Should I feel bad about this

[Chris]

I would have gone back for more. Normally, I consider myself fairly moral, but my "oh yeah, smart ass?" circuitry often overrides my morality.

-Chris

[CR]

In a perfect world, where the big corporations actually care about their customers and/or employees, it would be fair to expect that we care about them. Unfortunately, that's not the world we live in today.

Since the corporate greed of the past decade, turning employees into disposable commodities and treating customers like dirt with insane policies, is it fair to expect me to still treat the corporation with respect?

I think not. They are just reaping what they've sown. I would have done exactly as the original poster did. Point out the error, then drop it when the cashier's attitude came up.

Think about it. If the BORG really cared about you, would they have

10 closed checkouts, and only one or two opened with a long line of customers waiting? They're just saying that your time is worthless, and their lowered payroll is more important.

email to [e-mail] (remove the "notreal-")

[Mark & Juanita]

I can see why you are confused, seeing as you snipped all the context from around my statement.

It appears that what you are saying that it is up to the OP to reduce his profitability (or bill his client for time spent) seeking out a Home Depot manager to explaining the situation in which the original poster was improperly charged too little and in which the OP was snapped at by the cashier when he pointed out the error to the cashier. The OP would need to spend additional time (either his or his clients, depending upon whether he was going to remain on the clock or take himself off the clock) resolving the situation that the merchant (Home Depot) had caused through its own errors and improper training of its employees. i.e., turning things around, you are saying it is up to the original poster and either his business or the clients he is billing to assure Home Depot's profitability.

[mel]

what I'm saying is sometimes doing the right thing costs ya.

[CR]

Then that means that the big faceless corporations will never do the right thing, since their primary concern is their bottom line.

As such, it's only fair for me to treat them with the same "respect" that they see fit to treat me with.

email to [e-mail] (remove the "notreal-")

[mel]

you sound like my 8 year old daughter..."that's not fair!!"...nope... it's not. Fairness is highly subjective and the perception of such is usually skewed in the favor of who stands to gain the most. What would be fair in this case is accepting that you willfully chose to do business with this "faceless corporation" and by doing so willfully subjected yourself to whatever wastes of time you may encounter. Had you as a consumer been forced into this encounter that would be a different story....

If your time is so precious and the clock is ticking to the point that an inconvenience costs you your profitability, you might ought to look into how you're managing your time and do a cost analysis on dealing with a merchant such as the borg vs a reputable dealer of said goods.

[Chuck]

I've been following this thread for several days now and it seems to me, if you need to ask if you should feel bad, you probably realize you should. I would think ethics and honesty would have made me seek the manager and explain the situation. As an old Boy Scout I was taught to have some sense of personal ethics and to be trustworthy. A lot of what is wrong with our society can be seen by the answers you have gotten so far. In a nutshell. "If you can rip someone off, you're a great American." I don't live that way!!!

[Scott Post]

He *WAS* forced into this encounter. Go back and re-read the first post in this thread. He went to the Borg for lumber because he was instructed to his customer who had an account there.

You need to invent better strawmen.

[Dennis Vogel]

So you're saying that because the corps are doing something wrong so that justifies you doing something wrong as well?

They care about you. They're doing exactly what you've asked them to do: give you lower and lower prices on thousands of items. As you know, labor is their biggest cost so of course they're going to hire as few, low educated clerks as possible so we all can get what we demand. Why are we surprised when they do?

Dennis Vogel

[Dennis Vogel]

As strange as this may sound, every corporation's primary concern is their bottom line (unless that are a charity). Their sole reason for being in business is to make money. Some decide to offer superior service to get it; some decide to go low cost/service. Don't make the mistake of expecting superior service from one of the low cost operations.

Now you lost me.

Dennis Vogel

[David Hall]

Then based on Mel's logic and yours, he should have charged his customer for any time spent dealing with "their" chosen vendor. If you know what the price is and you know that the vendor did not purposely reduce that price for you but made a mistake, it is not ethical. It doesn't matter whether the seller is a BORG or the old widder lady everyone is always yammering about. If you knowingly take advantage of someone's unintentional mistake you know what you are doing.

Dave Hall

[Dave]

I'm guessing you are owning some of the stock. Am I right?

Dave

[Dave]

Of course you have heard that time is money. That is the underlying reason HD is hiring less (and less qualified) cashiers. They are maximizing their profit. I'm not going to take a position on what someone else should have done in this situation. Your argument here is essentially that time is worthless unless it is HD's time. Seems that one of the main lines of reasoning in this argument is that HD is some sort of Co-op we all have a huge stake in and are required by honesty to accept contempt and come back for more -- all in the name of helping them so we will all be able to purchase wood. This is just the sort of "co-op thinking" they used to run competition out of business.

Perhaps OP is managing his time in a way that bills each minute of the workday to one project or another. Doing otherwise is more like a hobby. You are saying because he is smart enough to know there is a problem he is morally obligated to instruct the other party in the transaction? If an attorney sees a person do something illegal, is he required to provide free counsel to correct them? Remember those crotchety old people that think they have a moral obligation to tell everyone the proper methods of life? Are they somehow morally superior to the ones that just watch and smile?

HD clearly values time more than accuracy. To obligate a customer to resolve their problems is to value their time more than their customers' time. If this had gone to the store's advantage but OP didn't discover until he left the store, do you think the store would have just handed him some additional product to correct the error? Not likely.

