Just recently, our company filed a petition to the court to convert its trust fund into mutual fund. To put it simply, if ever the court will approve the petition, the policy contracts of the planholders will be exchanged into mutual share, wherein they will end up with certificates of a mutual fund. The plan therefore of the company is to visit our branches and explain to our planholders.

Being one of the officers of our company, I am tasked to visit at least two of our branches and explain the “mutualization plan.”

This puts me in a dilemma.

As an individual, I am not in total agreement to the management plan. I believe, for lack of a better word, that the planholders are “short-changed.” That in filing for such a petition, the company is reneging on its contract. Personally, I believe that this is a one-way decision. The argument of pre-need companies is that the SEC did not consult them in its implementation of the Actuarial Reserve Liability (ARL). However, the pre-need companies are acting in the same manner by implementing decisions which did not consult the planholders.

As an officer and an employee, I do not question the management’s decision in its court petition. It is a business establishment, and must do everything in its power to survive the business. The board of directors are also saying that the welfare of the planholders is the company’s priority. Thus, a decision must be made that will strike a balance between the company’s survival and the planholder’s welfare. But is there such a thing?

I mentioned to my boss my hesitancy to travel. He replied that he will not make me do things that is against my will. In end up going after all.

Should I disobey my duties if it goes against my principle? If I do so, should I resign from my job and face the possibility of being jobless for how many months? Or should I just ignore my principles, face the planholders and explain to them something which even I don’t agree with?