# 'The manager was livid': Guy takes advantage of prime rib pricing blunder,"...my question is was he being a asshole? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [January 15, 2023, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-manager-was-livid-guy-takes-advantage-of-prime-rib-pricing-blunder-my-question-is-was-he-being-a-asshole/978248 "2023-01-15T03:40:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2023, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-manager-was-livid-guy-takes-advantage-of-prime-rib-pricing-blunder-my-question-is-was-he-being-a-asshole/978248/101 "2023-01-15T21:01:48Z")
> [@ASL\_v2.0](#): > > In which case, that’s an action of the state legislature (albeit one I happen to support), not the customer, and it only heightens the negligence of the store for failing to accurately price its wares. I don’t support that law - there’s no reason it had to include the bounty on an unlimited number of items. It could have simply required the store to refund the difference and pay a single bounty between $5-$10. The _store_ wasn’t negligent - a store can’t be negligent , only employees of the store can be negligent and then of course the company will bear the cost of that negligence. An employee made the mistake and some other employees failed to notice it - but that has nothing to do with those who own the store ( which since Kroger’s is a public company, might be you and me). But I wonder how much money the store must lose due to these mistakes before the manager’s job is in danger and at what point the manager decides to fire the person who made a few mistakes - after all, if the store has to bear the cost of their negligence why shouldn’t the store fire them? The store would certainly fire a delivery driver who negligently hit a parked car. ---
**Author:** ![ASL\_v2.0](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asl_v2.0/32/3525_2.png) [@ASL\_v2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASL_v2.0)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2023, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-manager-was-livid-guy-takes-advantage-of-prime-rib-pricing-blunder-my-question-is-was-he-being-a-asshole/978248/102 "2023-01-15T21:02:41Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > All I’m saying is that allowing one dishonest Somalian to cheat you isn’t a good way to help Somalia. I’m not saying it is. I’m saying that between option (a) I keep all my wealth and option (b) the Somalian I somehow ended up in a commercial transaction with takes full advantage of a mistake _I made through my own negligence_ and so deprives me of some minuscule portion of my wealth then option (b) is the better. But it’s a shit system regardless. You’re acting as if my recognition that we have a binary choice _here_ means I these are the only two choices I could possibly countenance within my moral framework. It’s a false dichotomy. ---
**Author:** ![ASL\_v2.0](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asl_v2.0/32/3525_2.png) [@ASL\_v2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASL_v2.0)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2023, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-manager-was-livid-guy-takes-advantage-of-prime-rib-pricing-blunder-my-question-is-was-he-being-a-asshole/978248/103 "2023-01-15T21:06:02Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > I don’t support that law - there’s no reason it had to include the bounty on an unlimited number of items. It could have simply required the store to refund the difference and pay a single bounty between $5-$10. I… question whether that’s anywhere in the MCPA. That seems like more of a corporate policy along the lines of “We are sorry we screwed up and grateful for your continued business, so by way of an apology, here’s the difference plus something extra.” Granted, the MCPA does have provisions for violations but (1) it wasn’t violated here, even if it could have been, because the sale was allowed at label price; and (2) if it were violated, the statutory fine is, I believe, way more than $5 per item. Yet more reasons why I don’t see the coercive power of the state being engaged here (but, again, if it was, I’d be fine with that too: I wish the state would use its coercive power to equalize wealth distribution more frequently, not less). ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2023, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-manager-was-livid-guy-takes-advantage-of-prime-rib-pricing-blunder-my-question-is-was-he-being-a-asshole/978248/104 "2023-01-15T21:09:30Z")
> [@ASL\_v2.0](#): > > You’re acting as if my recognition that we have a binary choice _here_ means I these are the only two choices I could possibly countenance within my moral framework. It’s a false dichotomy. But we’re not talking about two alternative approaches that only have positive consequences. I’m not deprecating a smaller good just because a greater good also exists. I’m saying that modifying our social contract to endorse theft from corporations when we can get away with it not only does little good in redistributing wealth, but has _harmful_ consequences. You are advocating compromising our ideal moral principles to “get back” at corporations just because they are doing worse things. I don’t think that’s desirable. I don’t think you have set out a clear framework for just who it’s okay to steal from and when, nor do I think you have thought through the unforeseen consequences on other customers and employees. ---
