Hypothetical question

[Tinkermommy]

You make good points, and make no mistake, I agreed that the secretary should eat the money. I already stated that earlier in the thread. But I also feel it is a very unusual and crappy predicament for the 3-party "triangle".

By the way, I don't think she has told the boss yet. She hadn't as of a few days ago.

There is no three party triangle. There is only one party and that is the secretary.

Why you keep trying to involve the boss who seems to have no knowledge of this incident is bewildering.

When you run a business, you have to make "smart" decisions, and that is not always the cheapest option. And it was presumptuous for the secretary to spend any money on the companies behalf. She does not know the financial status of the company. What if they are having a hard time just making payroll? Then even $300 is unreasonable to spend.

As the saying goes, cheap can turn out to be expensive.

 

[nile455]

Secretary.

BUT... If I were her boss, and she's known for making intelligent choices in the past, AND she's expected to show initiative in her job, I'd pay her back.

I was hoping more people would share this sentiment.

To my knowledge she has yet to tell her boss, but I get a feeling if she told him that he would indeed pay her back, or at the very least maybe partially.

 

[Mickey's Minion]

I was hoping more people would share this sentiment.

To my knowledge she has yet to tell her boss, but I get a feeling if she told him that he would indeed pay her back, or at the very least maybe partially.

I am sorry you are out the $300.00, but when you tell your boss of this little folly, I would not be expecting reimbursement, sympathy or even the boss feeling bad for you. I would expect that the boss might be a bit miffed at you.

You not only made an unauthorized purchase, but you put the company in a liable position if something had happened with the delivery of the copier.

(I am assuming this is really you as appear to have much knowledge about the state of the company, the boss personality and the relationship between the boss and your "friend". I don't know any of my friend's bosses quite so intimately, knowing what they would do in this situation.)

 

[nile455]

There is no three party triangle. There is only one party and that is the secretary.

Why you keep trying to involve the boss who seems to have no knowledge of this incident is bewildering.

I involved the boss because he was planning on getting the machine eventually. He didn't have knowledge of what happened, but he was planning on getting the machine in the future, and it was normal for the secretary to make purchases and for him to pay her back. That is why I involved him. I don't think he should be responsible, but if he was told about the entire situation I would have to think he would feel terrible about it.

And yes, the movers are also part of this.

 

[nile455]

I am sorry you are out the $300.00, but when you tell your boss of this little folly, I would not be expecting reimbursement, sympathy or even the boss feeling bad for you. I would expect that the boss might be a bit miffed at you.

You not only made an unauthorized purchase, but you put the company in a liable position if something had happened with the delivery of the copier.

(I am assuming this is really you as appear to have much knowledge about the state of the company, the boss personality and the relationship between the boss and your "friend". I don't know any of my friend's bosses quite so intimately, knowing what they would do in this situation.)

The secretary is one of my best friends. I know the situation because we talked at length about it over the phone.

 

[Kimberly]

Imagine this scenario:

An office secretary has been asking her boss for a new copy machine for months. A certain one that costs $4,000.

Boss keeps saying "I know we need it, but business is not good and we just cannot afford to spend $4,000 on anything right now. Hopefully soon."

One Saturday afternoon, the secretary spots a perfectly working machine at a nearby fire sale for the ridiculous price of $300, and incredibly it's the exact same $4,000 model the office was planning to get eventually.

Unable to get a hold of her boss at that moment, and afraid someone else will snatch it up, secretary decides to purchase it herself with the assumption she will be reimbursed. She figures at just $300, it will make a great surprise when her boss comes in Monday morning.

She then calls a friend that owes her a big favor. This person owns a truck and has experience moving large items, and he agrees to move the machine for her with the help of another friend, free of charge.

The two men load the copy machine into the truck and move it to the office. After arriving at the office, the two men start unloading the machine when something goes terribly wrong and the machine comes loose and rolls off the truck, crashing down to the ground. It is totaled beyond repair!

The question is, which of the three people should eat the money? The secretary, the movers, or the boss?

I would probably give the secretary a 4300 dollar raise, effective immediately. I love people who think outside of the box like this. Great employees like this are difficult to find.

 

[Mickey's Minion]

I involved the boss because he was planning on getting the machine eventually. He didn't have knowledge of what happened, but he was planning on getting the machine in the future, and it was normal for the secretary to make purchases and for him to pay her back. That is why I involved him. I don't think he should be responsible, but if he was told about the entire situation I would have to think he would feel terrible about it.

And yes, the movers are also part of this.

If this is really is "your friend", you are making assumptions far beyond your knowledge. No matter how much you have spoken with the friend, you cannot possibly know how he feels about such purchases.

I will still stand by my opinion that not only would he not feel terrible, but rightfully should be irritated with her at the very least and flat out angry for making such a purchase and transporting it without authorization.

