just a small nonconstructive rant

[HgTX]

I would just like to say that if my employer thinks that I (or any of my colleagues) can be corrupted by a plastic envelope opener or squishy toy with a corporate logo on it, I (and likewise the colleagues) should not be on the payroll to begin with.

Much as I prefer to be the client rather than the seller, this public sector gig is getting old. The assumption from both within (internal "service" and audit functions) and without (taxpaying public, politicians) is that all public servants are inherently corrupt and looking for ways to commit wrongdoing, and I'm sick and tired of being treated that way. And it's only getting worse. And it is certainly not unique to my particular employer; in fact, I'm better off than many of my peers at other agencies.

Feh.

Hg

Eng-Tips policies: faq731-376

 

[casseopeia]

WHAT, you got a plastic letter opener AND a logo toy! And to think I was all butt-sore over several of my co-workers getting company-purchased iPhones.

eff-it....spend all day cruisin' the net

"If you are going to walk on thin ice, you might as well dance!"

 

[jmw]

You need to visit the exhibitions and conferences more. The exhibitors often even provide you with carrier bags to take all the crap away.

I've given up collecting pens.... I have some that must go all the way back to Ladilaz Biro) except BP gave away one at a conference with a nice blue light that shines down through the clear plastic barrel of the pen onto the paper except my wife stole this as soon as I got it some, and a memory stick with a discreet BP logo, and a clock thing that is also a weather station. The bigger the exhibition and the further from home the better the odds and sods that can be collected.

(By the way, HgTx, you're not having a good day today, are you?)



JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[MintJulep]

At one of my public-sector clients the dividing line between corruptible and non-corruptible swag was "the approximate value of a wall calendar".

Then a VP got caught accepting a free round of golf at an expensive club, and tickets to some Vegas show.

He got a gentle slap on the wrist, and the new rule became "no gifts at all".

So the moral is, ask for something better than a crappy envelope opener, because the punishment is inverse to the value of the bribe.

 

[HgTX]

I'm having a bad day for no good reason, but the above post has been coming for a while.

I go to conferences. I get the gimme bags. I have a nice collection of squishy toys and letter openers, and for any auditors who may be following me around the web, my retractable badge clip says "Lincoln Electric" on it. This is within the bounds of our official written policy.

Some other agencies' employees can get fired for accepting so much as a pencil. Mine is of late headed in a similar direction. The latest is that they just banned "corporate trinkets" from the hospitality rooms at an upcoming conference. I don't even plan to go to that conference, so it's not that I'm throwing a tantrum for lack of badge lanyards and stress balls. It's just that there's no reason to ban something that is not expected to have ill effect. Which means they expect our ethics to be challenged by keychains and ballpoints.

Which is pretty goddam insulting. It's insulting enough if they think I'll sell out for a nice steak, but when they lower my price to the cost of a memo pad, that's just sad.

Hg

Eng-Tips policies: faq731-376

 

[zdas04]

Companies go through some of the same cycles. When I left BP the rule was--accept nothing without a logo on it, and things with a logo worth over $25 need to be reported to the company so their value can be added to your W-2. At one time it was perfectly OK to fly on a vendor's jet to their hunting camp for a week of phesant or duck hunting. The pendulum just keeps swinging. Sounds like the public sector is swinging from silly to plumb-dumb.

David

 

[ykee]

I feel you pain -- I think its something that politicans and gov't HR departments keep busy with, instead of tackling issues of real importance to emplyee moral.

 

[HgTX]

"The beatings will continue until morale improves."

I serve on a committee hosted by an industry association. This is okay; we specify their specifications so my involvement is good.

Said association decided it would be of benefit to committee function for all the committee members to also be members of another association because the information in their newsletters and other resources would be of use to us in our committee roles. So they offered to pay for everyone's membership in this other association.

I'm not allowed to accept paid membership in this other association because there might be a benefit to *me* buried somewhere in there. As it happens, I don't really want this membership, and there's nothing of great personal benefit to me that wouldn't also be a benefit to my employer (discounts on publications that I just can't see keeping on my bedstand), but my employer is not willing to take my word for that. Since the second organization, like any organization, has a page describing how great it is to be a member, they have to point to that and show how I cannot be allowed to "profit" from the first organization buying me the membership.

It is seen, somehow, as no different from them buying me a country club membership.

Judgement is out the window.

Hg

Eng-Tips policies: faq731-376

 

[IRstuff]

Not necessarily in their defense, but it's not really a question of quid pro quo, but of name recognition and retention. While the trinkets aren't worth much, you obviously remember that your lanyard came from Lincoln Electric, so to some degree, you potentially have a more positive attitude towards them than some other guy you never heard of before.