**Author:** ![ASL\_v2.0](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asl_v2.0/32/3525_2.png) [@ASL\_v2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASL_v2.0)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2023, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-manager-was-livid-guy-takes-advantage-of-prime-rib-pricing-blunder-my-question-is-was-he-being-a-asshole/978248/105 "2023-01-15T21:10:38Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > I’m saying that modifying our social contract to endorse theft from corporations when we can get away with it not only does little good in redistributing wealth, but has _harmful_ consequences. Theft… you keep using that word or something like it. And I keep telling you (1) legally it’s not, and (2) morally, it’s also not if you recognize the moral good that is done by reducing wealth inequality and the wealthier party has only its own negligence to blame. This isn’t a compromise of moral ideas, it’s application of a consequentialist morality that sees equality as a moral good. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2023, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-manager-was-livid-guy-takes-advantage-of-prime-rib-pricing-blunder-my-question-is-was-he-being-a-asshole/978248/106 "2023-01-15T21:11:05Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > > [@BigT](#): > > > > But if you have a return policy that allows you to return well-used items, then what could have possibly been the intent other than allowing the customer to use those items? ⁢ > > Obviously the intent is _not_ for everyone to get free use of brand new ski gear for three months, then return it for a full refund even though there is nothing wrong with it. How is that a workable business model? Who would ever buy ski gear again? > > You are right that a too-generous return policy is _stupid_ on the part of a corporation, because in reality a minority of people are always unethical assholes. But I don’t see how this demonstrates that those people are _not_ unethical assholes who make life difficult for everyone. I _like_ no-hassle return policies to the extent that they make life easier for me and other honest people who don’t abuse them, but I wish companies would be more stringent because I know that abusers of these policies mean that prices are forced higher. All non-assholes are inconvenienced when a company is forced to accept that trusting people to behave reasonably is unworkable. ⁢ You _can_ run business this way, or said policies wouldn’t exist. They want to allow people to return items they are dissatisfied with, even if they are well-used. The seller expects this will be rare enough that they can eat the cost. If you buy the item with the intent to return it, I guess I could see that being a lie, since the purchase implies that you plan to keep the item, and would only return it if something changes. That might add the deceptive component that would make it immoral. The main disagreement I have with you is that you are assigning moral culpability to the customer, when it is the seller who made the “stupid policy.” And you are assigning the faults of capitalism (that it encourages short-term attempts to get the best deal over long term) to the customer alone. For it to be immoral, I argue you need some level of actual wrongdoing by the customer, or consequences directly from the customer, and not due to a decision made by the seller. Not merely that the seller or other customers would prefer you not do something. > [@Riemann](#): > > > [@BigT](#): > > > > Would I mind if someone took advantage of a mistake that cost me a proportionate amount of my income? Probably not. ⁢ > > You wouldn’t object if someone ripped you off for $10 in a way that gave you no easy recourse? You might not _sue_ them, because it isn’t worth the hassle. But to say that you wouldn’t _mind_ is obviously not correct. Yes, I would mind if someone ripped me off from $10. But that seems off by orders of magnitude to me (as surely a megacorp makes at least hundreds of thousands), and it’s not so much being ripped off as being due to a mistake. I would consider a more analogous situation to be giving someone an extra dime by mistake. > [@](#): > > In any event, how much you pragmatically care doesn’t determine the morality of the actions of the person ripping you off, does it? Nor does it speak to possible implications for society if we all just decided it was okay to rip people off for modest amounts at every opportunity when we thought we could get away with it. ⁢ I didn’t mention pragmatics. What I was describing was the Golden Rule, and I do think that is important to moral considerations. It’s not remotely the only aspect, but it is an important one. (Hence why I mentioned deception as a key issue). Of course, a fair argument could be that this sort of scaling is not valid. It’s pretty clear the manager was more upset than I would be even if I had lost a dime. Hence my hedging, saying that maybe it would be okay to “take advantage” of the pricing to buy some extra steak for my own use, but not to buy out the entire stock. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2023, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-manager-was-livid-guy-takes-advantage-of-prime-rib-pricing-blunder-my-question-is-was-he-being-a-asshole/978248/107 "2023-01-15T21:14:02Z")
> [@ASL\_v2.0](#): > > Theft… you keep using that word or something like it. I suspect that you would have no problem calling civil forfeiture abuses legalized theft. But tell me what word you would prefer for “taking property by coercion without the owner’s willing agreement by exploiting a legal loophole” and I will use it. I’m not aware that any single word exists, because most people are intuitively okay with the idea that “legalized theft” is cromulent. ---
