've read exposés of how easy it is to make fake ID on the Web. Maybe I should have just printed out an ID in his name and my photo, and used the ticket myself (just kidding)!

The policy on how a nonrefundable ticket can be reused varies widely by airline. For example:

With UA,a ticket is good forever, the $75 change fee can be deducted from the ticket value, and if there is a residual they issue you a voucher that is good for a year.

But with Alaska, a ticket is good for one year, you pay the $50 change fee in cash (even if the new ticket is
less expensive), and if there is a residual they won't issue a voucher - you lose it.

So be VERY sure you know the rules before planning to reuse a nonrefundable ticket!!!

I always say "honesty is the best policy."

IN my company, our travel rules state "Anything that is booked for the the company is the property of the company. that includes air tickets, hotels and other stuff."

The good thing is that our travel department does not want to be "bothered" with Frequent Flyer and Frequent Guest programs. I think there are five people in my whole company who belong to FF programs so we get to keep the miles.

I would talk to your company and see if any reinbursement is possible. But never try to pull any tricks...they come back to haunt you eventually.

Once you start to use a ticket on UA (1st half of a round trip) the rest is good for one year. they will also change the name for $100. I just left three tickets worth $1300 with my last employer

f

I think you have to look at all of the variables involved. How has your company treated you? I had the unpleasant misfortune of being misled and ended up taking a job that was in an organization that could only be described in civil terms as disfunctional. After two years I finally left when I saw no end to the insanity. BTW, my favorite definition of insanity is doing the same thing each day and expecting different results.

When I left I kept a ticket to Miami and used it to go diving later in the year in the Keys. Felt I had not been treated properly and had no obligation to return it. Now, if it is a legal situation, such as the Federal Government, that is another story.

So, there is a little more involved than "let your conscience be your guide." I am sure this response will bring out all of the abolishionists who chastise my philosophy, but in this day and age of diminishing benefits and increased demands upon our time, I would like to get all that I have coming to me!!!

...and then some, it would appear.

I cancelled an interview trip with a potential employer in March, and offered to return the ticket (on UA). They told me to keep it, as the name could not be changed.
I still haven't decided what to do with it. The company is very large, and hence should have had sufficient clout with UA (it's preferred airline) to get them to accept it towards another passenger. Perhaps UA is stricter than the others.

The answer is very simple:

If your company paid for it, then it belongs to the company, and the tickets should be turned.

Your name which appears on the ticket appears as an employee of the company which paid for it.

If you owned the company yourself, I am sure you would want the same done by your own employees.

spartacus:
At the risk of sounding like I'm preaching...

RIGHT and WRONG are a lot easier than people think. Adding "variables" only blurs the picture - it rarely clarifies.

Speaking HYPOTHETICALLY, and NOT ACCUSING ANYONE OF ANYTHING : treating someone badly does not justify theft.

(Unless you hire a lawyer, but that's the legal form of theft!) http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

When an employer treats you like dirt, you have three options. Put up with it, negotiate a pay raise to adequately compensate you, or find other employment.

If they broke the law, such as harassment or discrimination, you get a lawyer.

But in this day and age of moral relativism, should it be a surprise that this issue becomes a "tough call"?

We've all been shafted over the years. Some worse than others. But if we all decided that whenever our personal threshold has been crossed that it gives us carde blanche to mete out justice on the terms we decide, that is amarchy.


------------------
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own."

Jon Toner: I have always felt you were one of the soundest voices on FT. Still do. That's why I need to reply.

Please look at what you wrote. Does what spartacus has suggested indicate that he/she believes he/she has "carte blanche"? I don't think it's quibbling: morality IS affected by situation. There IS NO plain right and wrong. Ethics ARE situational. Morals ARE relative to culture and situation. However, this does not mean what many people think: anything does not go. There are still better ways of behaving, more honorable ways of behaving. But it DOES matter to the MORAL situation that spartacus was misled about the environment in which he was to work.

You wrote: "When an employer treats you like dirt, you have three options. Put up with it, negotiate a pay raise to adequately compensate you, or find other employment."

Simply put, John, and with all due respect, these are NOT the only three options. And they are not the oply three moral options. Morality, in this man's opinion, is a far more complicated thing than that.

I am glad to make the more detailed argument to anyone who wants to hear it. But the nub of it is: the basic premise of traditional western morality, namely that each individual enters into agreements of his or her own free will and is thereby bound to those agreements, is not an adequate description of many moral situations. It is incomplete at best.

OK, but really, this does not boil down to a question of morality. The legal position is clear.

If the company paid for the ticket, then the company has the beneficial interest in the ticket. For a person to convert those tickets to his own use without the consent of the beneficial owner is theft.

No amount of rationaliztion, moral debate, or misconduct on the other party's part can render an illegal act legal.

