Question: We often eat out with another couple, always dividing the check 50/50. Since Pam and I are economizing these days, we no longer order drinks in restaurants. Our friends do, though, and they don’t seem to notice that splitting the check has become an awfully good deal for them. I think they should offer to pay for their booze, but Pam thinks our long-standing 50/50 arrangement is fine. Who’s right?

Answer: No wonder your friends aren’t cutting back on the cocktails in order to economize. They’ve got you to pick up half their bar tab. Count your blessings they’re not drinking more, now that their libations come with a 50% discount.

While we sympathize with Pam’s desire to avoid unsettling the friendship, this boat needs rocking. Presumably you’ve been splitting checks with your friends, not only because it’s gracious and easy, but because over time things have more or less been evening out. But unless the stimulus package includes some cocktail tokens for you, that’s no longer true — which means it’s time to change the deal.

Our advice? Stop wishing your friends would offer to pay for their drinks and tell them nicely but directly that, since you’re no longer ordering alcohol in restaurants, you’d like them to ask for a separate bar tab. Of course, you might want to first fortify yourselves with a stiff one at home.

Cheers — and good luck.

Questions? Email Money Magazine’s ethicists – authors of “Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?” (Free Press) – at FlemingandSchwarz@right-thing.net.

Question: My boss recently laid off a lot of people. As a result, she’s given me much more responsibility – but no raise and no better title. Is this fair? She says she won’t promote me until she sees how I do.

Answer: Call it a wild guess, but we’re betting your boss didn’t lay those people off just to be mean. We agree that in a perfect world, an increase in responsibility should be accompanied by a bump in pay. But today’s economy is anything but perfect. When organizations are forced to reduce their payrolls, many prefer to minimize layoffs rather than cut even more jobs to increase the compensation of workers who remain. In making that tradeoff, employers aren’t behaving unethically, even if some employees (like you) may deserve a raise.

As for the promotion, though, we’re on your side. Assuming the payroll’s frozen, your boss should try to reward you in other ways. A better job title is a good place to start.

Questions? Email Money Magazine’s ethicists – authors of “Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?” (Free Press) – at FlemingandSchwarz@right-thing.net.

By Jeanne Fleming, Ph.D. and Leonard Schwarz

Question: My fiancé’s wealthy aunt and uncle agreed to let us use their beautiful lake-view home for our wedding, and we’ve sent out the invitations. But now they’re insisting that each guest sign a form releasing them from any liability in the event of an accident. I’m appalled. Are they being unreasonable, or am I just naive?

Answer: You’re naïve only if you imagine that liability isn’t an issue here, because it is. Too bad no one thought of it before the invitations went out. We’d place most of the blame for that on your fiancé’s aunt and uncle, as presumably they’re worldlier, as well as wealthier, than you. But we can’t blame them for getting nervous, especially if you’re planning to serve alcohol.

So where do you go from here? These folks are sure to have homeowners’ insurance, and it almost certainly covers personal liability. If they don’t realize this, a call to their insurance agent may put their minds at ease.

If it doesn’t, talk to your insurance agent about “special events coverage.” A one day policy will insure your fiancé’s aunt and uncle against any liability arising from your wedding and will cost you a lot less than a ballroom or banquet hall.

If neither of these approaches satisfies them, then we’d agree: Your fiancé’s relatives are being unreasonable. It’s one thing to be more-than-a-little late in raising the liability issue. But once the invitations go out, it’s wrong to insist that your guests sign the kind of legal document they might expect to be handed were they signing up for skydiving lessons, not attending a wedding.
Questions? Email Money Magazine’s ethicists – authors of “Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?” (Free Press) – at FlemingandSchwarz@right-thing.net.

By Jeanne Fleming, Ph.D. and Leonard Schwarz

Question: My husband has negotiated a price for painting our house that’s significantly lower than a bid we got a while back from the same small business. I think he may be taking unfair advantage of people who are hurting in the recession. Is he?

Answer: Remember the good old days – you know, two years ago? As we recall, painters weren’t reluctant to push their bids up then, when demand for their services was strong. That behavior wasn’t unethical, and neither is it unethical for you to take advantage of the fact that today business is slow. Indeed, the effect that supply and demand have on prices is at the core of a market economy. You’ll be paying a price the painters agreed to, and you can rest assured they want the work.

Is it possible to overstep? Yes. Squeezing the desperate isn’t right. So if your husband has extracted a price from these painters that’s genuinely exploitative – for example, if you know the business owner needs the cash to save his house but will have to do the work for five bucks an hour – then you should revisit this bid and agree on a more equitable price.

