I will take you at your word that you’re not, and be deeply weirded out by the claim that there’s a stock photo of someone holding a laminated, removed sticker of a fast pass car wash RFID sticker.
Some of them might. Even if it’s just one neighbor who would have otherwise bought their own pass. It’s unethical, and a form of stealing.
From the ScrubaDub website (emphasis added)
The Unlimited Program, (The Program) allows a registered vehicle to receive unlimited car washes at any ScrubaDub tunnel location. Only the registered vehicle will receive the unlimited washes. The Program is transferable to a new car by visiting any ScrubaDub or by calling the executive offices weekdays 9am-4pm at (508) 650-1155. There are no refunds, credits, or adjustments for days or times that a car wash is temporarily closed due to inclement weather or maintenance.
Hmmm. So can you transfer to a new car and then a couple of days later transfer it back to the original car and so on…?
Here you go. Scroll down about mid-way.
So it doesn’t even say, “once a day”. It just says “only one car”.
And it goes on to say
This program is for personal use only. Commercial vehicles such as taxis, limos, shuttles, courtesy and funeral vehicles at subject to different rates.
I’m certain they are pricing this assuming that personal-use vehicles don’t get washed every day.
Look at it this way, the car wash has a customer pulling in to the business everyday which will catch the attention of other drivers noticing a shiny car coming out of the business. Now they want what Joe has, a clean car.
I’ll wager he drives them business. AND Joe will probably put something in the tip jar. They all accept tips.
Joe is single-handedly propping up a minimum wage minority owned business. Kudos to Joe.
Well whaddya know. I’m sorry for my doubt.
You could try that, but I don’t think you’d be very successful after the first transfer.
Neither if the car washes near me have any way to tip. Nor any particular person you might tip. One if those is scrub-a-dub. So i think you’ve extrapolated a bit too far.
I think there are two facts that suggest what this carwash owner thinks.
- This is against the rules for a reason.
- The carwash doesn’t actively enforce this rule for a reason.
The owner knows that rampant sharing of tags is bad, but also believes the problem is small enough that the cost to implement enforcement would be greater than the savings to the business.
OP answered?
I’m surprised no one yet has mentioned health clubs. As I understand it, their business model is based on the understanding that people do not use the facility as frequently as they could. But why shouldn’t any of my family members, friends, or just random people on the street be able to use my membership/bar code when I’m not actively working out? I mean, they have the machines and weights just sitting there, and you can always cram one more person into a class. Water and soap can’t cost THAT much.
And that business about not copying movies? Well, my friends probably wouldn’t even watch the movie if they had to pay for it, but they MIGHT like it. So I’m really doing the filmmakers a solid by showing their product to a potential new customer.
You answered your own question. It is not ethical. Technically, I’m pretty confident it is theft - of a pretty minor sort. But if I steal a piece of candy or a Rolex, it is still theft, no? And bears on my overall character.
You agree to specific terms with someone else, but later decide you’d like to arrange things slightly differently for your advantage. You don’t ask the other party - probably because you suspect they would not agree, and would wish to charge you more or change some other aspect of your agreement.
You really torture the heck out of your analogies and come up with all manner of rationalizations to avoid criticizing Joe, when the facts are pretty simple - at least to EVERYONE in this thread other than you. Aren’t you (or weren’t you) a LEO? Man, such situational ethics and tortured logic in a LEO is NOT reassuring.
While I was a condo president I dealt with our bulk trash arrangements. At least in our city the deal was a fixed monthly rate per dumpster. Larger dumpsters of course cost more than smaller ones, but if you had, e.g. four 3-yarders and two 2-yarders, the monthly charge was the same no matter how full they were or weren’t. Ours would be emptied twice per week.
Because of the number of seasonal residents we had, it was common for all 6 of our dumpsters to be near to overflowing at each pickup during January, but have 3 of the 6 nearly empty at each pickup in June. Same price every month. It was not practical for us to return and re-lease individual dumpsters around the year to try to track our trash volume more closely. So we were stuck provisioning for our peak.
I have certainly seen these sorts of carwashes. And subscribed to them.
But it happens that my current all-you-can-eat carwash plan is a full service fully attended facility. As in
Drive up, greet the greeter who scans your barcode, or for folks who don’t have the all-you-can-eat plan they select their service(s) from the “menu”. Then pull up to the several vacuum stations where several workers are vacuuming cars. Get out and go wait at the other end of the tunnel. Meanwhile they vacuum your car, run it through the tunnel, then a horde of people finish dry it with hand towels, do the window inside surfaces, treat the tires or dash or mats or whatever other services you ordered, etc. Call you over when your car is done, then get back in your shiny clean car and away you go.
