As in most cases where someone asks, “Is this ethical”, you already know the answer. You just don’t like it - a very human reaction.
I wouldn’t do it. You feel uncomfortable enough to ask for input, so I’m thinking that doing it would bother you. It’s not worth it.
And these are preschool photos? I can see a kid in middle or high school feeling left out if they don’t have photos to trade with their friends, but preschool? Nuh uh.
If this is the justification, then depending on the method by which the OP was instructed to “destroy them,” there is some ethical wiggle room. Were the OP told to toss the folder in the trash, then they become abandoned property. Finders keepers would seem to apply.
I wouldn’t, because it would go against my own code of ethics, plus I’d feel bad about involving the families in something shady. Plus:
What muldoonthief said. They might not turn you in, but they might casually mention to someone, “Hey, listen to this nice thing that Enola did for me,” and word would get around. And, in addition to the consequences that muldoonthief predicted, it would become known that you are the kind of person who would sign a statement saying that you’d done something that you hadn’t actually done—i.e. that you couldn’t be trusted to be honest, at least not if you thought you could benefit someone by being dishonest.
I would destroy the pictures - giving them away is stealing from the company, same as booksellers selling books without a front cover is. I don’t like waste either, but those pictures don’t belong to me, and it isn’t my decision to make to give them to people who haven’t paid. I can see a situation where you sign that you have destroyed them, the company finds out you gave them away, and prosecutes you for theft (they probably wouldn’t because of the small amount of money, but they could).
I agree with you - it doesn’t seem to be so much that people are lying more, so much as the new rule of doing business is do whatever you can get away with instead of being self-policing. The OP needs to self-police. We all do.
My parents bought every godawful school picture of me, so much so that I still cringe at the 5th grade one my father keeps in his wallet.
If I don’t like the school pictures, I don’t buy them. For awhile, my kids’ school wanted you to buy a package…without even seeing the proofs. I flat out refused to do that.
That said, since you have to sign a document saying you destoyed the pictures, destroy them. If you like, grab your own camera and offer to snap a couple of pics of the kids. But as for me, I have no idea where my school pics are and I couldn’t care less.
One thing that hasn’t been mentioned yet is that YOU do not work for the picture company. You would be fully within your rights to say “No, I won’t destroy them. I think that’s wasteful and you are asking me to destroy something that I know at least some of these parents would like to have but can’t afford. So I can send them back to you, because they are your property, or you can leave them with me to do with as I see fit, but I won’t guarantee that they’ll be destroyed.”
If it is their policy to offer the pictures and then retrieve them and destroy them if they are not purchased, then they can pay the FedEx cost of implementing that policy. So before you look at the ethics of “destroy” versus “give away,” it seems worth pointing out that you can avoid that ethical dilemma entirely by refusing to submit to it.
Thanks for all the responses. I was kind of hoping for a unanimous verdict, but as it is I’m still on the fence. For clarification:
There are** several **families who did not buy school pictures (7 total out of 100 or so kids) and there are reasons why I believe the afore mentioned 3 families (A) would want the pictures and( B) wouldn’t be offended if I gave them to them:
I didn’t want my OP to turn into a novel, but the way this process works is as follows: I have a table set up. Parent brings their locater # to the table and I pull their folder of pictures out of the file. Parent looks thru pics, chooses the ones they want, then writes a check. There is quite a bit of interaction with the parents during this process. When one of the moms in question was looking thru the pictures, she asked if she could buy a smaller set (one sheet) instead of the minimum package that costs $60. I asked and was told by the company that No, the minimum order was $60…no exceptions because they didn’t want to set a precedent (I assumed because they are aware that people can copy pictures, but I’m not sure on that). $60 is kind of a lot imo for school pics, but these ones are very professionally done (not the standard school mug shots)and I’m sure they have to build in a bit of profit to cover the costs of all the pics that get destoyed. Anyway, when I told this Mom NO she looked terribly disappointed and said “God, I really love these pictures, but I just can’t justify spending $60 on this right now.” She continued on with all her family’s financial woes and looked very troubled. The other 2 moms expressed similar sentiment.
