Discussion on:

How to respond if a client asks you to lie

."give me a letter for the insurance company that says this has to be replaced because it is too expensive to fix."

This is easy to determine -- look up the man hours and part costs involved. It is either true or a lie.

will the insurance company look up that info, or will they take the word of an outside consultant?

But it's a great example of a case where the only thing you'd hurt by lying is your integrity. But that's the most important thing, as Michael pointed out.

and I was not directing it at the insurance company to look it up (however they may). It is up to the tech to determine.

Before deciding if you will write the letter, it should be decided how much it will cost and determine the unit's value.

It would also depend on the insurance/warranty as well. If they do not have accidental damage coverage (such as dropping), and it was known to have been dropped by the tech, the letter should not be written, or the accident should be included with it to make sure that everything is on the up and up

'can you see if you can get this fixed under warranty even though we both know I dropped it.'

Or if the warranties by HP, get them to fix it anyway. I bought a broken tape drive (sold as untested) from ebay. I contacted HP, told them I'd bought the tape drive 2nd hand, and enquired about who could repair it. They offered to replace it FOC under warranty!!

I like a company that stands by its products. HP has really improved in recent years, IMHO.

HP has some research-related stuff in the town where I live. Quite a few computer geeks I know here work for HP, contract with HP, or have worked for/with HP in the past. While the story about replacing something bought second-hand certainly sounds good, I've heard stories that give me a different perspective on how HP does business.

Sadly, I can't think of any good examples off the top of my head to relate to you that might not violate someone's confidence.

... HP's products and services were going downhill fast (at least in my experience -- I was almost ready to ditch them for good), but they seem to have turned the ship around (again, in my limited experience -- I couldn't be happier with my recent purchases and support experiences).

My preference is still for smaller businesses with more individual integrity behind policies rather than mere corporate collective self-interest, but perhaps if I find myself in a situation where I have to choose some mass-market box solution to something, your experiences with HP products will help me make the "right" decision -- one way or another.

As you said, their interest is only in making money. But for now at least, it appears that their strategy for making money is to please their customers.

I have never been asked to "outright" lie, but clouding the truth is more the appropriate term. Not telling the whole truth in order to avoid the lie is another approach used by some. I have never done any of these and have lost a few friends and clients because of it and I figure if that's the price I have to pay to maintain my self esteem, then so be it as I do have to live with myself regardless of where my paychecks come from. I am not a good salesman because I cannot vouch for others work unless I know they can really do the work. I sell myself well because I know my limits and if asked to do something I can't do, I will admit it.

Yes, friends and clients that want you to hide the truth are perhaps better lost than kept. Otherwise, next thing you know you'll be moving a body for them (not the kind in angle brackets).

I had a friend. He was a liar, a thief, and a generally amoral person.

BUT... he had never done anything to me, and we were friends, so no worries, right?


Ha Ha Ha...

He and my ex took me for every last penny.

MORAL:
Don't associate with dishonest people, because it WILL come back to haunt you.

I guess that goes to show that character isn't something conditioned on relationship -- dishonest towards one means untrustworthy towards all.

I wouldn't promise to perjure myself, I would just assure them, using as many as possible of the same lines they'd just tried to use to assure me, that they "have nothing to worry about -- since all my work for them is expensed, there's no question about whether they'll forget how I helped them out." They'll remember the bill for anything I take the time to say or do that "sure would help them out of a jam," and I'll charge a fat advance on the spot, for expense-tracking software of course.

So from then on you have the "advantage" of holding your client for ransom. That sounds like a great working relationship.

I have no intention of stretching the truth, when/if I talk to the IRS. However, for having the temerity for asking me to stick out my neck for them, and for trying to convince me to do that, I'll charge them out the nose.

1. As previous posts said I would reinforce the accomplishments of the organization. The bottom line is not how big you are but what you have accomplished for other clients that gets you the job.
2. Suggest a conference call with all concerned parties. Most vendors will do this and appreciate the fact that someone with technical expertise is involved on the client said.
3. No, never, forget it, run for the hills.

Advice#1, I have done the same as the article.
Advide#2, I have done the same as the article, and then I got sued by the as their consultant for intentional malice, when the client was themselves was sued by the product vendor for breach of the support aggreement contract. Due to the wording of their agreement and our local state laws, both can do what they did. So in the future, I will let the client play middle man, and I will educate them during the support call, but the call will be made by the client and whom ever holds the agreement regardless of their techincal level.
Advice#3- I have just stated, I will not do anything illegal, and what they are asking is illegal, furthermore I will be leaving them as their consulant due to their business practices.

oh, of course I always end up paying for it, but honesty is the best policy. -d

... do you just tell them to **** off? Or do you try to bring them around?

1 is sales..It's not lying or stretching the truth, It's ascribing adjectives to particular objects or people.

