The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://mail.texaschlforum.com/
Exactly! Hunting, fishing, golf..... lots and lots of deals done on these type of "business' excursions. This is how manySeabear wrote:Heck no, this is Texas, that's how we do things. Hope he gets a good one.
Well stated LabRat. Your statements about long term relationships business are right on point. This particular situation did not concern me at all. I was just trying to start some conversation based on what happened.LabRat wrote:Most of your statements center on why this hunting arrangement might be OK relate to "contracts already signed".WildBill wrote:I have heard this same statement and consider it a "cop out", just like "zero tolerance" policies. For example, giving a gift to another employee should not be a the concern of the company. If I gave you a gift, there would probably be at least one person who would speculate about some "impropriety". There are some people who have nothing better to do.urnoodle wrote:HR uses the "if someone can speculate the appearance of impropriety" then it is against policy. That covers them in any situation. We aren't allowed to give gifts on holidays to one another either.
But business relationships, especially ones that are profitable, tend to run for years or decades and can involve many different projects or contracts; and involve major $$$$ over the years.
What about the future business that might be done? Could this be used as a "marker" to call in later?
Engineers have tremendous influence on what suppliers are considered for business.
It is their professional opinion on a suppliers quality system, manufacturing processes, process capabilities, etc. that can make a supplier the winner or the loser. Purchasing is a major player too, but engineers have lots of say-so.
Impropriety occurs when there is a quid pro quo arrangement or the appearance of a quid pro quo arrangement.
Best to stay away from even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Some companies use the overall value of an item to help indicate whether some arrangement qualifies as conflict of interest. That's not always a wise choice; some folks have attachments to goods or services that transcend money. Power is a good example.
LabRat
WildBill wrote:Well stated LabRat. Your statements about long term relationships business are right on point. This particular situation did not concern me at all. I was just trying to start some conversation based on what happened.LabRat wrote:Most of your statements center on why this hunting arrangement might be OK relate to "contracts already signed".WildBill wrote:I have heard this same statement and consider it a "cop out", just like "zero tolerance" policies. For example, giving a gift to another employee should not be a the concern of the company. If I gave you a gift, there would probably be at least one person who would speculate about some "impropriety". There are some people who have nothing better to do.urnoodle wrote:HR uses the "if someone can speculate the appearance of impropriety" then it is against policy. That covers them in any situation. We aren't allowed to give gifts on holidays to one another either.
But business relationships, especially ones that are profitable, tend to run for years or decades and can involve many different projects or contracts; and involve major $$$$ over the years.
What about the future business that might be done? Could this be used as a "marker" to call in later?
Engineers have tremendous influence on what suppliers are considered for business.
It is their professional opinion on a suppliers quality system, manufacturing processes, process capabilities, etc. that can make a supplier the winner or the loser. Purchasing is a major player too, but engineers have lots of say-so.
Impropriety occurs when there is a quid pro quo arrangement or the appearance of a quid pro quo arrangement.
Best to stay away from even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Some companies use the overall value of an item to help indicate whether some arrangement qualifies as conflict of interest. That's not always a wise choice; some folks have attachments to goods or services that transcend money. Power is a good example.
LabRat
My statement about the contract already being signed was a statement of fact. Due to the nature of this particular contract, we will probably never do business with this company again. The test engineer was using this as rational that he would not be influenced by a hunting trip. In the end, he won't get to go, but he is okay with the decision. He likes his job more that a hunting trip.
Another thing that I forgot to mention is that the guy offering the hunt was the owner and CEO of his company, so he makes the policy.
As most others have said, it really depends on company policy, as well as your own moral policy...WildBill wrote:This week a supplier invited the purchasing manager and the test engineer to have lunch to discuss the status of on-going project. The supplier is building some test equipment for our facility. The purchase order was negotiated and signed a year ago.
At the end of lunch, the supplier asked our test engineer what he liked to do outside of work. He responded that he was a new Texas resident and that he liked to hunt and fish, but hadn't had the opportunity yet. The supplier invited him to a deer hunt on his lease.
All of the purchasing agreements were negotiated and signed prior to hiring the new test engineer. He didn't have anything to do with the pricing of the contract or selection of the supplier. Do you think that there is conflict of interest? Do you think that he should refuse the offer of the hunting trip?