 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Office Depot: Scamming, Bait and Switch, Stealing, Cheating Just awesome. Office Depot employees are confirming the company is guilty of violations of law---- Scamming, ripping off customers, bait and switch, and false advertising and more.
Nice.
»blog.laptopmag.com/more-office-d···ice-tags
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
|
|
| I used to work at Office Depot part time for extra cash a few years back. It's true about the attachments. We (the sales team) would get reamed for not meeting the attachment goal, or PPP goal. Didn't matter if you work in technology, or just the cashier. Cashiers were told it was their job to back us up on attachments and PPPs.
The store manager in turn was getting his butt chewed by his boss for us not meeting the goals.
Creating Fact tags, and changing prices on clearance items is also true. We would sometimes charge non clearance price for an item and include a PPP with it.
Can't count how many open box, used, and/or returned items were re-shrink wrapped and sold as new.
That last one is what caused me to quit. It just felt wrong. I won't touch on what we were recomended to do for the HP sales rep to boost HP sales - I never followed their advice of only attempting to sale an HP product over Epson or Canon because the margin was higher. |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to KrK
I never understood why bait-and-switch is an issue. If a company doesn't have in stock what I want to buy, then I will just go somewhere else and buy it.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by pnh102:I never understood why bait-and-switch is an issue. If a company doesn't have in stock what I want to buy, then I will just go somewhere else and buy it. With out bait and switch laws, companies would just lie and make false ads. Then when customers drove in to get the deal, they'd say "We sold out already, but here's this widget over here that's actually much better and only costs a little more."
They know consumers have only finite time, energy, and will eventually buy something just to get what they need and get the trip over.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:I never understood why bait-and-switch is an issue. If a company doesn't have in stock what I want to buy, then I will just go somewhere else and buy it. It's a matter of degrees, right? If they can offer discounted items that aren't in stock, then why not offer items they don't even carry? Or, at prices that don't exist?
It's a matter of intent. If a company offers something for sale, it's to get people into the store (playing the odds they'll buy items not on sale). If the game is rigged to be too much in favor of the store, that's basically cheating.
Using your logic, we wouldn't have laws against casinos using loaded dice, or marked cards. If a patron doesn't like how much money they lost, they can go to another casino. (You'll say you don't lose money at a store with inadequate stock. But, time is money. And, the store benefited by getting you to visit under false pretenses. A matter of degrees, not absolutes.).
Mark |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by amigo_boy:Using your logic, we wouldn't have laws against casinos using loaded dice, or marked cards. If a patron doesn't like how much money they lost, they can go to another casino. (You'll say you don't lose money at a store with inadequate stock. But, time is money. And, the store benefited by getting you to visit under false pretenses. A matter of degrees, not absolutes.). To be fair, someone who walks into a casino thinking they will win big is already a fool. They might have a chance, but odds are they do not. Besides, in any casino, even the most rigged ones, it is in the house's favor to allow someone to win every now and then or else no one would go to said casino.
As for losing time, if you are heading out to shop, you've already made the decision to sacrifice some time. Walking into a store, finding out they do not have what you want, and then leaving to go find what you want through some other means doesn't seem like a very high "cost" to me as consumer considering the store lost my business when I did not buy something else.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by pnh102:To be fair, someone who walks into a casino thinking they will win big is already a fool. So, you'd get rid of laws criminalizing rigged gaming?
Again, placing you among the irrelevant fringe. Promulgating an ideology that is pure, yet purely outside reality.
said by pnh102:it is in the house's favor to allow someone to win every now and then or else no one would go to said casino. And that's known up front. As I said, it's a matter of degrees. Your world seems to focus on, since the house has an advantage (when the odds aren't manipulated), then it's ok for them to manipulate the odds. You don't see the world in degrees, but absolute black and white.
said by pnh102:As for losing time, if you are heading out to shop, you've already made the decision to sacrifice some time. Walking into a store, finding out they do not have what you want, and then leaving to go find what you want through some other means doesn't seem like a very high "cost" to me as consumer considering the store lost my business when I did not buy something else. That's one way to look at it. Another way is
1) Those who went shopping specifically for the sale item.