2 can be avoided by having the person who as the agreement call and give the necessary info and then say "Let me let you talk to my tech guy/gal."

3 Is Karma waiting to bite your face off. Don't play with the govt. A $3000 write off isnt worth it in the long run.

#1: Will you be using your entire development team? Will this take place at your main office? No lie there, then
#2 Unless the client is a one man show, if I work for the client (consultant, contract or employee, what is the difference? Do they expect the Budget or Procurement people (who probably actually signed the contract) to call? I would certainly want my support people to talk to someone who knows what they are doing.
#3 Never in a million years.

scenario 1 doen not involve a lie, and i would do it without any problem.
for 2 and 3 the answer is obviously NO WAY. There is no need for further analysis and explanations.

I've only recently been in IT consulting, so in that context, it hasn't come up. I was once asked to lie in an earler job. My supervisor was deeply stressed by a certain individual and wanted to convince her something was true to get her off his back. I had a great relationship with this other person, and stuck it out for truth. There was no slick spin to smooth things over, but no abrasive name-calling either. Over time, the dynamics of office politics fell in my favor, and I was able to preserve an excellent professional relationship. Moral of the story? It is good to be honest with people in general, but especially the people you really respect, because your track record will follow you. Circumstances change, but who you are will end up being more important than what you accomplished on any given day.

#1, thats just sales speak. If anyone in the meeting takes every wonderful thing a salesman says as the truth, well, they are only 2 weeks out of school.

#2, and especially, #3, it shows the character of the company you are working with, do you want them as part of your sphere. Yes, you may lose revenue, but you can never, ever, get respect back. They may call you every name in the book, but I guarantee that even if they hate you now, they do respect you.

TripleII

I think to tell the boss of my client about waht is him/her asking me to do, as an opportunity to clean the house, or better: I quit, I can not work for a Client like that...!

I think you have the scale of the lie backwards.

#1) This is giving a good impression - no different than wearing your best suit or making a glossy brochure for the presentation. However it is probably counterproductive to emphasize size of company since that is easy to check. Emphasize the amount of effort you can do on the project.

#2) I'm missing something here - why would the vendor care who made the call for support the client had paid for. If necessary have the registered user make the call and just use a speakerphone.

#3) There is no grey area here - the client is trying to defraud the IRS. The only question is whether you report them or not.

These are just three scenarios I've encountered.

#1 - I disagree. Wearing a nice suit doesn't imply anything more than that you can afford a nice suit and you care about your appearance. Implying that you have multiple locations and many employees when you don't is an attempt to deceive, IMHO.

#2 - I don't know why the vendor insisted originally in only speaking to the license holder, but as I said they changed their mind when they weren't getting anywhere.

I think the main reason vendors have clauses that require only speaking with the license holder is that they want to prevent one support contract being used to support multiple clients.

As long as you're actually supporting the customer that bought the support contact, what's the big deal? I'm sure their tech support guy would much rather talk to someone who knew what he was talking about.

'Pretending' to be the license holder, however, is not the right way to do it.

Better to lay the cards on the table and show the vendor why they should talk to you instead.

In the case where a company purchases software, the legal entity owning the software (or service contract) is the company itself. As the company is not a 'human', it may delegate anyone they like to act on their behalf.

Most often licenses will have a 'contact' individual listed, but this, in no way, means that only this person can exercise the rights of the contract as the contract is owned by the company and not that particular individual.

If the vendor has registered the software to an 'individual', then, assuming the company has paid for the software, the vendor is in the wrong. This would cause both the support problem AND a little issue with the IRS when the company tries to claim the expense.

On the other points -- I don't have much feedback -- suffice to say that in international work at least, there are a million shades of grey depending which country you work in. One thing to not is that US companies (and others) take fullest advantage of whatever they can get away with outside their own country.

Whether that be treating their foreign workers in sub-standard and unsafe conditions, destroying the environment or even the US Government selling pirated software through the school run by their consulate. Seen it all...

... it was registered to an individual who was employed by the company. I don't know why they did it that way -- maybe it had something to do with the cost of individual vs corporate licenses, or some such.

As for the horrors you've witnessed abroad, I can't say that I'm too surprised. The only thing that prevents our government from doing the same to us citizens is that pesky little document called the US Constitution -- and even that is having a hard time against it these days.

If this is the case, the answer becomes clear...

>maybe it had something to do with the cost
>of individual vs corporate licenses, or
>some such.

BINGO!

No shades of 'grey' if this is the case.

How many times have you seen a company purchase a single license of software and install it on every computer in the place?

What IS galling is when these companies try to get unwarranted support -- often times lying to the support tech to hide their license violations. And these same liars become so 'indignant' about how they are 'entitled' to free, unlimited support.

As for the US Constitution, I don't see how it applies much to corporate ethics or modern technologies.

According to Wikipedia:

"The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America. It provides the framework for the organization of the United States Government."

Nothing about corporations, business or ethical behaviour here. Government contracts for EVERY country are subject to the most blatant and highest dollar-value frauds imaginable -- but nothing seems to stop that.

"The United States Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787"

While the foundations may be sound, this document really has little bearing on the ethical behaviour of individuals, companies, or any of the technologies invented in the last few hundred years.

Another small note about the constitution -- it only protects US Citizens ON US Soil.

Which is why atrocities as waterboarding (google it) are freely conducted just a few hundred miles offshore... (But that is a discussion reserved for another forum...)

He referred to the US Constitution regulating how government acts -- not how corporations act. Weren't you paying attention?

The original topic of the post was on corporate behaviour. Maybe you should read the original posting?

In any case, the constitution seems to have done NOTHING to influence corporate, Government OR personal behaviour. It certainly has nothing to do with modern technologies including software, licensing or telecommunications.

While some mention is made of people being 'secure in their persons and property', the term "privacy" is never mentioned -- which is another whole area of ethics that applies to today's situations.

When I mentioned the Constitution, it was in a comment about US citizens being protected from the US government. The original article, OTOH, is about corporate behavior. Conversations drift.

Nevertheless, within the US, individual rights (including privacy) should be protected from corporate behavior by some application of law that is compatible with the Bill of Rights, IMHO. Exactly how belongs in another forum.

Divesting Sterling's comments of their immediate context and trying to apply them to some different, earlier context doesn't make you "right". As Sterling himself pointed out, he was referring to government, not corporations, with the reference to the Constitution. The original reference to the Constitution made the actual intent of the reference quite obvious, though, to anyone who doesn't have a chip on his shoulder and a desire to misconstrue what others have said just to justify some kind of personal attack.

Furthermore . . . I'm always annoyed by people who think that the word "privacy" has to be explicitly mentioned for privacy to be addressed at all. An example of where you seem to have gone off-track is the Supreme Court's own reference to legal penumbrae in the Constitution that protect a right of privacy, in cases like Griswold v. Connecticut. Privacy is as protected a right in the text of the Constitution as free expression, even though the word "expression" never appears in the Constitution.

"One thing to not is that US companies (and others) take fullest advantage of whatever they can get away with outside their own country."

It's not "US companies". It's corporations, period. If a country allows corporations to behave in a particular manner, and that manner might help with profitability and market dominance strategies, the corporation will behave that way, regardless of where it was incorporated. It's an inescapable effect of the collective "entity" status of the corporation, with all the legal privileges that apply to a corporation.

In the last few times I've seen you post any comments here at TR, though, I've noticed that you like to bad-mouth anyone and anything native to the US. You thinly veil it sometimes, but I don't think you're fooling anyone -- certainly not me.

If you bothered to examine the matter more closely, you'd notice that this problem isn't unique to the US by any stretch of the imagination.

Apotheon, I don't need you to read words 'into' my mouth. This isn't the first time you've mapped some incredibly paranoid spins on my posts, and it is becoming tiresome.

In my post, I very deliberately put the words "(and others) " in the sentence FOR A REASON. Unfortunately, you seemed to have missed it.

I tend to write very simply and straightforwardly. There are no 'hidden meanings'. If I am not perfectly clear, if you've missed something, or if you just don't understand what I post -- please be sure to ask for a clarification. I won't mind.

To be sure, I often speak out against corruption and criminal behaviour wherever and from whoever they appear equally and regardless of country of origin. I can give examples from American, Canadian, Finnish and German companies who play fast and loose with ethical behaviour, but unfortunately, since Americans have such a wide presence across the world -- they tend to be the emissary of your country.

What happens in the squeeky-clean cubicles of Fort Collins Colorado does not, in any way tell the story of what is happening outside the borders.

Travel the world for a few years and let us know what YOU find...

... to find corruption. It may be more rampant outside our borders, or maybe it's just better hidden inside them.

You're right, I overlooked the parenthetical comment, or misread it.

On the other hand . . .

1. I suspect you're going to have to offer evidence of my "paranoid" behavior if you want anyone 'round these parts to believe you other than, say, rickk. Most TR community participants seem to think I'm sane, and making wild unsupported claims like yours doesn't tend to endear one to many of them.

2. Your attitude toward the US seems pretty well cemented in the minds of some, after your little tantrum in response to an article Sterling wrote not long ago, where you imagined some kind of insults directed at offshore workers that simply didn't exist.

3. You obviously know little or nothing about me that you can't find in my TR profile -- or you might have found out that I've been far beyond the "squeeky-clean" cubicles of Fort Collins, including not only most of the United States, but the two nations that border the USA, Europe, and northern Africa.

Try making an argument some time, rather than an attack. Even with your "(and others)", the obvious thrust of what you said was that US corporations are the primary offender, and you made that statement in circumstances that in no way required singling out the US to make your point. Yeah, you still seem to have a chip on your shoulder.