That being said, it is perfectly open to negotiate. Buy it off the company for, say $0.10 on the dollar for the face value of the ticket. You get a dirt cheap ticket, they get a little recovery they would otherwise have lost.

Good point. The legal issue seems clear.

Many times this ticket is worthless to a company. Tell them your not sure if you need it either,but in case you do you'd split it with them. Meaning you pay for it now.(50%) They will write the ticket off anyway. This way you win, the company wins and the airline has won. Triple Crown Victory for all.

What I am referring to is unilateral action.

If I have been wronged by someone, I cannot unilaterally decide what is adequate compensation if it involves breaking the law.

There ARE mitigating circumstances - I never said that things are absolute. I just said right and wrong are not as hard as people think.

Killing is wrong. Killing someone while defending myself from someone attempting to kill me, is not.

Stealing a loaf of bread can be justified by the needs of your starving family.

I believe that stealing a plane ticket cannot be justified by being mistreated by an employer.

If the mistreatment is serious enough, you have a legal avenue to remedy what you consider unjust. This is a thriving business in fact.

If an employer only partially mistreats an employee, are they entitled to only steal smaller items? Would this be moral?

Can you steal a fax machine for being yelled at? Can you steal a chair if your boss belittles you at a meeting?

I believe right and wrong ARE easier than people think. People know that stealing is wrong, so to justify the action they must muddy the waters. To hear some people (not you, nor anyone on this forum), NOTHING is wrong anymore.

Morality is not concrete, but it isn't sand either.

On this issue, I believe we are standing on a parking lot, not on a beach.

------------------
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own."

What's the hourly rate in this parking lot?

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

I appreciate your reply, Jon.

You are of course right about the availability of legal recouse for grievances with employees, but most indignities suffered by ordinary employees occur beneath the radar screen of the legal arena (bad mixed metaphor for an editor like me). They may accumulate over time and affect the moral situation for an employee vis-a-vis his/her employer.

I guess my problem is with the easiness of general statements like "Stealing is wrong."
As you pointed out, there are exceptions to it. As I would point out, there may be so MANY exceptions to it that its standing as a general principle is dramatically weakened.

Employers and employees often do not equal power. To make general statements about right and wrong, something close to equal power must be assumed. If someone injures me unjustly, and I have the opportunity to redress that injury by stealing from them, it is not the same thing as stealing from someone who has not injured me unjustly. The "stealing" in one case is not the same as the "stealing" in the other. I use the scare quotes deliberately: the two acts are NOT instances of the same universal concept "stealing." That is what I reject. To describe acts independent of the circumstances in which they take place is a very bad habit of human beings, one we are only very slowly getting over.

Some would say: "You are justifying wrong behavior (stealing as a reprisal) by assuming no other avenue is available to an employee. An employee can quit, or can picket outside the doors of the offending compnay. He/she doesn't have to steal."

Answer: That's absolutely correct. But I do not agree that the employee MUST do some other thing than steal. To quit or to picket means taking on an additional burden. Why should an injustice require an ADDITIONAL burden on an aggrieved party? Morality should not require this kind of sacrifice, but traditional Judeo/Christian morality does.

But, truthfully, I'm not exactly in love with my own response here, either. I can see the potential problems with it (as Jon rightly mentined--the unilateral aspect of it. It's complex and difficult.

bks- "Ethics ARE situational.

I see you are a bit of a fan of Fletcher! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

bks,

I find your position morally, ethically, and honorably offensive. Yes, there are general conditions where certain immoral, unethical, and illegal are proscribed. Without exception in my lifetime, those conditions have been generally acclaimed as war, or at least combat.

In examples given above, any personal exception to Western morality has been defended by a similar condition, a threat to personal life, liberty, or property. And I challenge the threat to personal property as a right to contravene laws and use deadly force.

I challenge you to drive 15 miles up I-25, visit the school there, and present your case to every student. I will be amazed if you can find one student who will agree with your conclusions. And I would suspect that if you present your case as you have here, every student will find you guilty of quibbling.

As carved above the East entrance to the parade ground, adjoining Fairchild Hall, is the phrase familiar to every graduate, "I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do". The instance being discussed here is clearly stealing.

If you discuss with the students how your explanation of facts, events, whatever fit within that simple statement, you will be accused of quibbling. More than likely, they will ask you to tell this story to your parents, grandparents, and ten of your closest friends. To defend stealing. To defend being dishonest.

As the last point, quibbling is defined as any answer other than "Yes" or "No". So the question simply stated is "Did you keep a ticket paid for by your previous employer without notifying or compensating that employer?" Any answer longer than three letters is quibbling simply because you are attempting to obfuscate the issue.

Perhaps I'm old enough that I confuse archaic standards of terms such as moral and honorable with what passes in today's society. 1f you were the employer, would you condone and accept this behavior by one of your employees, or soon to be ex-employees? Or would you then take the moral high ground?

To finish this diatribe, I apologize for pontificating. However, I believe that any erosion of honor, ethics, and morals, especially among a group of highly educated people such as FT, will only lead to a continued decline of civilized life as we once knew it. If we, as leaders and respected individuals within our organizations, don't uphold standards, there won't be any.

Let me put my two cents worth in here.

Has the company been asked what their druthers are? If AAPLATCOGOLD is leaving on amicable terms, the company may be willing to let him have the ticket. If there is animosity, well .... It should be the company's decision.

BTW, why did the ticket cost so much, was it FC. The last time I bought a ticket from EWR to HNL, the price was under $600. I realize this was a great price, but I didn't think that the fares have gone up that much.

DD

I do not understand what all the fuss is about. It appears a nice consise answer is if you are a thief, then keep the ticket. If you are not a thief, then return the ticket.

The same nice answer applies to your company provided computer, credit cards, key to the executive washroom, cell phone etc. Geez!!

ClubChamp: I appreciate your response. I still don't agree, and would be glad to continue via email if you wish.

You are probably right that I couldn't convince students (high school, you mean?) of my argument. I've had difficulty convincing college students of it! But high school students or ANY children are not authoritative voices on morality. That's another mistake we make in this society. Children are not adults, and they tenmd to see things more in terms of black and white. They need to be heard, but not NECESSARILY listened to.

The world is more colorful than that.

Because it's not called doing the EASY thing, it is called doing the RIGHT thing. The history books are littered with tragedies befalling those who stood up for what they believed is right. Have you ever researched the fates of many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence? There were more than just future-Presidents there. Many were farmers who lost their farms and even the lives of their families. Some were merchants who lost their stores. These were men who believed in their cause and suffered NOT for taking up arms, but SIMPLY FOR SIGNING A SHEET OF PAPER.

But the last post is what struck me. With all due respect, BKS, it is the CHILDREN with whom your argument would best resonate. (Please don't think I am trying to be condescending or patronizing!)

My five year-old employs this logic when she knocks over her baby brother (2 in August) to take back a toy that he (wrongfully) took from her.

She doesn't want to be burdened with calling for Mom and Dad to mediate. She doesn't want to negotiate with Patrick. She wants it, and she wants it NOW. Taking by force is the means to this end.

We do not live in a black and white world, but there is a lot less gray out there than people believe, especially those attempting to justify actions they know to be wrong. After all, if they didn't believe it to be wrong, even at some subconcious level, they would not even offer excuses in an attempt to justify.

Case in point:
I left some important documents on the counter and told my oldest (who was sitting there at the time) DON'T TOUCH THESE. My 3 year-old came into kitchen, climbed into a chair and starting coloring on them (!!) When I returned and asked her what she was doing, she smiled and said innocently, "I'm drawing a picture for you, daddy."

She had no clue that what she was doing was wrong. She didn't need to come up with an excuse that there wasn't any more paper in the house, that the documents really weren't THAT important, or that she didn't want to walk all the way into the living room to get another sheet.

But those were the three arguments that my oldest, stuttering and hedging (who HAD been told not to touch the papers) used when I confronted her for coloring a picture on one of the pages.

She knew what she did was wrong, and sought to justify it.

This is a popular argument, used most by the left, seeking to stir up class envy and thus empowering themselves to positions of power themselves.

POWER has nothing to do with it. It is just as wrong for a rich man to steal from a poor many as it is for a poor man to steal from a rich one, despite the impact being felt much more by the less-powerful.

I think that we simply must shrug our shoulders and agree to disagree.


------------------
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own."

I'll just continue on here until someone says they'd rather conduct this by email. I'm fine either way.

Jon: Just so it's clear, I find your take on this issue perfectly reasonable. I prefer mine (with some real reservations).

You wrote: "It is just as wrong for a rich man to steal from a poor many as it is for a poor man to steal from a rich one, despite the impact being felt much more by the less-powerful."

Answer: It is only "just as wrong" if you think that situation isn't crucial to determining morality. How did the rich person become rich? By stealing from others? If so, there is no REQUIREMENT to (though it is perfectly moral and honorable to) respond to an unjust accumulation of wealth by behaving in accordance with, say, Martin Luther King's ethics rather than Malcolm X's ethics.

I am NOT saying that it is the wealth or poverty of the person that determines the moral situation (some might argue that it does contribute to it), but rather the JUSTNESS or UNJUSTNESS of the being-wealthy or being-poor.