Questions? Email Money Magazine’s ethicists – authors of “Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?” (Free Press) – at FlemingandSchwarz@right-thing.net.

by Jeanne Fleming, Ph.D. and Leonard Schwarz

Question: Two years ago my father left a large inheritance to my brother’s young girls – that is, to his grandchildren. Recently my brother used all of it, plus some of his own money, to buy a vacation home for his family (he says there are good deals out there these days). Was this ethical, or did Michael cheat his kids?

Answer: Not only did Michael cheat his kids, but he betrayed his father. Whatever his rationalization may be – that the whole family benefits from the vacation home, that the kids wanted to do it, that he’ll reimburse them someday – his what’s-yours-is-mine attitude toward his daughters’ inheritance is unethical. If your brother desperately needed to pay the heating bill, that might be one thing. But raiding the girls’ nest eggs to buy a vacation place? In our book, that’s stealing.

We hope you’ll contact a lawyer in your area for some advice. Even if you can’t take Michael to court – or can’t bring yourself to – we hope you’ll try to shame him into putting his daughters’ names on the title to the house.

Finally, we have a suggestion: If you have designated your brother as the executor of your will, say, or as your children’s guardian in the event of your death, it’s time to get out an eraser.

Questions? Email Money Magazine’s ethicists – authors of “Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?” (Free Press) – at FlemingandSchwarz@right-thing.net.

by JEANNE FLEMING, PH.D. and LEONARD SCHWARZ

Question: The man I love is married to another woman. He wants to leave her, but he says that he can’t afford to get a divorce – that he’ll lose his house and end up with huge child support payments. I have the resources to help him out. But I’m wondering, is it ethical for me, his girlfriend, to subsidize Danny’s divorce?

Answer: There is nothing unethical per se about helping a boyfriend with the expenses that weigh him down. After all, what are those resources of yours for if not to help you find happiness with the man you love? Trouble is, what you’re considering doing is not so much helping Danny with a financial problem as encouraging him to end his marriage. And that’s not right.

Had Danny gotten divorced before you came into the picture, your easing the financial burdens of that divorce would be an act of kindness. But while Danny remains married to and living with his wife, your bank account should not be playing a role in his thoughts about his marriage – and, to be frank, neither should you.

True, these things happen, and your question is about money and ethics, not marriage and ethics. But on either score, what matters is that Danny’s married. And until he isn’t, you shouldn’t be giving him reasons – romantic or financial – to leave his wife.

Questions? Email Money Magazine’s ethicists – authors of “Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?” (Free Press) – at FlemingandSchwarz@right-thing.net.

by JEANNE FLEMING, PH.D. and LEONARD SCHWARZ

Question: A good friend is investing $25,000 in an alternative-energy deal that looks very promising. He says he can arrange for me to get into it, but in exchange he wants 10% of whatever profit I make. I think he’s being incredibly greedy, but he says that he deserves to be compensated for opening an otherwise closed door. Does he?

Answer: If the dealmaker’s name is Madoff, run. And even if it’s not, remember: While alternative-energy projects have a certain cachet these days, so did hedge funds and Las Vegas real estate not that long ago. In short, caveat investor.

Should you still decide you want in, however, it’s not unethical in the business world to compensate someone for opening an otherwise closed door (bribes are another story). But to flip Michael Corleone’s famous phrase, this isn’t business, this is personal. And in the personal arena, friends don’t charge their friends fees. Unless your pal is a professional financial adviser – that is, someone who earns his living finding and vetting investments – what he deserves for a favor like this is your sincere thanks and a nice bottle of wine. If the deal turns into a jackpot, then a more substantial gift – some nice green cash, perhaps – is in order. And if it goes belly up? Well, don’t say we didn’t warn you.

Questions? Email Money Magazine’s ethicists – authors of “Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?” (Free Press) – at FlemingandSchwarz@right-thing.net.

by JEANNE FLEMING, PH.D. and LEONARD SCHWARZ

Question: My brother-in-law recently asked me to lend him $10,000 to tide him over till he finds a new job. He’s offered me a second mortgage as security, but I doubt there’s ten grand of equity left in his house, plus it’s a trophy property they never really could afford. Still, I don’t want my sister to lose her home. What should I do?

Answer: The first rule of family finance: Never allow your siblings and their spouses to buy houses they can’t afford. Now if only it were enforceable.

From what you say, it sounds as if your sister and her husband were living beyond their means before he lost his job. So regardless of whether the economy turns around and regardless of when your brother-in-law is able to find work, it’s hard to believe that the probability of his being able to repay you isn’t a whole lot lower than the probability that he’s going to need to borrow more money in order to stay in that home.

The bottom line? If your sister and her husband own a place they can’t afford, lending them money isn’t bailing them out, it’s only postponing the inevitable. So unless you can afford to subsidize them indefinitely while they live in their trophy property —- and unless you and your family are happy to do so -— don’t lend them the dough.

We know, it’s your sister. But that’s why you need to hang on to your money: to help her and her husband get back on their feet once they move to a home they can actually afford.