2) The store's interest in getting people into the store because they might buy something else, using what may increasingly appear to be fraud depending on how often the loss-leader doesn't meet average demand. (I.e., manipulating the "house's" odds against the consumer.).
Mark |
|
 Combat ChuckToo Many CannibalsPremium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA | said by amigo_boy:You don't see the world in degrees, but absolute black and white. Wow, so I see you ascribe to the false tactic of accusing your enemy of being what you currently are. I'm glad I was there to give you a battle cry to turn on it's head and put to use for your own devices.
--
Come let us reason together. |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:So, you'd get rid of laws criminalizing rigged gaming? I most certainly would. I see nothing wrong with consenting adults entering into wagers on their own. Why should those who are able to govern themselves be limited in the types of fun in which they can engage?
said by amigo_boy:Again, placing you among the irrelevant fringe. So an authoritarian approach is best?
said by amigo_boy: Your world seems to focus on, since the house has an advantage (when the odds aren't manipulated), then it's ok for them to manipulate the odds. You don't see the world in degrees, but absolute black and white. Because most of the time it is absolute black and white. And if you don't think that the house isn't manipulating the odds even in a regulated gaming environment then you clearly do not understand the gambling industry.
said by amigo_boy:1) Those who went shopping specifically for the sale item. I do not see the logic in criminalizing every instance in which peoples' time is wasted. If the store does not have the product in question, it is not the end of the world. In this day and age it is very easy to find alternate suppliers for the things you need or want.
said by amigo_boy:2) The store's interest in getting people into the store because they might buy something else, using what may increasingly appear to be fraud depending on how often the loss-leader doesn't meet average demand. (I.e., manipulating the "house's" odds against the consumer.). And if I walk out without buying anything, how is the store "winning?" Bait and switch only works because of morons who are baited buy at the switch.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
| reply to KrK
That sucks...Guess I'll only use them for paper and pens.. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:said by amigo_boy:So, you'd get rid of laws criminalizing rigged gaming? I most certainly would. I see nothing wrong with consenting adults entering into wagers on their own. "Consenting" implies "informed" consent. Which tends to prove my point that your views define you as part of the irrelevant fringe.
Even those who consider gambling a bad idea would oppose allowing casinos to use loaded dice and marked cards to change the odds.
With that in mind, it's no surprise that you're ok with false advertising.
Mark |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | reply to Combat Chuck
said by Combat Chuck:said by amigo_boy:You don't see the world in degrees, but absolute black and white. Wow, so I see you ascribe to the false tactic of accusing your enemy of being what you currently are. I'm glad I was there to give you a battle cry to turn on it's head and put to use for your own devices. My quoted response to pnh was a bit ad hominum. But, I'm puzzled by your reply. When did I express a black/white world view? People are usually annoyed with me for seeing all sides of an issue, not clinging to an ideological position.
Mark |
|
 Pichin
join:2001-07-01
Oviedo, FL | Why? Why? |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to amigo_boy
Re: Office Depot: Scamming, Bait and Switch, Stealing, Cheating said by amigo_boy:"Consenting" implies "informed" consent. Which tends to prove my point that your views define you as part of the irrelevant fringe. And there is nothing that stops people from becoming informed if they so choose. How is being responsible for the consequences of the actions in which one chooses to engage "fringy?"
said by amigo_boy:Even those who consider gambling a bad idea would oppose allowing casinos to use loaded dice and marked cards to change the odds. That statement is a vacuous truth since people who consider gambling to be a bad idea would oppose casinos doing anything. What does it have to do with anything?
said by amigo_boy:With that in mind, it's no surprise that you're ok with false advertising. Ahh, the classic reaching. Again, I stated that I did not see the big deal regarding a "bait and switch" type scam because it requires that the victim choose to participate. When the victim sees that he's not getting what he wanted out of a transaction and yet chooses to engage in that transaction anyway, it is hard for me to say he got ripped off or scammed. The correct course of action would have been to walk out of the store.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by pnh102:said by amigo_boy:"Consenting" implies "informed" consent. Which tends to prove my point that your views define you as part of the irrelevant fringe. And there is nothing that stops people from becoming informed if they so choose. How is being responsible for the consequences of the actions in which one chooses to engage "fringy?" As I said before, I don't know anyone who would say casinos should be allowed to use loaded dice and marked cards just because patrons can "choose" to learn of the fraud after being defrauded (or the casino's reputation spreads).
