stypticus, there is one other thing to consider… Gina was performing a service for the rest of the group, this DOES tangibly affect the others, in that they do not have to secure the money and make the transaction. This fact alone should give Gina the right to benefit in some small way, if she can.
Irrespective of how irrational your office mates are being I think this would be an exceptionally bad idea.
Oh, please! I can’t even believe that this is a topic that’s warrented 2 pages of discussion. Poor Gina!
stypticus and others,
okay, along those lines of thinking… Say the money was donated over a several-week period (this happens sometimes in my office). Say, for safekeeping, the person who was collecting the money made a deposit to an account (presumably her own savings or checking account) every day that she got a donation, rather than have it lying around the office. Is that “rude?” No, it’s sensible, and frankly it’s what I’d ADVISE any of my coworkers to do if they were The Money Collector. What if the account pays interest on average daily balances, so that month she gets a wee bit extra interest? How serious an offense is this? She’s gained from it. Does she owe the office $.20? Should she go around and give everyone a penny and an apology note? Should she have opened a completely separate account so that god forbid she not get any benefit from that money? This line of reasoning seems very petty to me.
Now, I’m curious to know how the objectors would feel if instead of a co-worker it was the boss or a judge who did this. That person presumably wouldn’t have any trouble paying those holiday bills and didn’t “need” the cash. Would this then be less or more offensive to you? And why?
How does that different from Gina paying her other bills with her credit card and buy the GC with the cash? She still gets the free 30-day loan, yes? Where’s the difference?
The overwhelming majority seem to side with Gina. As do I. Your coworkers are foolish. I particularly liked the well-reasoned responses of RickJay and Urban Ranger. In our office, I find that if I don’t organize such things, no one does. Most of the time I end up taking the hit on money too because many people neglect to pay. Your coworkers can easily prevent this from recurring by donating both their money AND their time to organize this themselves. I’d be surprised if it happens, but it is an option.
The office folks who are ticked off are being jerks. And the ones who want their donations back are being asshats. I agree that whatever small benefit Gina derived from this arrangement was fine in light of the fact that she was providing a service for the office. Think of it as compensation.
I don’t really see a problem with this, either. After all, the friend is asking, right? So, if you object to said friend benefitting in this way, that would be the right opportunity for you to pipe up and say you’d rather not do it this way. I doubt your friend is thinking, ‘gee here’s my chance to take benefits from everyone else’ probably thinking more along the lines of, ‘well, if no one else is going to take advantage of this situation, maybe I can. Hmm, better ask first’. Don’t you think?
Yeah. What kind of friend would say, “No! You may not get flier miles. I insist you use cash.” Anyone who says that deserves to be taken off the speed dial at the very least. I could see taking turns if >1 people wanted flier miles. But that’s a different story.
I couldn’t find that on dictionary.com. It did suggest “agueweed” as an alternative spelling.
Remind me not to get into legal trouble and need to visit the courthouse in Athens, or if I do, ask for Katie. Sheesh.
No. that would be RadioShack. I know because I worked there for 5 years on and off, and just quit as a store manager. I refer you to this website.
So what have we learned?
1 Don was a shrewd individual to have let such a place, apparently largely populated by twerps and dimwits
2 Gina will never be in charge of a collection ever again - both from her own choice and because the loonies she works with wouldn’t ask her
3 There will be no collection when Gina and Katie leave this nuthouse - sorry - COURThouse because all the nitpicking nuts who work there will be too afraid of being in charge of collecting the money
Sorry for the follow-up post lag time. In no particular order:
Urban Ranger, if it was the same thing for her to pay for the gift with the cash and her other purchases with the credit card, why didn’t she do so? She took advantage of a situation to her benefit. It’s inconsiderate to do so even if the other people aren’t disadvantaged by her actions.
Cheesesteak, it was implied that her service was voluntary. She shouldn’t expect benefit for it; she certainly doesn’t have the right to do so.
CrankyAsAnOldMan, if she was using a savings account to keep the money safe then she has a good reason and the few cents’ interest is incidental. If she was keeping the money for a long time (say, long enough to invest for significant gain), it might be a concern. As it is, her actions weren’t for any reason but to benefit from her coworkers’ money. I repeat: it’s presumptuous.
At the very least she should have asked, as many posters indicate they or their friends do when paying this way for dinners and such.
That said, let me repeat myself in agreeing with most posters: Gina’s coworkers are making too big a deal of it. While it was inconsiderate of her, they didn’t materially suffer by her actions. It also appears to have been quite innocent – clearly she didn’t realize it might be an issue. There’s no point getting your nose out of joint over it, and I certainly wouldn’t hold it against her.
Back to the OP
I would have done the exact same thing (not to pay bills but to have cash on hand) and would have thought nothing of it.
stypticus, I honestly don’t understand your argument. I don’t see how she benefited except by taking one less trip to the bank to not get an advance on the card to pay the bills. Could you explain it for me again?
She took advantage of a situation to her benefit. It’s inconsiderate to do so even if the other people aren’t disadvantaged by her actions.
Would you kindly explain to me how this is inconsiderate? I sure don’t think it is, and it appears that the majority of responders here don’t either.
…it was implied that her service was voluntary. She shouldn’t expect benefit for it; she certainly doesn’t have the right to do so.
Putting aside the distinct possibility that she did not expect benefit (she may have just thought of using her card at the moment of purchase), how does volunteering to do something preclude one from expecting (or receiving) benefit from it?
No offense, but it just strikes me as arbitrary rules you made up.
Crud. I should have known I wouldn’t get away with mediocre explanations and ingrained opinions on SDMB. Live and learn, I say.
The benefit comes from using someone else’s money as an interest free loan. When I give someone money to put towards a purchase, I expect the money to go to the purchase rather than into that person’s pocket. If they’re a friend of mine, I don’t mind if they take the money and pay with the card, but I hope that they would ask out of politeness.
Gary T, inconsiderate is the wrong word. I meant to write “rude” but thought it too harsh at the time; it is more what I meant. Bad manners. My comment about her right to benefit is in direct response to Cheesesteak’s post:
When a person volunteers to do a thing, they have no right to benefit from that thing. Maybe there is an expectation: there could be an implied suggestion that you’ll drive my kids to school some day because I drove yours today. But right is a very strong word for that.
I’m trying to decide whether my values here are old fashioned. Certainly I recognize that the attitude towards credit is much more casual in most circles than it was in mine when I was growing up. (Now I sound like a prude – surely I’m not the only one who learned this?) And this isn’t an issue I had intended to spend so many words on; I just wanted to note that Gina’s coworkers are not alone in their opinions.
Finally:
The way of holding a knife and fork. The way of positioning them on your plate to indicate you’re still eating, or you’re finished. Introducing a guest to your friends. Please. Thank you. Leaving your napkin on your chair. Holding the door for the person behind you.
I didn’t set the rules – arbitrary is as arbitrary does.
Hmm… I hope I didn’t sound too snarky. What I mean to say is that manners can be arbitrary (witness some of the threads debating the style of cutlery-wielding). This is another such case.
So, you are agreeing with my analysis but still insists that Gina somehow benefited? If you don’t agree with my analysis, can you point out the material difference?
What ‘interest-free loan’?
If Gina paid cash for the card, and used her credit card for her bills, wouldn’t it be exactly the same?
You need to be very careful of your phrasing. “into that person’s pocket” implies stealing. If I were Gina, I would be far more offended by that suggestion, than any of her workmates are about the method of payment.
Well I’ve been in this situation many times and on both sides of it (I like to eat out with friends!). The only reason anyone says anything in my circle is to reassure the table that they are not absent-mindedly ‘stealing’ the money.
It has never occurred to me (or my friends) that it makes the slightest difference whether the bill is settled with cash or credit card.
Firstly you haven’t shown Gina benefited in any way.
Secondly if there is an unexpected benefit (you drive my kids to School and thereby coincidentally get your picture taken by a local newpaper who are doing a story on car-pooling), you’re welcome to accept it:
‘Dear Editor,
Yesterday you published a picture of my neighbour delivering both our children to School.
YOU HAD NO RIGHT TO DO THAT! THAT SCHEMING B*TCH JUST WANTED THE FREE PUBLICITY! I DEMAND YOU PUBLISH MY PICTURE!!!’
Well I have ‘old-fashioned’ ideas about manners/behaviour. I hold doors open for everyone. I use cutlery. I mind my language in front of children and others likely to be upset. I give to charity. I offer to help the elderly and blind across the road.
But I can’t understand you or the co-workers at all.
When a person volunteers to do a thing, they have no right to benefit from that thing.
Phrased that way, it sounds like it would be wrong to benefit from it, a notion with which I heartily disagree. Now I would agree that in many cases, there is not an inherent right to benefit, a right that one could insist upon, and it appears this may be your point. However, I don’t see that one is precluded from drawing benefit, which seems to be an implication in this discussion.