Questions? Email Money Magazine’s ethicists – authors of “Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?” (Free Press) – at FlemingandSchwarz@right-thing.net.

by JEANNE FLEMING, PH.D. and LEONARD SCHWARZ

Question: I’m one of four good friends who rent a house together. Last fall one of us lost her job. Amy pays rent from her savings, but whenever we all go out, the other three of us always pick up her tab. Amy’s not close to finding a new job, and this is getting expensive. When can we stop?

Answer: You and your roommates have been exceedingly generous with Amy. But times are tough, and now it’s time for some tough love. Being unemployed doesn’t make someone a charity. When cash isn’t flowing, she needs to cut back on certain things. At the top of the list: new clothes, nights on the town and all but the most frugal travel. Once Amy finds a job, she can go back to hitting her favorite clubs and restaurants as her new budget permits.

Of course, telling her you’re putting the brakes on the gravy train won’t be easy. In our experience, those folks who are most comfortable accepting the kindnesses of others are often the most wounded – unjustifiably wounded, but wounded nevertheless – when the free-lunch window closes. You might try softening the blow by making plans to do things together that Amy can afford right now. Netflix, anyone?

Questions? Email Money Magazine’s ethicists – authors of “Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?” (Free Press) – at FlemingandSchwarz@right-thing.net.

by JEANNE FLEMING, PH.D. and LEONARD SCHWARZ

Question: I’ve decided to leave my husband, so I’ve begun transferring things from our home – mostly stuff from my family – to a storage locker I’ve secretly rented. Chris can be petty. Once he learns I want a divorce, he’ll try to get everything he can, even items he doesn’t care about. Am I doing anything wrong?

Answer: As the queen of heartaches Tammy Wynette once observed, D-I-V-O-R-C-E is pure H-E-Double-L hell. But that’s no excuse for behaving dishonorably. In concealing your intentions while surreptitiously raiding the roost, you’re not being fair to your husband. Since Chris assumes you’re still M-A-Double-R-I-E-D, he’s undoubtedly acting differently than he would if he knew what you knew. Were you to announce your decision, would he, say, continue to have his paycheck deposited in your joint account, accept a generous gift to you both from his parents or – on another front – fail to notice that things are disappearing from the house? We doubt it.

Don’t misunderstand. We’re all for you standing up for your own interests. And if Chris were violent, not revealing your plans until after you’d moved would be fine. But maintaining the pretense of a stable marriage in order to keep your spouse from noticing that you’re helping yourself to what’s arguably community property is cheating, and that’s true whether you’re sneaking prize possessions into a secret storage locker or funneling money into a secret bank account. The Bermuda Triangle of men, women and money has destroyed the integrity of many an otherwise honest person. Try not to let it happen to you.

Questions? Email Money Magazine’s ethicists – authors of “Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?” (Free Press) – at FlemingandSchwarz@right-thing.net.

by JEANNE FLEMING, PH.D. and LEONARD SCHWARZ

Question: When my father-in-law learned we were planning to move to a community with better schools, he said he’d send our sons to parochial schools here. He paid for their first semester, but hasn’t paid since. Doesn’t he have an obligation to honor this commitment? He’s not hurting for money, and we stayed because of his promise.

Answer: We sure hope you’re not counting on your father-in-law to help send your boys to college (and we’re not kidding).

Breaking a promise is, of course, never a nice thing to do. But the extent to which it’s simply crummy as opposed to seriously unethical depends on two things: 1) the degree to which the promise involves a quid pro quo and 2) the degree to which the recipient of the promise is hurt when the promise-maker reneges.

So, on the quid pro quo front, did your father-in-law agree to pay the tuition in return for your agreeing not to move? If he did, he has a moral obligation to honor his commitment (assuming he hasn’t suffered a serious financial setback in the interim). He’s obligated, that is, unless his failure to pay has had no real consequences for you and your family. You make the point that your father-in-law isn’t hurting for money, but how about you? If you can afford the tuition as easily as he can but you just don’t want to pay it, then his failure to keep his word, while unequivocally dishonorable, is not such a terrible ethical breech.

Questions? Email Money Magazine’s ethicists – authors of “Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?” (Free Press) – at FlemingandSchwarz@right-thing.net.

by JEANNE FLEMING, PH.D. and LEONARD SCHWARZ

Question: Dennis and I were hoping to retire this summer, but with the stock market slide, we now have to continue working. Until we replenish our nest egg, we’d like to cut back on giving to the local food bank, but we fear it will fold if we don’t make our annual, substantial gift. What should we do?

Answer: Tough times mean tough decisions. But this one, though unpleasant, is easy: Your first obligation is to put your own financial house in order. As deserving as the food bank is, you are no longer in a position to give them a large donation if your savings have shrunk to the point that you need to postpone your retirement. Charitable giving is an important part of the social contract, but – to paraphrase Justice Goldberg — the social contract is not a suicide pact.