Of the other 4 families who didn’t buy pics, one looked at the pictures and passed and the other 3 never looked at the proofs (in spite of all the reminders). So they may well have financial problems too, but I don’t know and would never ask. They could also be people who don’t like school pics.
Does this change anything or am I just trying to justify doing the wrong thing?
I have to agree about the moral absolutism. I can imagine many scenarios where lying would be the morally superior position. An extreme example: If you were living in Nazi Germany and knew where a Jewish family was hiding and were asked point blank by the gov’t if you knew anything about it. Would you be willing to lie, even sign a document testifying that you knew nothing of the situation…or would honesty be the moral high road? Personally, I’d lie thru my teeth in such a situation and in my mind,** that** would be the ethical thing to do. Others may disagree and feel that would compromise their principles. But the point being, that I am generally opposed to lying and don’t make a habit of it, but there are cases where I question whether honesty really IS the best policy.
This current situation is still in the grey area for me, so please keep the comments coming. They are giving me a lot of food for thought.
It removes the option that they got their pictures done somewhere else or just weren’t interested, yes. Whether I’m a cattle-rustling hornswaggler or not (;)) is a matter for debate, but you know the options at this point: you can save a couple of pics for these moms and do a nice thing for them or you can keep your word to the photographers. The choice and the issues are pretty much unchanged.
Knowing that it evidently would mean a lot to these moms, I think I would offer them the pics. What’s the worst thing that could happen if you got caught? You might get kicked out of volunteering for an elementary school? O noes.
In my view, if this is a “crime”, it is truly a victimless crime. It would be clearly wrong if it meant you were depriving the photographer of a sale, but when you know the moms aren’t going to buy the pics then I consider it morally neutral to be like “Hey, I was just going to throw these out anyway, so I thought I’d see if you might want them”.
Exactly!
I was going to chime in and suggest almost exactly the same thing, but Jodi beat me to it.
I think you have to consider that you are also a representative of the school, albeit an unpaid one. I’ll be honest, if it were just between me and the company then I would probably slip a few pics out of the trash, but the school itself is also involved, and if you are a school volunteer then you should abide by school rules. And unless someone tells you otherwise, I would assume that school rules are by default to honor the agreement with the portrait company.
I normally take the “do the right thing” position in this kind of thread, but in this case, I would probably be immoral and give them the photos. (Just the three families that clearly wanted to buy them.) Just don’t give them to people who actually ask next year.
I like Jodi’s idea too, but you might want to run it by the person who’s in charge of the preschool. No need to get them in trouble with the photographer, especially if they’ve developed a good relationship.
On preview, sugar and spice beat me to it.
If it were me I would mail the pictures to the moms anonymously so that they could have the pictures but wouldn’t know who they came from or that they were free (this prevents the clamour of parents asking for free pictures next year) and then I would avoid volunteering for this position in the future.
What about the families you don’t know about?
I’d probably do it anyway, giving them to all the families I knew. Sucks for the ones that don’t get them, but what can you do?
Throwing away the pictures seems wasteful to me. However, it seems worth noting that one reason the prices are set so high may be to account for the company’s expected loss when a few sets are given away free. Thus, by giving these away free, you may be contributing to higher prices for the other parents.
If the company expects these giveaways, they’re already worked into the picture price. Anyway for whatever it’s worth, there are probably bigger factors, like the cost of the photographer’s time and equipment and the fact that the company probably has an exclusive arrangement with the school.
You’re not going to get the preschool “in trouble” with the photographer. IME, the photographer pays the school a fee for the privilege of selling you those overpriced school photos. Think about it, 93 kids at a minimum of $60 apiece is $5580.
I had a worker one time show me the prints, then tell me the image would be washed off and the paper reused if I didn’t buy the pictures. :rolleyes: