The “look what you made me do!” approach to morality? Where right or wrong depends on how the abuser in an abusive relationship might respond?
Yes. That is to be a consideration. (That’s not my consideration in this particular scenario, but it is absolutely one to be understood.)
We don’t need to invent another word because that’s not what happened here. The business was fully aware of the law, and they were aware of the actions required of them to prevent loss, yet they failed to take those actions. That’s not coercive (unless you want to argue that all financial transactions are coercive simply because you can’t change the terms when you discover they disadvantage you).
I mean, nobody can stop you from redefining words however you want. But that’s rhetoric, not logic. Rhetorically this can be whatever you want. Logically, it’s not theft.
…nope.
Everybody has agency. There were many different ways that the person who did this could have handled it. They chose the option that had was most likely to have consequences for the person at the bottom of the chain.
To grant your analogy and follow through with it, the issue would appear to be whether it is a wise choice to punch out a (physical) abuser if you think you can get away with it, and you feel the abuser fully deserves it; when you know that this might result in the abuser later retaliating against the victim.
A wiser choice would seem to be to support and vote for legislation and enforcement that prevents abuse, even if that is the slower and less immediately satisfying course of action.
So when there’s a natural disaster and every store in town massively jacks up prices on things you need to survive, is that agreement when you buy what you need? Or is it coercion because absent the natural disaster you’d never pay those prices. Or is this “different” in some way? Is it okay for huge corporations to use their power of monopsony to gouge prices but not okay to gouge them back if they fuck up?
When Walmart blows into town with artificially low prices, and they can absolutely afford to take that loss for as long as necessary in order to drive out competition that can’t, is that okay? Then when they raise those prices in order to recoup what they “lost” by their deliberate tactic of ruining their competition, is that fair and just? When they underpay their workers to the point where every Walmart store is being subsidized by the government to the tune of about 900K per year because Walmart is fine with externalizing their costs while privatizing their profits, is that ethical? These are things that have been well documented that Walmart has done and is actively doing right this minute–you think I’m ever going to side with Walmart when someone figures out how to scam the holy fuck out of them? No, I am not. Maybe if they collapse we can get some independent grocers back, that would be nice.
As for the OP, the manager had another option–he could have refused to pony up, told the customer to take it up with upper management and let the chips fall where they may. The company has batteries of lawyers whose job is to decide whether or not the company has a legal liability and by kicking the issue upstairs they could have settled things to a legal nicety to where everyone only gets what they’re actually entitled to get. The fact that the manager went ahead and forked over the cash says that he has the discretion to do so and it’s not gonna damage the company in any way to eat that loss.
Just like when spendy meat is nearing the throw it out date and they knock it down by 60% to get it gone–this argues they COULD have been selling it for only 40% of what they’re asking for but choose to keep the markup high until time forces their hand to get SOMETHING out of their rapidly depreciating inventory. What they made at 100% subsidizes what they had to sell at 40% and it’s all a big old game of averages.
Sure, why not? We already HAVE that, but some of us would like to see it turned 180 degrees for a while.
And BTW, REI takes all that returned merch and they offer it for discounted sale to their “members” who pay $30 for that membership and agree to be marketed to in exchange for first rights to pick up the discounted returns so REI isn’t really losing much and, in fact, is benefiting greatly by more and more people ponying up for the membership, which is probably a substantial yearly sum in itself and take that used merch off their hands. Everybody wins. Also REI is definitely overpriced on a day to day basis so people who shop there subsidize their return policy. I can usually find an item at 10-30% less than REI by checking their competitor’s prices and being an aware consumer.
This is all just a straw man. Nobody here is defending the practices of large corporations.
The issue is whether we think a good way to address the bad behavior of big corporations is to retaliate by recalibrating our personal ethics to randomly steal from them when we can away with it; or whether we should address the problem through public policy - consistent regulation and fair taxation.
Little bit different–individual workers are responsible for their cash drawers balancing so this would be harming an individual. No bueno. On the other hand, if the tills have all been counted and the manager is standing around not watching a pile of cash then that might be a good time to teach them to do their jobs and pay attention. Consider it an inexpensive lesson for the managerial class.
Shame about the store’s many video cameras recording your theft. Which are an example of management doing their job well.
Well, that’s YOUR issue. MY issue is that we all live in a system which has been carefully designed to disadvantage and damage us in myriad ways and that design is intended to maximize profits for a very few, very wealthy, very powerful corporate entities. There is a gigantic power imbalance at work and the concept of “morality” gets used a LOT to keep individuals from daring to hit back when they’re being damaged by overly powerful entities they can’t fight in any realistic manner. The rats that fuck shit up in my outbuildings are just trying to make a living, I acknowledge that. However, in spite of our power imbalance I only take steps to minimize my own expense and damage, I do not seek to enslave, torture and wipe out the entire rodent kingdom in retaliation for my chewed up appliance cords. I do set out traps for the individual rodents that are damaging my shit but leave the rest alone to live their ratty little lives in peace. That’s because I DO have morality, which is distinctly lacking in the power class in this country, so I don’t go full nuclear option every time I’m annoyed or have to fix something. Piss off a big corporation and they’ll get Congress to pass a law specifically to fuck you over.
It sounds like your issue is exactly the same as mine, frankly.
Do you really think this customer was a heroic Robin Hood figure “hitting back” in a way that helped anyone other than himself, or a just a greedy opportunist? Personally I’m pretty skeptical about the part of his story where he claims it was all for deserving veterans (that seems rather convenient), or that he offered to cancel the purchase when he realized that somebody might get fired.
Six of one, half dozen of the other. I, personally, would have snagged at most two of the things then given very detailed instructions to anyone else in the meat department on how to score some cheap goodies. I’m more of a George Hayduke than a Robin Hood. I think disruption in the face of power imbalance is a good thing.
Yes, price gouging in the face of a disaster (or other shortage inducing event) is coercion. I’ll just throw in that two wrongs don’t make a right.
When an item is mis-priced in a store in the manner described in the OP that is not the “corporation” fucking up, that is a low-level peon making a mistake. Not that I’m surprised at having to repeat this over and over as the human employees of such corporations are frequently dehumanized and treated as interchangeable cogs in the machine rather than as, you know, human beings.
“The corporation” fucking up would be more in the line of a major nation-wide ad making that sort of pricing error, forcing the entire group of stores across the nation to have to sell prime rib at those prices, as that would be a case of the error not being caught by multiple people in the corporation.
No, that is not ethical. I wish that it was not even legal, but the world is not perfect and there’s more proof. But one party acting in an unethical manner does not justify other parties acting in an unethical manner.
No, it does NOT show the manager has any such “discretion”. I can’t speak for the store in the OP, but where I work managers don’t have that discretion. Even store directors don’t have that sort of discretion. They have to obey the law where they are, and follow corporate policy and directives. Failure to do that has penalties. Do that enough and even managers/store directors can be fired. Do you assume this situation has never come up before? That the corporate lawyers haven’t already considered and studied the issue? They very much have, and corporate policies are based on that.
The only time a manager would have that level of discretion is in a mom-and-pop level store. Big box/mega-corp/large chain managers and store directors have a lot less power and discretion than the general public realizes.
Yes. But that discounted meat is being sold less than cost (because even disposal has costs, and there is a potential for write-offs). The store can NOT sell the meat at 40% of normal all the time or they’ll go out of business.
I’ve mentioned this before - profit on grocery in a good year is only 3-5%. That’s a good year. More often it’s toward 3% or lower. That’s an industry-wide situation. That’s why, although employees where I work get a discount on “hard goods” and “general merchandise” we don’t get one on food … because our employer is not going to sell regular food below cost. Those deep discounts “this is about to be thrown out” is to mitigate loss, not to generate the necessary profit to keep the lights on and the employees paid.
There is also the concept of “loss leader” - something sold below cost to get customers into the store and shopping. Turkeys around Thanksgiving are a well known example, as are rotisserie chicken. And, to some extent, the deeply discounted about to expire foods because the people who buy that stuff generally buy other stuff as well.
In both cases the people liberating the money is the thief. Where I work employees are not held responsible for theft by non-employees. You’d be on video stealing. No one would stop you leaving the store but the corporate legal department would send the local law enforcement to knock on your door at home and have you arrested and tried for theft.
And, frankly, store managers are not the all-powerful, mighty people ya’ll seem to think they are. First level managers get all of a quarter (yes, 25¢) more an hour than I do. Yes, first level managers where I work are hourly wage slaves just like me. You are not salaried until you get to store director. I’m not sure what “lesson” you think you’re “teaching” an hourly worker earning less than $20/hour, which describes most of the management at my store.
(Actually, the money taken from the tills and balanced are, at minimum, either behind two locked doors (off-hours it’s behind another locked door AND in a safe) or being carried by an armed employee of an armored car money transport company. Good luck even getting close to the pile, much less filching from it.)
I’d prefer effective disruption, something that will actually have a chance to change the system. What happened in the OP is much more likely to result in the store figuring out a way to penalize people than changing anything to the advantage of customers.
This is worth repeating. There’s a lot of “screw them, they are unfairly richer than i am” in this thread. But grocery stores are really not the poster child of capitalism run amuck. Rather the opposite. Grocery stores provide a critical service at a modest profit while employing lots of people. In my area, two of dominant players have a reputation of being good places to work. So does our local Trader Joe’s, which is a large national chain with a moderate presence in the grocery industry. (At least, people i know who work at these stores tell me they are treated fairly and like the work well enough.)
You want to disrupt something, go steal a Tesla or find a way to cheat corporate Uber or something. Not your local grocery store.
I work with numbers and have made errors (with 25 years, it happens no matter how diligent I try to be). On a good day, the other party is understanding and we arrive at a fair solution. On a bad day, the other party tries to jam us and makes a big production out of it, even if it was obviously an error and they should know better. Those days won’t bankrupt the company but they do make me feel pretty shitty about the whole process.
As a general rule, I try not to make other people feel shitty, much less shitty about their mistakes (regardless of how I can rationalize it as being a modern day prime rib Robin Hood) so I’ll have to go with the guy being an asshole. All the side debates about the definition “theft” and what laws apply aside. Seems like a dick move to me.
You just described capitalism, comrade.
Eh, I make numerous purchases in our capitalist society daily without feeling terrible about it or making the other guy feel terrible. Maybe there’s some broad argument to be made about capitalism being bad, etc but I don’t think it exists in “I made some grocery store pricer and their manager feel like shit by jamming them for $800 because the idiot set the price wrong! Haha I win against capitalism!”
That just seems like being an asshole.
Sure, but this person did not seize the means of production on behalf of the downtrodden proletariat, they seized $600-worth of prime rib to enrich themselves.
It’s true that those with privilege are often the staunchest defenders of the rule of law, sometimes conflating it with morality. But that’s no more profound than a recognition that people like having nice things and they like a pleasant stable life. And the fact is, nobody really wants to live in a disordered society that operates on some vague principle that it’s sometimes okay to steal when there’s a poorly-defined power imbalance. What underprivileged people really want (and deserve) is fairness, not instability. There’s a strong burden to make the case that disruption is the best way to achieve fairness, since disruption and disorder is not what anyone ultimately wants. A selfish person enriching themselves by legalized theft of prime rib is certainly disruptive, but I think you need more than just vague assertions that all kinds of disruption are good.
Well, if we take them at their word, they kind of did (for a veterans charity, right?). But if they lied, well… I guess that makes them a successful capitalist who came about their wealth in the usual way?