What you should do, though, is tell the folks who run the food bank that they won’t be able to count on you for an anchor donation this year, and tell them now. They need as much time as possible to find replacement funds and/or to figure out how best to cut back their services.

You may find that the food bank staff isn’t that surprised to learn you’re downsizing this year’s check. The world of worthy causes has not failed to take note of what’s happening in the economy, and we assure you that belt-tightening is as much a theme of their conferences, journals and board meetings as it is a topic of your – and many other families’ – kitchen table conversations.

Questions? Email Money Magazine’s ethicists – authors of “Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?” (Free Press) – at FlemingandSchwarz@right-thing.net.

by JEANNE FLEMING, PH.D. and LEONARD SCHWARZ

Question: I recently opened my own graphic design business. A prospective client is coming to my new office for a meeting, and I plan to hire two temps for the day, to give the appearance that my firm is busy. A friend says this is wrong. But since no one will get hurt, how can it be?

Answer: Do we have a great job candidate for you! He’s got one year of experience, but his resume says three because he knows that looks better.

We sympathize with your eagerness to land those critically important first few clients. Unfortunately, though, inflating the body count in your office in order to create a good impression is indeed wrong – wrong because you’re misrepresenting not only the willingness of other companies to hire you, but the size of the staff available to do the work you’re seeking. And this is precisely the sort of information prospective clients are looking for when they make a point of coming by.

You wouldn’t be the first entrepreneur – or job applicant – to rationalize a deception by insisting that no one’s getting hurt. But the people you do business with – or work for, in the case of an employee – should be able to expect more integrity from you than the “no harm, no foul” standard of a basketball referee. We realize that, when you’re confident you’re qualified to do the work, the barriers you face to being hired might seem unfair. But just because an obstacle may appear insurmountable doesn’t entitle you to cheat your way around it.

Questions? Email Money Magazine’s ethicists – authors of “Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?” (Free Press) – at FlemingandSchwarz@right-thing.net.

by JEANNE FLEMING, PH.D. and LEONARD SCHWARZ

Question: Friends always hold a lavish holiday party, which we enjoy attending. Another regular guest is a wealthy neighbor who is facing securities fraud charges, charges that are clearly well-founded. Must we chat pleasantly with this man, or is it okay to convey by way of our frosty manner that we’re disgusted by his dishonorable behavior?

Answer: Why stop with the cold shoulder? Why not a slap in the face with your glove?

Seriously, we’re as offended as you are by white collar crime and the people who commit it. But until a person stands trial – until the prosecution presents its case and the person accused of the crime has an opportunity to defend himself – you shouldn’t rush to judgment. Once the evidence is in, though, feel free to let the judgment flow. And if what you learn convinces you that this guy is a crook, there’s no reason you shouldn’t treat him as one, regardless of how your friends behave toward him.

What you mustn’t do, however, is use a friend’s party as an opportunity to act out your disapproval. When you accept an invitation to someone’s home, you have an obligation to be pleasant with all the other guests. If you aren’t willing to do this, you should decline the invitation. You might even want to tell your hosts why, in the hope they’ll reconsider before again extending their hospitality to this man. But making a friend’s guest feel uncomfortable, while not in a league with securities fraud, is still out of bounds.

Questions? Email Money Magazine’s ethicists – authors of “Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?” (Free Press) – at FlemingandSchwarz@right-thing.net.

by JEANNE FLEMING, PH.D. and LEONARD SCHWARZ

Question: My seven-year-old son and our neighbors’ son were roughhousing at our neighbors’ home when my son accidentally broke their new high-def TV. I replaced the set. Shouldn’t our neighbors have offered to pay for half, since they ought to have been keeping a closer eye on the kids?

Answer: You’re right that you are on the hook for the loss. Parents are responsible for the damage that their children do, and the fact that your neighbors could have monitored the boys more closely doesn’t outweigh that responsibility. At age seven, your son should have learned – from you – not to engage in horseplay in the vicinity of expensive, breakable items and to be especially careful in someone else’s home.

That said, assuming your homeowners insurance didn’t cover the cost of a new TV, your neighbors should have offered to split the bill. It takes two to roughhouse, and it was just bad luck that your child was the one who actually broke the set.

Getting these folks to refund part of the tab is another matter. Our guess is that they’re not likely to look kindly on being presented with an after-the-fact bill. But it can’t hurt to point out to them that your son had a partner in crime. After all, be it in the family room or the courtroom, accomplices bear some responsibility when damage has been done. Good luck with your neighbors – and good luck civilizing the offspring as well.

Questions? Email Money Magazine’s ethicists – authors of “Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?” (Free Press) – at FlemingandSchwarz@right-thing.net.