You wouldn't even advocate that position of "personal responsibility" regarding financial or investment fraud. You wouldn't advocate eliminating the SEC, FICA, et. al.
If you would, it would place you among the irrelevant fringe (just like your views about the wonders of legalizing gaming corruption.).
Mark |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by amigo_boy:You wouldn't even advocate that position of "personal responsibility" regarding financial or investment fraud. You wouldn't advocate eliminating the SEC, FICA, et. al. Actually, I would be all for getting rid of FICA primarily because it does not benefit me.
But as far as bait-and-switch scams go, the victim still has to be a willing participant. If someone is dumb enough to pay more for something they didn't want, then that's their fault, not the vendor's.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by pnh102:said by amigo_boy:You wouldn't even advocate that position of "personal responsibility" regarding financial or investment fraud. You wouldn't advocate eliminating the SEC, FICA, et. al. Actually, I would be all for getting rid of FICA primarily because it does not benefit me. I meant to say FDIC. Are you willing to get rid of it, and the SEC?
You keep saying it takes a willing participant to be taken advantage of by "bait and switch." If someone puts their money in a poorly managed bank, aren't they a willing participant? Or, if they buy stock in a company with misrepresented accounting?
I think the answer is "no" because you benefit from those things.
Others would benefit from application of bait-and-switch laws.
Mark |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Nothing you say has anything to do with bait-and-switch at Office Depot.
If you're stupid enough to buy something that is overpriced and isn't what you want, you have only yourself to blame.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by pnh102:Nothing you say has anything to do with bait-and-switch at Office Depot. If you're stupid enough to buy something that is overpriced and isn't what you want, you have only yourself to blame. Why didn't you answer my question, whether you would apply your same reasoning to FDIC and SEC?
It seems like the same reasoning could be applied. If someone's "stupid" enough to make a trip to a store over a non-existent sale item, then they deserve to learn a character-building lesson?
Similarly, if someone's stupid enough to keep money in a bank without personally examining the bank's practices on a daily basis, they deserve to have their character built by losing some (or all) of their money?
Or, if someone's stupid enough to invest in a corporation without personally examining the corporation's books on a daily basis, they deserve a "character-building" outcome?
As I said earlier, it's easy to talk with swagger about how *everyone else* should have their character built in a "free market" of Darwinian outcomes -- as the swag enjoys the moderating hand of society in markets.
Mark |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by amigo_boy:Why didn't you answer my question, whether you would apply your same reasoning to FDIC and SEC? Because it isn't relevant. You're trying to claim that people like me, who don't see what the big deal is with a scam that requires a participant willing to screw himself with him knowing full well he is doing so, are somehow "on the fringe."
I personally have no problems with government doing its best to ensure that fraud is prosecuted, but at some point, the consumer has to take the lead in this regard.
said by amigo_boy:It seems like the same reasoning could be applied. If someone's "stupid" enough to make a trip to a store over a non-existent sale item, then they deserve to learn a character-building lesson? If you perpetually shield people from these lessons, they will never learn them. You can tell people to not buy from these types of vendors, and many people would heed these lessons, but you can't prevent everyone from making these kinds of mistakes.
said by amigo_boy:Similarly, if someone's stupid enough to keep money in a bank without personally examining the bank's practices on a daily basis, they deserve to have their character built by losing some (or all) of their money? If you really want to go down this path, the bank in this example is not doing a bait-and-switch. It is telling you outright it is selling a product (a solvent bank) when it clearly is not. A bait-and-switch would require that someone comes into the bank looking for a product and being told that this product isn't there, and the customer buys something else instead. Since most people would not walk into a bank looking for something that would lose them money, the example doesn't stand.
said by amigo_boy:Or, if someone's stupid enough to invest in a corporation without personally examining the corporation's books on a daily basis, they deserve a "character-building" outcome? Actually this isn't a bad idea.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