Clearly the original poster had some misgivings about this whole deal. If he didn't, he wouldn't have asked his question. He asked for opinions and now is getting those opinions. Hurray to the power of the internet.

What would I do, you say? I'd fill the truck. After all, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If I owned stock in HD (I might in a fund somewhere), I'd be disappointed in their performance and consider what I could do about changing it. Perhaps I'd sell it and buy stock in another company.

Here is a question for all you folks that believe OP is obligated to resolve the problem. You know the store location of transaction. Have you spent a little of your time writing a letter to HD explaining this happened and instructing them to train their employees better? (as if you think they aren't aware of this type of undercharge). If you haven't taken some of your time to bring the problem to their attention, you really don't have much ground to stand on.

Flame away...

Dave

"mel" wrote

[mel]

I'm sorry I've carried on this long in this thread, I was originally defending an attack by the OP to another posting and this will be my last response........

You are mistaken when you state the OP wasn't aware until he left the store since in his OP he stated he questioned the clerk about the transaction. His justification was due to her attitude not his ignorance of the fact.

You stated, "If you haven't taken some of your time to bring the problem to their attention, you really don't have much ground to stand on."

Today I went to HD to purchase some synthetic abrasive pads so I could clean up the rust off the jointer I gloated about. While ringing up some other items I was purchasing the pads came up with an invalid SKU. The clerks response to this was,"well I guess you get these for free."

"You're not going to charge me for those I asked?" "Do you want me to?" "Yes please. I'd feel better about it." (Especially in light of all these postings I've made. I wouldn't want to be a hypocrite.) I waited while she went to find out the price. Everyone behind me peeled off and went to different checkout lanes. Not only was my time wasted but those of others as well. From the logic I've seen here everyone of them should have gotten something for free.... Like I've asked,"what do you expect when you shop at these places?"

also today...

I ordered and paid for a part from Delta to replace the broken one on the jointer. They called me and said it was in. I drove 96 miles in rush hour traffic to pick it up. When I arrived they told me it had already been picked up. How that happened? Nobody knows. I was ticked off.... a total waste of my time...which BTW ain't cheap. I spoke with the manager by cell phone on my way back and we agreed on the part being sent directly to my house no additional shipping charges apply. When I got home I had a message from the salesman offering to refund my money for the trouble. I called him back and told him I appreciated the gesture but it was unnecessary. His prompt attention and apology was sufficient. That's my friggin' point....it sucks..lesson learned... move on....but I do not feel a need for compensation, which by the way was offered by them...not taken unawares. Total wasted time today..about 3-1/2 hours which I figure to be approx. $250

As I've stated this is my last response to this thread or others like it. I apologize to those I may have offended but I will not be viewed as one who would change his beliefs due to circumstance.

[Mark & Juanita]

First of all, he did attempt to rectify the problem and was rebuffed by the company's representative, as poor a representative as she was, she was representing the company in that transaction. How much of his client's money should the OP have been willing to spend in order to help HD fix a problem that was HD's problem and in no way the responsibility of the clients? At some point, spending your client's money for something that they have not authorized one to spend it on is also unethical. How comfortable do you think the OP would have been billing his clients for an hour of time that he spent with an HD manager rectifying a corporate HD problem? If you argue that the clients made the OP go to HD, therefore they deserve what they got, you are then making exactly the same argument that you are excoriating those who feel that this is HD's problem because they hired and trained the clerk.

[Dennis Vogel]

None that I know of. Would that have mattered in determining right from wrong? That is what we're talking about in this thread, isn't it?

Dennis Vogel

[Dennis Vogel]

Yes, and I think you'll agree, a rather minimal attempt. And after the clerk's reply it should have been clear that they were not the right person to expect to solve this problem.

Why does it have to be billed to the client?

Who said, or even hinted, that it would take an hour to explain this to the manager? That's a wild exaggeration intended to make the answer obviously in your favor. What if it took on 5 minutes?

No, it has nothing to do with the client.

Dennis Vogel

[Mark & Juanita]

At which point, the OP had to make a decision, a) accept the decision of the business's representative and move on or b) Search out a manager, explain the situation and work to rectify the problem, the time required to do this being an unknown, based upon the availability and training of the manager 1) while still billing his own client, thus making his client pay for HD's ineptness -- at the same time reducing his own competitiveness by raising the price of the job, or 2) stop billing his client for the time and utilize his own time, to the detriment of his own business, thus penalizing his own business for HD's ineptness.

Why should the OP have to suspend billable time from *his* business in order to correct HD's business? He tried, yes, it the attempt was minimal, but not having knowledge of where the manager was nor the time that would be required to fix the problem, I am not in a position to criticise the OP for his actions.

[Renata]

I see you're never tried to find a manager at HD.

They're either in a meeting, or don't really believe that you need A Manager and send you every flavor of non-manager there is; then tell you the managers are in a meeting.

Renata

--snip--

smart, not dumb for email

[Ron Magen]

Which equates to a 'don't give a shit' attitude toward the customer . . . which then filters down to all levels of employees. Or they sub-consciously {consciously ?}hire individuals with this attitude, to begin with. "Keep the shelves 'orderly' and move the 'buyers' rapidly to the cash registers".

Regards, Ron Magen Backyard Boatshop {"You can't use 'that' for 'THAT' " . . Oh, yes I can - and here's the picture to prove it !!}