People Power

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Your comments about the types of people protesting being utterly inaccurate.

---

How are my comments in that case "utterly inaccurate". Are there not people more concerned with watching TV than finding a better job? Are there not people at occupy Wall Street who's time could be better spent finding a job, or going to school? Are there not able bodied people that would rather collect an unemployment check than get a job?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

No, an employee has every right to express concern. Perhaps I shouldn't have said "you" in that example as Eki is an employee. I should have said something like ... Why should someone from outside the company tell that company how to do business?

---

Do you object to the existence of individuals and companies who are brought in by other companies to do just that? I presume not. Do you also object to anyone writing to a company to inform it of its failings and suggesting ways it could do better?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

How are my comments in that case "utterly inaccurate". Are there not people more concerned with watching TV than finding a better job? Are there not people at occupy Wall Street who's time could be better spent finding a job, or going to school? Are there not able bodied people that would rather collect an unemployment check than get a job?

---

There are, but I felt you were generalising.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

I have no objection to the lowest-common-denominator. Crap has it's place. As does fine quality merchandize. If there is a market for the fine quality merchandize then the store that sells it will be profitable. If there is no market, or the store's business model is off then it fails. That's life. To go back to your Starbucks example. Starbucks is everywhere, but that does not mean that there are no other coffee joints. The popular does not exclude the smaller niche stores. Not in the least. I don't understand all the animosity directed at chain stores. It's not like they got to the position/market share for some mysterious reason. If you have a problem with them, no one is forcing you to patronize them.

---

One is in effect forced to patronise them in some places, if there is nowhere else available and you want what is on offer. So much for choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

What are you proposing to regulate and restrict?

---

I believe that in some instances — not often, by any means — but sometimes — it may be appropriate to stop a particular chain from opening an outlet somewhere, for example.

Don't get me wrong — I am in favour of choice, but not endlessly. I want a choice of places to buy cheese, or a radio, or a plant, or so forth. I have no desire at all to see our high streets made up of grim state-owned monopoly outlets. But the all-pervading influence of the private sector I find almost as depressing. I do not want to have to make commercial choices relating to every aspect of my life. Shopping around for anything is no fun, and I prefer to use my time for other things. I also deplore the way bland corporate business-speak — 'issues', 'delivery', 'solutions' — has invaded the language.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Do you object to the existence of individuals and companies who are brought in by other companies to do just that? I presume not.

---

In the US at least we would call those consultancy firms. And if a company hires one of these firms on their own, I have no problem with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Do you also object to anyone writing to a company to inform it of its failings and suggesting ways it could do better?

---

No I do not object to that. If a customer has an issue with a product, service, or price that a company is providing, they have every right to write in to that company. Just don't expect said company to listen, and in that case be prepared to take your business elsewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

In the US at least we would call those consultancy firms. And if a company hires one of these firms on their own, I have no problem with that.

---

Well, why did you make the comment you made in response to Eki?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

If a customer has an issue with a product, service, or price that a company is providing, they have every right to write in to that company. Just don't expect said company to listen, and in that case be prepared to take your business elsewhere.

---

And if said company is the only option available to you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

One is in effect forced to patronise them in some places, if there is nowhere else available and you want what is on offer. So much for choice.

---

How are you forced? An example might help?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I believe that in some instances — not often, by any means — but sometimes — it may be appropriate to stop a particular chain from opening an outlet somewhere, for example.

---

I could agree to that if a local community got together say at a zoning meeting and stated we don't want a Wal-Mart at X location. I have no problem with that, as long as it's done locally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Don't get me wrong — I am in favour of choice, but not endlessly. I want a choice of places to buy cheese, or a radio, or a plant, or so forth. I have no desire at all to see our high streets made up of grim state-owned monopoly outlets. But the all-pervading influence of the private sector I find almost as depressing. I do not want to have to make commercial choices relating to every aspect of my life. Shopping around for anything is no fun, and I prefer to use my time for other things. I also deplore the way bland corporate business-speak — 'issues', 'delivery', 'solutions' — has invaded the language.

---

You are very confusing. You just made the argument as to why so many chain stores are taking over the high streets. People don't want to shop around, so they patronize the "lowest common denominator". You seem to want it both ways, you want the convenience of the chain stores but with the choice of locally owned?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Well, why did you make the comment you made in response to Eki?

---

Because I felt his comment was a generalized government type of suggestion. Perhaps I was wrong on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

And if said company is the only option available to you?

---

Give me an example where there is only one option available.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

If a customer has an issue with a product, service, or price that a company is providing, they have every right to write in to that company. Just don't expect said company to listen, and in that case be prepared to take your business elsewhere.

---

So you have a right to complain but those that you are complaining to and of whom you are their paying unsatisfied customer have the right to not listen to your complaints about their unsatisfying service? Am I understanding you well?

That's why I have trouble debating with you because I am like in this case left aghast.

If I misunderstood, I apologize but if that's what you really believe, again, we are in complete opposite of the spectrum.

I own a company, I provide a service and I make sure that my clients are 100% satisfied with my work, It's my responsibility to come through for them, they are paying me for it.- and you don't have to own a company to provide a service. As far as I am concerned all of us that work are providing a service for a price and that service should be accounted for and responsibly executed. If you complain about my work I will do what I have to do to satisfy your needs and if I can't then I return your money back, it's that simple. *never happened to me though ;)

Any way . . .

:s mokin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

How are you forced? An example might help?

---

One is forced in the UK to use the services of certain private-sector public transport operators if one wishes to travel by public transport. Competition has either not worked, meaning the government has been forced to award contracts to single companies, or resulted in local monopolies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

You seem to want it both ways, you want the convenience of the chain stores but with the choice of locally owned?

---

And what is wrong with the provision of that choice? You yourself say you want, and take advantage of, that choice. My objection is to big business becoming all-pervading, not the very notion of a choice.