So at this point we don’t know, and probably don’t care, whether the OP’s pal Joe’s carwash is a full service or a (semi-) automated service.
Overall, every business makes tradeoffs about enforcement. "Shrinkage" is a term of art in retail for a reason; shoplifting is rampant. How many floorwalkers to have, having or not having receipt checkers at the exit door, how many or whether to have self-service checkouts are all tradeoffs between expending money to reduce theft, or saving money on staff and accepting the concomitant increase in theft.
But none of that excuses the attitude that “If they weren’t willing to accept me ringing up my prime rib as potatoes, they shouldn’t have self-service checkout. They must be OK with it so I’m going to do it.” Ditto for “If I can slip that pair of pants under my dress and get out of the store, they’ve allowed me to do that. So it’s OK.”
Any all-you-can-eat deal, whether it’s a gym membership, a cafeteria, a monthly transit pass, or a car wash is offered by the seller based on some concept of how much the average customer will use the service. And with some understanding of the practical maximum amount any single person could use the service. I can only ride the train so much or spend so much time in the gym.
Clearly the seller would raise the price or alter the deal if literally everyone used the practical maximum. But for any one of us to legitimately use the deal to the limit of its agreed offer is perfectly fine. It’s when any specific individual goes beyond the limit of the agreed offer - now they’ve transitioned from “totally ethical / legal” to “not ethical and perhaps illegal” They’re now “a little bit pregnant”. Which is to say they’re fully pregnant.
I’ve been in a similar situation . A bartender who is also a friend (I’m also friends with her parents) would occasionally give me a free beer. Totally legal (Pennsylvania law allows a bar to comp one drink for a customer in a 24 hour period).
She’s a friend, so when I pay my tab I include the price of my free drink in the tip.
Gradually I noticed she’d “miss” charging me for two beers. I assumed initially that she screwed up and left enough money to cover the missed charges.
Then one night it was very busy and I stopped with my gf and her coworker. Drinks were on me. I chatted with my bartender friend and we had a good time. When I closed my tab I saw I’d gotten many freebies. Many. I left a huge tip, but am reluctant to return because I realize what’s going on.
You probably have a decent defense in this case:
ostensible agent: The “ostensible agent” is one where the principal has intentionally or inadvertently induced third persons to believe that such person was its agent although no actual or express authority was conferred on him as agent
IANAL
Don’t you agree that situation would vary depending on the owner’s policies? When I used to drink in neighborhood bars, I would often get comped every few beers. Or would receive very generous pours. And would tip well. That was very much the SOP for such joints.
But I’ve also heard how big of a problem such practices can be for owners. A likely reason so many bars installed automatic pours for their booze.
Depends on what you mean by the attendant lets it slide. If the attendant says " Yeah , sure , You can bring as many different cars as you want just as long as it’s only once a day" , you haven’t done anything wrong. How are you to know if the attendant has the authority to do that or not ? - you might not even know if he’s an employee or the owner.
But if you mean the attendant simply doesn’t say anything, you don’t really know if the attendant knows what’s going on. And even if you absolutely know that the attendant knows - you still don’t know why he’s “letting it slide”. Maybe he’s letting it slide because he’s OK with it - or maybe he has been told not to confront people doing this for the same reason some stores tell employees not to confront shoplifters.
I’ve certainly been in a similar situation and done a similar thing. In no sense am I criticising your actions or your ethics.
But what we see is that the net effect over repeated interactions is the bartender has learned that she can effectively steal a drinks-worth of money from the till by using you as an intermediary. You’ve trained her, the same way you’d train a pet to fetch a ball by a repeated reward, to do that. The big difference versus the pet is that she’s the one with the free agency, not just you. She can’t steal without you, but you’re not the cause of the stealing. She is.
This is spot on. She’s dishonest and you’ve unwittingly become an accomplice in her theft. Which she’s now shown will be rampant if you oblige her. As you’ve identified, it’s (past?) time to break off that relationship.
Or maybe he just doesn’t give a hoot. His may well know his boss certainly does care, but he doesn’t.
There’s certainly a decent helping of employee indifference in low-end customer facing workers in positions where they’re largely unsupervised in real time.
Is an all-you-can-eat buffet a loss leader? Well, that depends. Does their clientele solely consist of competitive eaters, Olympic athletes, and the morbidly obese, all willing to fast for the previous 24 hours before heading to the restaurant, and then hang out all day until close, eating 16 pounds of crablegs per person?
By Joe’s logic, he paid for all you-can-eat, and since he could be one of those above types (he’s not, but he could be), therefore he’s entitled to those same 16 pounds of crablegs every visit, of which Joe promptly places in a wheeled cooler and leaves. From the restaurant’s perspective, what difference does it make, whether he eats the 16 pounds of crablegs there, at home, or split among friends, right?