I Love Petsmart!

[Jules H-T]

I suspect this may be my last post on the topic as I've said all I needed to, however you have requested a direct response so here it is.

Again, you guys have NOT addressed my direct question:

Is it okay for a store to willfully and intentionally overcharge a customer if the store thinks that the customer is being inattentive or is bad at math or is being distracted?

In exactly the same way, if the store thinks that the customer can't figure out what charge they are owed, is it okay for a store to willfully short change the customer?

No, it is not OK, but it is the responsibility of the customer to check what they are being charged and what change they are being given.

The difference for me, as I have already stated, is that I view the rights, responsibilities, and status of the two parties- individual and corporate entity- to be completely different.

I feel that the whole purpose of the multi national is to part you from your money- not to provide you with fish, that's just a consequence of their money making activities. All I do is go there to get what I want for the lowest price possible- with the notable caveat that both parties agree to the exchange (i.e. NOTHING is stolen).

On the topic of the words I used, you have to be awfully careful about how you red those words. You can read those words in a torch-and-pitchfork mod mentality, or you can read then in a questioning/seeking/probing mentality. I am 100% on the latter. I am not trying to lecture, I am trying to point out a different point of view.

Well, it it could be said that if you want to insulate against someone deciding they don't like the way you are talking to someone else, that it's actually you that needs to be awfully careful about how you write those words.

I posted, what, 10 quotes? from two posts where you were making direct black and white statements accusing the OP of something or other- none of them were questions, or suggestions, they were dictations. For the most part your posts have dictated what is right and wrong, what is acceptable and what is not, and what the OP should and shouldn't have done.

I still wish to know, whilst we're on the subject of directly responding, is what it is that you feel qualifies you to dictate to anyone else what is right or wrong.

From the point of view I was trying to get people to look at, taking advantage of employees is wrong. You can't write that without using words that say you are wrong -- or at least I don't know how to do that.

Again, without meaning to sound condescending, but I did tell you in my last post. You suggest what they might or could have done, not what they should or should have done. You state that you believe something to be wrong, not that it is wrong.

But, if you think someone is doing or has done something wrong, I feel that there is a duty to stand up and state that belief.

Indeed, and that is what I too have done in this thread. You have no right to dictate to anyone whether what they did was right or wrong. I would have done the same as the OP, I believe that it was not wrong what they did. The treatment of the OP by you and others, I disagreed with.

I was stating that what was done willfully and knowledgeably was wrong.

Who are you to have a monopoly on morality? Whilst I am not in total alignment with tobigara, they make an interesting point.

There are grey areas with regards these things. You never found a dollar/pound and kept it? Or a penny/cent?

In my view pricing errors are fair game. In my view if a multi national can't train or supervise their staff, it is perfectly acceptable to take full advantage and fill your boots.

The extension of your assertion is that they might as well not bother spending on staff at all, and leave a set of nets, and a pot out, with a note saying "please leave correct change here".

Finally, just because you disagree with the business practices of large companies, why does that make it okay for one to rip them off?

It's not ripping them off. It is simply allowing them to not make as much profit as they might have intended, solely because they themselves are too lazy and tight fisted to conduct their business properly.

Since when has two wrongs made a right?

I do not care about correcting the wrong of a multi national company, when it is put in comparison with protecting my own pocket. Simple as that, this question is not relevant to me in this very specific individual example.

But, it is never okay for you to steal from them if you think that they are stealing from someone else. Stop the initial stealing and everything will be right.

It is not stealing Bignose, pure and simple- you are wrong in my view. With specific reference to your definition of stealing, the OP had the permission of the company's representative to take those particular fish at that particular price. It was not by "unjust means". Money was exchanged- this is the standard means by which the company conducts it's business!

consider that Petsmart isn't just going to sit there and take that loss. It will pass those costs back to all of us. Net result... we all pay higher costs because a few got to take advantage. Is that fair to the rest of us that didn't get to take advantage? Why should we pay the higher costs because a few got things at an unfairly lower cost? Isn't it fair that everyone pay the same prices all the time, not a few lucky ones who get freebies while the rest of us make up for those freebies? Maybe again this comes down to personal beliefs, but I don't see that latter system as fair in any regard whatsoever.

Consider that Petsmart do not make a loss, they make a profit. Consider that the sole consequence of "that loss" is that the profits pouring into the individual pockets of the shareholders of the firm will be ever so marginally reduced, due to the cost cutting (or profit increasing) business practises of the company they own. Tough luck for them, why should we subsidise their money making driven laziness and inattention? My belief is that we have no such responsibility. There will be no wholesale passback of costs even if every single customer in the world adopted the same attitude as me/the OP.

Is it fair that some people live by fish shops who make more pricing errors than others? No, but who ever said life was fair?

-------------------------------------------------------------------

It does come down to personal belief Bignose you are correct there. This is my whole point. You have absolutely no right to dictate to anyone that your personal belief is any more valid or correct than anyone else's- and that is something you have done consistently since your first post in this thread, and that is what I have taken issue with. Your own personal view is not worth a jot more than anyone else's.