Did she check the insurance of her friends? Did she have an agreement in place if the movers damaged the machine (which actually happened) or if they damaged property or a person was harmed during the transport? If she was buying this for the company and expected to be reimbursed, she should also have acted as an agent for the company and had arrangements in place to protect the company's $300.00 investment and to make sure the company would not liable for any damage to person or property.

Did she research what getting a service contract would cost the company since she would not be getting the warranty? Did she research if she could even get a service contract? Did she research what the average cost of repairing the copier during the next year if it fails would cost the company without a service warranty? Did she research what regular service maintenance would cost without a warranty?

As another poster said, sometimes the cheapest options is not the most cost effective for a company. Even if the copier works just fine today, it does not guarantee that something will not break tomorrow. Copiers/Printers are finicky things and often break, requiring a service technician to come in.

Unless she knew the cost of all the possible repairs without a service warranty compared to the cost of a machine with a warranty, she couldn't possibly know if this was a good business decision or not.

Sounds more like an impulse buy, without the business sense to protect the company's investment or to protect it from liability. The boss should not have any sympathetic feelings for her at all and she should consider herself lucky if this does not reflect badly on her next review.

I would agree that it would be great thinking outside the box IF she had transacted the purchase in a business manner, researching the true cost of the copier vs. a new copier under warranty and also by making sure the company's investment was protected and was not liable for other damages.

Since she did not act in a very business like manner at all, I cannot fathom even believing the boss should reimburse her or even feel the least bit guilty. Just the act of buying this copier impulsively shows that she does not have the business acuity to be making such purchases for the company.

 

[curious3069]

Why in the world would the boss feel terrible??? Because his secretary made a bone-head decision without asking? If the boss was seriously considering a $4000 copier, then a $300 one with no warranty or maintence contract is not what he's going to want, regardless of the savings.

At this point, she needs to fess up and hope for the best. It's doubtful that the movers were injured in any way, but you just never know. Better the boss finds out from her than thru his insurance company.

 

[nile455]

If the boss was seriously considering a $4000 copier, then a $300 one with no warranty or maintence contract is not what he's going to want, regardless of the savings.

Not necessarily true. Perhaps he would be interested in a 92% discount on a perfectly running machine that he was planning on getting anyway.

 

[Mickey's Minion]

Not necessarily true. Perhaps he would be interested in a 92% discount on a perfectly running machine that he was planning on getting anyway.

Once again, a deal that seems too good to be true, usually is.

It is not the initial $300.00 purchase price. Anybody with any business savvy realizes that the true cost of a piece of equipment is in the maintenance costs. Those are usually the biggest cost to the company. A $300.00 copier without a service contract of warranty may end up way more expensive than a more expensive machine that could be purchased with a warranty.

You have not shared how much this copier would actually cost the company. Since you believe the boss would want this machine and went ahead and made the purchase, what would an annual service contract cost the company? You must know this since you insist this was such a good deal.

Also, the very basic of business principles to know to protect the business's investment and liability during transport were not followed and shows a strong lack of professionalism on the part of the secretary.

The naivete of this knowledge and the lack of business preparation by you or your friend shows that you or your friend was not prepared nor qualified to make a purchase of this magnitude for the company.

 

[wdwfan16]

Not necessarily true. Perhaps he would be interested in a 92% discount on a perfectly running machine that he was planning on getting anyway.

An maybe he would be pissed that an employee took it upon themselves to make a purchase the employee wanted but the employer had said NO to many time. The secretary (you) should keep your mouth shut and just eat the $300.

Can you imagine what might have happened if the boss found this machine in their office on Monday? The movers may have done the OP a big favor by breaking it.

 

[Magic Mom]

Not necessarily true. Perhaps he would be interested in a 92% discount on a perfectly running machine that he was planning on getting anyway.

The machine had no warranty. It may or may not have been in perfect condition. The boss told you no because business is bad/slow. He didn't authorize a 300.00 purchase. It was a bad move all around. The boss shouldn't feel bad, and if the secretary has morals she will not expect him to pay or play off of his kindness to manipulate him to pay for HER mistake.

 

[curious3069]

Not necessarily true. Perhaps he would be interested in a 92% discount on a perfectly running machine that he was planning on getting anyway.

Doubtful. Frankly, I don't think he really wanted the $4000 machine. Your friend made a decision she was in no way qualified to make. Unfortunately, she's going to be out that $300 because of it.

 

[nile455]

The secretary (you) should keep your mouth shut and just eat the $300.

Cut the crap. I have no problem with anyone disagreeing and having a friendly debate, but making false and rude statements when you've been told the facts (that the secretary is a friend of mine) is a different story. Thanks for your cooperation.

 

[wdwfan16]

I was hoping more people would share this sentiment.

To my knowledge she has yet to tell her boss, but I get a feeling if she told him that he would indeed pay her back, or at the very least maybe partially.

I involved the boss because he was planning on getting the machine eventually. He didn't have knowledge of what happened, but he was planning on getting the machine in the future, and it was normal for the secretary to make purchases and for him to pay her back. That is why I involved him. I don't think he should be responsible, but if he was told about the entire situation I would have to think he would feel terrible about it.

And yes, the movers are also part of this.

Cut the crap. I have no problem with anyone disagreeing and having a friendly debate, but making false and rude statements when you've been told the facts (that the secretary is a friend of mine) is a different story. Thanks for your cooperation.

Yes you should. You are changing the story and above is a good example. You are just made of the the $300. Get over it and keep the boss out of it.

 

[Luvchefmic]

Yes you should. You are changing the story and above is a good example. You are just made of the the $300. Get over it and keep the boss out of it.

and don't even know why the thread is "Hypothetical"

 

[srferson]

Nile -

I've seen plenty of threads on Disboards turn ugly, but I really didn't expect this one to turn so bad so fast.

I may be the only one who chooses to believe you when you say it's a friend, but I will.

Either way....

1) I do believe the secretary is out the $300. She took a gamble and it turned out bad. It happens.

2) I agree that I'm not sure why the thread title is 'Hypothetical question' but that's not really the point.

3) I can get behind the idea that the boss may sympathize with the secretary. He may feel bad that it happened when she was trying to do a good thing (even if it wasn't the best business move). Basically, the boss may actually have a heart.
I don't think the boss should reimburse the secretary, but the last couple of bosses I've had have actually been nice people and would probably at least sympathize. It may have been followed by a serious discussion about how it wasn't the best idea and there were a lot of factors to consider that I didn't consider... But overall they would have still felt some sympathy for me.

4) There are a couple people responding on this thread that I am really glad I don't have as a boss.

5) I'm not sure everyone is considering the number of factors that may be in play regarding the secretary's history with the company, the boss' personality, the size of the company, etc. These things might not change what should happen, but they may change what will happen.

I think how everyone in the situation will be feeling is really the hypothetical here because we don't know these people.

But the original question of who should be financially liable... I agree with the other posters. The secretary definitely.

 

[Magic Mom]

Nile -

I've seen plenty of threads on Disboards turn ugly, but I really didn't expect this one to turn so bad so fast.

I may be the only one who chooses to believe you when you say it's a friend, but I will.

Either way....

1) I do believe the secretary is out the $300. She took a gamble and it turned out bad. It happens.

2) I agree that I'm not sure why the thread title is 'Hypothetical question' but that's not really the point.

3) I can get behind the idea that the boss may sympathize with the secretary. He may feel bad that it happened when she was trying to do a good thing (even if it wasn't the best business move). Basically, the boss may actually have a heart.
I don't think the boss should reimburse the secretary, but the last couple of bosses I've had have actually been nice people and would probably at least sympathize. It may have been followed by a serious discussion about how it wasn't the best idea and there were a lot of factors to consider that I didn't consider... But overall they would have still felt some sympathy for me.

4) There are a couple people responding on this thread that I am really glad I don't have as a boss.

.

There is a big difference between sympathizing and feeling guilty. I can see the boss sympathizing with the secretary, but I don't think he would feel terrible or guilty.

 

[srferson]

There is a big difference between sympathizing and feeling guilty. I can see the boss sympathizing with the secretary, but I don't think he would feel terrible or guilty.

Yes. I do agree.

 

[nile455]

Nile -

I've seen plenty of threads on Disboards turn ugly, but I really didn't expect this one to turn so bad so fast.

I may be the only one who chooses to believe you when you say it's a friend, but I will.

Either way....

1) I do believe the secretary is out the $300. She took a gamble and it turned out bad. It happens.

2) I agree that I'm not sure why the thread title is 'Hypothetical question' but that's not really the point.

3) I can get behind the idea that the boss may sympathize with the secretary. He may feel bad that it happened when she was trying to do a good thing (even if it wasn't the best business move). Basically, the boss may actually have a heart.
I don't think the boss should reimburse the secretary, but the last couple of bosses I've had have actually been nice people and would probably at least sympathize. It may have been followed by a serious discussion about how it wasn't the best idea and there were a lot of factors to consider that I didn't consider... But overall they would have still felt some sympathy for me.

4) There are a couple people responding on this thread that I am really glad I don't have as a boss.

5) I'm not sure everyone is considering the number of factors that may be in play regarding the secretary's history with the company, the boss' personality, the size of the company, etc. These things might not change what should happen, but they may change what will happen.

I think how everyone in the situation will be feeling is really the hypothetical here because we don't know these people.

But the original question of who should be financially liable... I agree with the other posters. The secretary definitely.

Excellent, thoughtful and insightful response. A rarity in this thread.

You're right, it wasn't hypothetical. I was hoping to post it like that, but of course it was only a matter of time before revealing that it really happened.

Your 5th point I agree with 100%.