Please write a thought out response to student post. They are posting in response to this. Andrea Tabares was just hired as the assistant treasurer of Northshore Stores, a specialty chain store company that has nine retail stores concentrated in one metropolitan area. Among other things, the payment of all invoices is centralized in one of the departments Andrea will manage. Her primary responsibility is to maintain the company's high credit rating by paying all bills when due and to take advantage of all cash discounts. William Parks, the former assistant treasurer, who has been promoted to treasurer, is training Andrea in her new duties. He instructs Andrea that she is to continue the practice of preparing all checks "net of discount" and dating the checks the last day of the discount period. "But," William continues, "we always hold the checks at least 4 days beyond the discount period before mailing them. That way we get another 4 days of interest on our money. Most of our creditors need our business and don't complain. And, if they scream about our missing the discount period, we blame it on the mail room or the post office. We've only lost one discount out of every hundred we take that way. I think everybody does it. By the way, welcome to our team!"

(a) What are the ethical considerations in this case?

(b) What stakeholders are harmed or benefited?

(c) Should Andrea continue the practice started by William? Does she have any choice?

THIS IS WHAT THE STUDENT WROTE THAT NEEDS TO BE RESPONDED TO!!

It is highly unethical to lie to consumers. Dating the checks and holding them to collect extra interest is unethical by any standards, even if everyone is doing it. The company and its employees and assets benefit from this practice by receiving extra interest on the money. The creditors are losing out by having to pay extra interest on something that was already dated. Even if the creditors don't complain, it doesn't mean that they are not affected. Blaming it on the mail room or post office when it was done purposely is just ridiculous. Telling investors bold face lies to collect a few extra dollars is bad for business, unethical, and should not be done. Andrea does have a choice, she can do things the right way and if she takes heat for it she can use her open door policy. they are receiving interest on the money and a discount at the same time so they are reaping double the winnings. If they didn't like they would just be getting the discount instead of the extra interest. I cant imagine that 4 days of extra interest would be worth a companies reputation. If this were to leak then they would be facing serious monetary penalties and would potentially lose a lot of business from investors and creditors. If she does continue this practice, she should tread on thin ice and realize that it will hit the fan eventually.