Giving trinkets WORKS! That's why doctors prescribe the latest and greatest drugs, rather than the cheaper, tried and true ones, because they get samples. They get SO MANY samples that each monthend, there's a massive cleanup to collect and dispose the soon-to-be-expired drugs.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[JStephen]

Find out who makes those rules and offer them a free pencil to change the rule.

 

[MintJulep]

Giving trinkets WORKS!

It's just advertising. It's effective because your trinket is something like an ID lanyard, or a coffee mug that there is a good chance the recipient will use every day, or set on his desk - thus keeping the giving company's name always in mind.

But still, it's just advertising.

So what is the next level of absurdity? Will public agencies declare that employees cannot read trade journals because a potential supplier might be an advertiser?

 

[DonPhillips]

I have worked in the public sector and refused the squishy toys and in private handing out the squishy toys. I would rather the world just get to work and stop playing with the toys. I hated to be on both ends but giving them away was worse than refusing them.

Don Phillips

http://worthingtonengineering.com

 

[IRstuff]

It's just advertising

Precisely! That's why billions are spent each year on that. And that's why lobbyists get to spend their millions, since name recognition is what it's all about.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[berkshire]

first rule of advertising, get something in the guys hand that he is going to use, then make sure your name is where he can see it.
So what's wrong with that?
B.E.

 

[ivymike]

I think that your first rule was supposed to start with "if you can't find a way to link the use of your product to increased opportunities for sex, then..."

We've got some strict rules about ethics here, too, and we're tested on them every year. After the test we have to answer a questionaire about our own activities during the year, and if we leave any interesting answers we get to talk to an attorney from corporate legal affairs.

As an example, when my son was born a former coworker of mine sent a $25 babies-r-us gift card. unfortunately, he now works for a competitor, and one of the survey questions was along the lines of "have you in the last year accepted anything of value from someone who works for a supplier or competitor?" Obviously the right answer was yes, which is what I marked... so I got to spend about 20 minutes talking it over with an irritable attorney, who eventually chided me for not realizing that the question only applied if I was in a position to influence decisions which might affect our relationship with that competitor (it didn't say that anywhere on the survey). The take-away was that I apparently don't have to interpret the questions so literally in the future, and should excercise judgement in which activities I report. I'm sure that the people who are getting bribed by suppliers will be relieved to hear that.

 

[TheBlacksmith]

Since common sense and morals are in a great decline among the masses, well meaning but clueless people have decided that more rules are a good substitute and a good defense. It's everything from mandatory sentencing guidelines for judges to mandatory rules for school principals. A child was suspended from school in Virginia Beach for bring a replica gun to school under such a rule. He bought the replica during a school field trip to Colonial Williamsburg and was apprehended when the bus returned to the school. HgTX, if you do sell out for a good steak or a pencil, at least they can point to the rules/training and cover their butts. It's stupid, but it is, so get used to it.

 

[stevenal]

Got a letter from a customer stating they were adopting the no gift rule. I brought this matter up when it was suggested that we buy lunch one day. The customer employee in question had no problem with this. Conclusion: the no gift rule doesn't work.

I recently learned that as a public employee in my state, I am considered to be a "public official" and that state ethics rules covering public officials apply. $50 per year per gift giver, and no entertainment at all. Lunch is considered a gift, and not entertainment. I think accepting lunch is a gift, since I am dealing with business on my own time. As usual, they forgot to ask me.

 

[sundale]

I all depends on your rank as a government official/public servant.

An engineer who receives a free lunch or logo trinket is defacto guilty of poor ethics based on some HR policy.

On the other hand, a politician who receives straight up cash $$$ for "campaign funding" from a special interest lobbiest is OK.

I would put my money on the engineer, not the lawyer (e.g. politician), as to which one is better able to discern true ethical behavior.

 

[HgTX]

Lunch is another thing. Usually they're begging to take us to lunch because if they pay for us, they can put the lunch on their expense account, but if they just pay for themselves, it's on them. I figure we're doing them the favor, not the other way round. Not many people in charge see it that way, of course.

"the question only applied if I was in a position to influence decisions which might affect our relationship with that competitor"

Yeah, see, that's the aspect that they're starting to lose track of around here. They just tightened the rules on people in procurement positions, and most managers have decided to disregard the distinction and apply the new rules to all of us. Because they're afraid to exercise judgement. On anything. Ever. I could go on a "zero tolerance in schools" rant of my own. It's their perogative to tighten the rules, but it annoys me that they claim that the rules have been changed for us. They haven't (except for that one conference). It's just that the paranoia level has gone up. And the rules probably *will* continue to change in that direction.

Yeah, I know, suck it up.

Hg

Eng-Tips policies: faq731-376

 

[SomptingGuy]

Hg,

You sum up lunch correctly. But even if the vendor appears to pay, the cost is eventually passed to the customer. Funny stuff, internal politics/accounting.

- Steve