**Author:** ![ASL\_v2.0](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asl_v2.0/32/3525_2.png) [@ASL\_v2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASL_v2.0)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2023, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-manager-was-livid-guy-takes-advantage-of-prime-rib-pricing-blunder-my-question-is-was-he-being-a-asshole/978248/108 "2023-01-15T21:22:24Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > I suspect that you would have no problem calling civil forfeiture abuses legalized theft. Well now that would depend. Is it some relatively impoverished or at best middle class individual losing a substantial portion of what little wealth they may have on flimsy evidence, or is it… something else? Because unless it’s that rare “something else,” yeah, I would call it legalized theft. Because unless it’s “something else,” you know what I also wouldn’t call it? A reduction in inequality. Quite the opposite, actually. See where I’m going with this? > But tell me what word you would prefer for “taking property without the owner’s uncoerced agreement by exploiting a legal loophole” and I will use it. I’m not aware that any single word exists, because most people are intuitively okay with the idea that “legalized theft” is cromulent. That would depend on which way the wealth is flowing, of course. And also please keep in mind I do not concede that there was coercion in the case described by the OP. My preference, in lieu of theft, would be… equality? Equity? ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2023, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-manager-was-livid-guy-takes-advantage-of-prime-rib-pricing-blunder-my-question-is-was-he-being-a-asshole/978248/109 "2023-01-15T21:28:12Z")
> [@ASL\_v2.0](#): > > That would depend on which way the wealth is flowing, of course. Notwithstanding [Proudhon’s opinion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!), _that_ is certainly not part of the usual definition of theft, so if that’s an element in the definition you’re using, it is going to result in repeated misunderstandings. ---
**Author:** ![colinfred](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colinfred/32/21338_2.png) [@colinfred](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colinfred)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2023, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-manager-was-livid-guy-takes-advantage-of-prime-rib-pricing-blunder-my-question-is-was-he-being-a-asshole/978248/110 "2023-01-15T21:28:42Z")
> [@ASL\_v2.0](#): > > My preference, in lieu of theft, would be… equality? Equity? So if I walked into the supermarket and just “equitied” £10 from the till when nobody was looking that would be fine, as I am not well off and the supermarket can “afford it”? ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2023, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-manager-was-livid-guy-takes-advantage-of-prime-rib-pricing-blunder-my-question-is-was-he-being-a-asshole/978248/111 "2023-01-15T21:34:46Z")
> [@ASL\_v2.0](#): > > I… question whether that’s anywhere in the MCPA. That seems like more of a corporate policy along the lines of “We are sorry we screwed up and grateful for your continued business, so by way of an apology, here’s the difference plus something extra.” Granted, the MCPA does have provisions for violations but (1) it wasn’t violated here, even if it could have been, because the sale was allowed at label price; and (2) if it were violated, the statutory fine is, I believe, way more than $5 per item. It seems like reading the law you’re debating about would help you a lot here. It’s not a Consumer Protection Act, and it does what doreen said. As to the larger issue, I think it’s one of a number of examples where eventually, somebody is going to take advantage enough that the problem will be “solved” by one of these companies going to court and getting it “fixed.” Some court somewhere will read the statute not to apply to clear error, or to exclude opportunists from the definition of “consumer,” and then not only will nobody take them for hundreds, nobody will get their three dollars. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2023, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-manager-was-livid-guy-takes-advantage-of-prime-rib-pricing-blunder-my-question-is-was-he-being-a-asshole/978248/112 "2023-01-15T21:37:49Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > For it to be immoral, I argue you need some level of actual wrongdoing by the customer… How is that not just circular? > [@BigT](#): > > …or consequences directly from the customer, and not due to a decision made by the seller. Not merely that the seller or other customers would prefer you not do something. You appear to be advocating that individuals have no ethical obligation whatsoever here, that they should feel free to do anything that they can legally get away with respect to corporations, and that the corporations are entirely responsible for any consequences. That’s one way to modify the social contract to “get back” at corporations for their unethical behavior, but I don’t think it’s a good way. ---
**Author:** ![ASL\_v2.0](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asl_v2.0/32/3525_2.png) [@ASL\_v2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASL_v2.0)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2023, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-manager-was-livid-guy-takes-advantage-of-prime-rib-pricing-blunder-my-question-is-was-he-being-a-asshole/978248/113 "2023-01-15T21:45:25Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > Notwithstanding [Proudhon’s opinion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!), _that_ is certainly not part of the usual definition of theft, so if that’s an element in the definition you’re using, it is going to result in repeated misunderstandings. But remember, we’re talking moral definitions here. If I wanted to be really pedantic, I could just skip to “theft has a very clear definition under the law, and this ain’t it” and be done. And frankly, I think that Proudhon character might just be on to something. Not saying I’d go quite so far, but… I’m looking around at how we have arranged our society (and how we have tried, and too often failed, to arrange society elsewhere) and I’m not liking what I’m seeing. As to how far I would go, well… a wise person once said “No one makes a billion dollars. They take a billion dollars.” Or words to that affect. I’d say that’s a good starting place. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2023, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-manager-was-livid-guy-takes-advantage-of-prime-rib-pricing-blunder-my-question-is-was-he-being-a-asshole/978248/114 "2023-01-15T21:51:09Z")
So what do you guys think of airline mistake fares? Occasionally a ridiculously low airfare will show up on a booking site, say $200 round trip to Europe in first class. Usually the airline catches the mistake quickly, but a few lucky people get the fare while it exists. Is that theft? ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2023, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-manager-was-livid-guy-takes-advantage-of-prime-rib-pricing-blunder-my-question-is-was-he-being-a-asshole/978248/115 "2023-01-15T22:23:17Z")
> [@ASL\_v2.0](#): > > And frankly, I think that Proudhon character might just be on to something. Not saying I’d go quite so far, but… I’m looking around at how we have arranged our society (and how we have tried, and too often failed, to arrange society elsewhere) and I’m not liking what I’m seeing. To paraphrase Churchill, capitalism is the worst system apart from all the other ones that have been tried. The problem is not with capitalism, it’s with people thinking the “free” in free markets means freedom from regulation. The opposite is true - markets work efficiently when they are carefully and consistently regulated so that everyone is on a level playing field and fair competition can ensue. And there is absolutely no conflict between a market with free and fair competition and morality in public policy. I don’t think unethical behavior by corporations should be solved by throwing out our ethical principles in our individual behavior. I think it should be solved by applying our ethical principles to public policy - consistent regulation and fair taxation to redistribute wealth. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2023, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-manager-was-livid-guy-takes-advantage-of-prime-rib-pricing-blunder-my-question-is-was-he-being-a-asshole/978248/116 "2023-01-15T22:42:35Z")
> [@ASL\_v2.0](#): > > In which case, that’s an action of the state legislature (albeit one I happen to support), not the customer, and it only heightens the negligence of the store for failing to accurately price its wares. There is a difference between a _mistake_ and _negligence._ The former is something that occurs without intent or malice, and the latter is a case of failing to exercise reasonable care to prevent a harmful occurrence. If you care to read [this wikipedia entry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence) you will also learn that “negligence” in a legal sense requires actual _harm_ to have occurred to the person claiming it - which would definitely NOT be the customer, who benefited from the _mistake_ in price labeling. Failure to properly price wares in this case is a NOT negligence. It’s a mistake. Mega-corporations are made up of people, and people make mistakes. The law about having to pay the listed price was passed to protect customers from corporations that might have been predatory or exploitative in the past (which would also not be negligence but rather deliberate actions). This was not such a case, as the customer was not harmed but rather benefited _at the expense of_ the store in question, and the corporation that owned said store. Your use of the term “negligence” is incorrect in this situation. > [@ASL\_v2.0](#): > > But, to be clear, I am less convinced that the store had no choice where the mistake was obvious and even the customer recognized it. I’m not a lawyer, but then again… neither are you. No, but I have been subjected to training from a Michigan-based company, said training having been vetted and developed by the corporation’s lawyers. I don’t pretend to understand all the nuances of the legal situation here, but it’s quite clear to me that you are not even using the correct terminology for the scenario in question. So I really think your assertions rest on vapor. > [@ASL\_v2.0](#): > > In the meantime, and as I said, I’ll take what I can get. Ah… is this the old “if I can get away with it I’ll exploit whatever loopholes, errors, and mistakes I can to my own advantage and to hell with everyone else” approach? > [@ASL\_v2.0](#): > > I’m not saying it is. I’m saying that between option (a) I keep all my wealth and option (b) the Somalian I somehow ended up in a commercial transaction with takes full advantage of a mistake _I made through my own negligence_ and so deprives me of some minuscule portion of my wealth then option (b) is the better. Once again - you do not seem to understand the difference between a _mistake_ and _negligence_. > [@ASL\_v2.0](#): > > Theft… you keep using that word or something like it. And I keep telling you (1) legally it’s not, and (2) morally, it’s also not if you recognize the moral good that is done by reducing wealth inequality and the wealthier party has only its own negligence to blame. #2 is hilarious - the “wealthier party” - the corporation - did not make a mistake here. “The corporation” does not print price labels and apply them to packages of meat. That is typically done by some menial peon who is likely making near- minimum wage and probably is less able to purchase even the discounted prime rib than the customer who bought it was. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2023, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-manager-was-livid-guy-takes-advantage-of-prime-rib-pricing-blunder-my-question-is-was-he-being-a-asshole/978248/117 "2023-01-15T22:45:44Z")
Minor point, the article linked in the OP contained a thread similar to this one, in which the shopper maintained that the store was part of the nation’s largest grocery chain. Possibly that is where **ASL** got that info. ---
**Author:** ![ASL\_v2.0](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asl_v2.0/32/3525_2.png) [@ASL\_v2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASL_v2.0)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2023, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-manager-was-livid-guy-takes-advantage-of-prime-rib-pricing-blunder-my-question-is-was-he-being-a-asshole/978248/118 "2023-01-15T22:56:03Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > There is a difference between a _mistake_ and _negligence._ The former is something that occurs without intent or malice, and the latter is a case of failing to exercise reasonable care to prevent a harmful occurrence. If you care to read [this wikipedia entry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence) you will also learn that “negligence” in a legal sense requires actual _harm_ to have occurred to the person claiming it - which would definitely NOT be the customer, who benefited from the _mistake_ in price labeling. Rest assured, I am _very_ aware of what negligence means in a legal sense. But you know what it means in the coloquial sense? “[F]ailure to take proper care in doing something.” ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2023, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-manager-was-livid-guy-takes-advantage-of-prime-rib-pricing-blunder-my-question-is-was-he-being-a-asshole/978248/119 "2023-01-15T23:03:54Z")
…I think the guy buying the meat is an asshole for one reason only: they failed to consider the impact their actions would have on the person most likely to be punished, which (if the story is to be fully believed, which I don’t think I do) is likely to be a person who is overworked and underpaid and the person least able to afford to lose their job. Just don’t take that risk. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2023, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-manager-was-livid-guy-takes-advantage-of-prime-rib-pricing-blunder-my-question-is-was-he-being-a-asshole/978248/120 "2023-01-15T23:19:34Z")
> [@ASL\_v2.0](#): > > Rest assured, I am _very_ aware of what negligence means in a legal sense. But you know what it means in the coloquial sense? > > “[F]ailure to take proper care in doing something.” Nevertheless, the varying degree of culpability for qualitatively different kinds of error is surely important, even outside of a technical legal context. The more important thing is the consequences of the distinction, not to ascertain the merits of your chosen vocabulary. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-manager-was-livid-guy-takes-advantage-of-prime-rib-pricing-blunder-my-question-is-was-he-being-a-asshole/978248.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-manager-was-livid-guy-takes-advantage-of-prime-rib-pricing-blunder-my-question-is-was-he-being-a-asshole/978248.md?page=7)