If an employer had behaved justly as an employer, then stealing from him sure as heck looks to be wrong. Most would agree (I do). But if the employer has not bothered to be fair or just, I do not believe an employee must respond according to the morality he/she would when dealing with a friend or loved one. The ACT is determined by the situation. Stealing, in order to BE stealing, requires the theft to be unjust. Being poor and stealing to feed your family is STILL stealing if the food has been taken from a person with a just claim to it. But taking something from someone who has not justly acquired it property is not stealing, whether you're hungry or not.

You do it all the time as a parent, I imagine. If your three-year old takes something that belongs to your older child, you make her give it back. If your older child had previously stolen it from the younger child, you'd make HER give it back.

None of this is to say that it is perfectly OK for ANYONE to take ANYTHING from a person who has acquired property unjustly. Other factors matter, and this is where you lose most people and when the really nasty accusations of moral relativism begin to fly.

The question is: can an employer (or a person, or a country, etc) behave so unjustly in the course of its ordinary actions that ALL of its property can be reasonably deemed to have been acquired unjustly?

Isn't that essentially the history of the fall of the British Empire? And didn't its castoffs (who eventually saw fit to revolt after 150 years of colonial rule) essentially perform the same monstrously unjust acts on the indigenous population found here after our Revolutionary War?

The key is to understand that, even if you accept this, it doesn't permit doing anything to anybody. IT DOESN'T. That is a more difficult argument to make, but no less clear. It's just that you have to be ready to jettison the traditional enlightenment-liberal assumptions about morality.

BTW: even if you do, I promise you can still show that Bill Clinton acted dead wrongly.

Doing the moral thing does not have to mean doing the harder thing. Not always.

Gee Whiz!!!!!!! I did not expect this many responses to my post. I plan to leave the tickets. We are a very high volume user of CO and we were able to get all the non-refundable tickets turned into a corporate credit. Thanks for all the replies.

bks,

No, the students I was referring to are the Cadets at the United States Air Force Academy, about fifteen miles north of Colorado Springs. Their take on honor is ingrained by the quote I posted.

BTW, "Doing the moral thing does not have to mean doing the harder thing. Not always" is quite true. But even when it is harder, it makes it easier to look at yourself in the mirror after you have done it.

bks--

Wow I disagree wholeheartedly with your situational ethics. You seem to say that stealing from someone who is a thief themself is ok. So does this make it ok for me to hold up a bank robber as he is leaving the bank with its cash and use it for my own purposes? Does this further mean that if someone killed my wife it would be ok for me to kill them? I think these actions would make be as guilty as any person who commited this crime, and I know the law would uphold these standards.

Justifying immoral actions doesn't change anything...a thief is a thief is a thief

[This message has been edited by The Mile Dog (edited 06-11-2000).]

Wow! Let's take it easy on Brian, please! Remember he is NOT the thief, but rather the philosopher! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

In fairness doc, I think people are attacking Brian's argument, not Brian. And in debate, that is fair game.

Personally, I think Brian's argument is a bit of a red herring. That is not to say that the moral issue is not important--indeed it is. One's ability to look at oneself in the mirror each day truly is important.

However, I think the moral question is subsumed in this case by legal definitism.

I do not deny that morality can successfully challenge an unjust law. No amount of legal determinism can condemn those who disobey repressive or abusive law.

But theft is an act which is malum in se, that is to say, it is wrong, in and of itself. Regardless of the conduct of the person who is deprived of the property, I don't believe that the law against theft can ever be characterized as unjust--especially where the law provides for remedies against the wrongful acts of the other party.

Perhaps the punishment for theft can be described as unjust in some cases, but at root that's a different question.

AC*SE: This is a familiar impasse to reach. We're operating from different first premises. Does that have to be the last word? Not necessarily. I think I understand your original premise here:

You believe that certain acts, theft being one of them, in and of themselves, are wrong. Similarly, you believe that laws pertaining to the wrongnes of those acts cannot therefore be judged unjust.

You don't say it, but I would argue that for you to believe the above, you must also believe one or both of the following things:

1) Human beings are, invariantly, a specific kind of creature, ones whom are deserving of certain behaviors and undeserving of others, regardless of their own behavior. For instance, some believe that, since human beings are rational creatures, and that rationality is inseparable from their essence as a creature, it is immoral or unjust to treat them merely as a means to an end. Lying to them, or taking their property from them are forms of treating as a means to and end;

2) The moral realm is independent of the material world. Right and wrong are not culturally generated, amended, and reproduced--that is, true morality is not influenced or CAPABLE of influence by culture or situation. It does not emerge from human practice. It is what it is, what it has always been, and it is invariant across time and culture. On this view, actions either meet its criteria or fail to meet it.

I reject both of those notions. Further, I reject that there are "acts" like theft that can be described as such without making reference to a particular set of values (i.e. what constitutes property). Whatever values one uses are hardly necessary or universal. Even if they WERE universal, that wouldn't prove they are necessary.

And no, I can't prove I'm right about my basic premise. Can you?