You will no doubt have noticed that I too have consistently encouraged the OP to consider their actions, and the consequences of them- the difference between you and I is that I have then encouraged the OP to make their own decision.

 

[Tobigara]

It does come down to personal belief Bignose you are correct there. This is my whole point. You have absolutely no right to dictate to anyone that your personal belief is any more valid or correct than anyone else's- and that is something you have done consistently since your first post in this thread, and that is what I have taken issue with. Your own personal view is not worth a jot more than anyone else's.



this was pretty much my point. whether or not anyone agrees with you, it's not anyone's place to say "you are wrong".

 

[jourdy288]

PETA had a vid up on animal cruelty at Petsmart, and unfortunately, their youtube account was suspended. But, the vid showed how more than half the mammals arrive DEAD. I'm not shopping at Petsmart. Ever. They cut back on their training programs.
And guys, no need to become veterans of WWIII.

Firstly, PETA is hardly in a position to be slagging any company about animal losses, as PETA probably kills far more, and at least in PetSmart's case it was accidental.

Secondly, the pet trade on exotic land-living vertebrates does tend to be fairly wasteful; there is a high degree of mortality. PetSmart is far from being alone in receiving mammals that have died en route.

True, but most of them die from totally preventable causes. Wet tail is the main killer; it is diarrhea.

 

[andywg]

There are grey areas with regards these things. You never found a dollar/pound and kept it? Or a penny/cent?

That is different. Finding money and not knowing whose it is is not a direct comparison to here. This situation is far more akin to watching someone drop the money and then not alerting them, but rather picking it up and walking off happy with yourself. Would you really be happy doing that?

 

[kribensis12]

I wouldnt.

 

[Bignose]

It is not stealing Bignose, pure and simple- you are wrong in my view. With specific reference to your definition of stealing, the OP had the permission of the company's representative to take those particular fish at that particular price. It was not by "unjust means". Money was exchanged- this is the standard means by which the company conducts it's business!

But, he DIDN'T have permission!!! That's almost exactly what I've been arguing against. He sat there and willfully let the employee make an error in his favor. He could have simply asked "are you sure that's the price, because that's a male, you know" and if the employee still didn't fix it, then I've got no problem. DId you see the story by the guy who got his pizza dinner for 5 pou8nds less than the proper cost? That guy asked the employee if that was right. Like I said above, you can't fix stupid. But, sitting there watching a person make a mistake and not pointing it out is exactly the same as andy's example of watching a person drop a bill and running over and picking it up.

Also, since when does it matter what two parties are involved when dealing with issues of fairness? By your logic, Jules, it is okay to take advantage of a multinational corporation, but when does the line get crossed? How many employees does it take to be "too big"? How many stores does it have to own? How much profits does it have to make to get over the line? Do you have a list of companies that are big enough that pricing errors are free game, and another that aren't big enough that you shouldn't take advantage?

I don't think that it should matter if the other party is a multinational corporation, a small mom and pop store, a guy with a push cart on the corner, your parents or your little sister. It isn't right to take advantage of any party; it isn't right to take advantage of any party's ignorance whatever size they are.

 

[kribensis12]

It is not stealing Bignose, pure and simple- you are wrong in my view. With specific reference to your definition of stealing, the OP had the permission of the company's representative to take those particular fish at that particular price. It was not by "unjust means". Money was exchanged- this is the standard means by which the company conducts it's business!

But, he DIDN'T have permission!!! That's almost exactly what I've been arguing against. He sat there and willfully let the employee make an error in his favor. He could have simply asked "are you sure that's the price, because that's a male, you know" and if the employee still didn't fix it, then I've got no problem. DId you see the story by the guy who got his pizza dinner for 5 pou8nds less than the proper cost? That guy asked the employee if that was right. Like I said above, you can't fix stupid. But, sitting there watching a person make a mistake and not pointing it out is exactly the same as andy's example of watching a person drop a bill and running over and picking it up.

Also, since when does it matter what two parties are involved when dealing with issues of fairness? By your logic, Jules, it is okay to take advantage of a multinational corporation, but when does the line get crossed? How many employees does it take to be "too big"? How many stores does it have to own? How much profits does it have to make to get over the line? Do you have a list of companies that are big enough that pricing errors are free game, and another that aren't big enough that you shouldn't take advantage?

I don't think that it should matter if the other party is a multinational corporation, a small mom and pop store, a guy with a push cart on the corner, your parents or your little sister. It isn't right to take advantage of any party; it isn't right to take advantage of any party's ignorance whatever size they are.

So are you saying that i stole somthing? Becasue i didnt and would never do that.

 

[Bignose]

No. I'm not accusing you of deliberately stealing. I do think that it was wrong that you took advantage of the employee's ignorance to get fish cheaper than they were listed at. I don't think I need to repeat everything, as it is all over this thread. But, I wouldn't call it stealing. The net result is the same, but it wasn't your direct intention to steal products, and I think that that changes it.

 

[kribensis12]

okay, i just took that differently then.