FoodBanter.com - View Single Post

at Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:08:51 GMT in >,
(Dave Smith) wrote :

>Alex Rast wrote:
>
>>
>> What I wonder about is, why do so many companies and institutions fall
>> into going to obsessive lengths in order to avoid being sued? It's
>> obvious that some of the measures they recommend are clearly absurd,
>> like the above situation, but to me it seems that the deeper absurdity
>> is people worried about being sued at all. Yes, we have a litigous
>> society, and yes, if some accident, no matter how trivial, occurs,
>> somebody will sue, but if they do, so what? You're being sued. Big
>> Deal!
>
>Being sued can be a big deal. It can put companies out of business.

Perhaps, then, that's what's necessary. If a few companies went
spectacularly out of business over frivolous lawsuits that somehow found a
generous judge, then that might create enough of a stir that people would
start to realise how damaging and unproductive frivolous lawsuits were.
That might help to put a brake on the lawsuits, if there were enough public
outrage. The basic point is, Lawsuits Happen. It's pointless to go to
obsessive lengths to stop them - it's a bit like carrying an umbrella
everywhere you go, even on a brilliantly sunny day, just because it might
rain, or perhaps like moving to Death Valley because you're afraid of
getting wet. If a company goes to extraordinary lengths to prevent lawsuits
then all they are doing is diverting time, energy, resources, and money
away from the more central aspects of their business - what they actually
make or do - that will probably turn out to be more damaging in the long
run in terms of opportunities lost than any lawsuit ever could.

>
>> >... I used to bake
>> >stuff for the bake sale at my son's school. Then I found out that the
>> >were selling the stuff for less than it cost me to make them. Nuts to
>> >that. All I was doing was providing someone with cheap baked goods
>> >and the school was getting the money.
>>
>> Isn't that the idea? You give freely of your time and resources so
>> that someone else may benefit. A bake sale isn't being run for your
>> profit.
>
>Well if it is not being run for profit I guess they do not need my
>contribution.

It is being run for profit - *their* profit, not *yours*. Of course if
you'd rather be the one to profit from sale of your items then you're free
to start up your own business in order to do so.

> ... It wasn't
>some sort of food bank where I suppose I could have skipped the part
>where I bought all the ingredients and spent the time to bake the
>cookies. I could have just gone to the sale and paid bargain basement
>prices for baked goods that had cost other people money to make.

There are many ways to contribute. If you don't really *like* giving of
your time and resources in order to contribute, another way is to give your
money - i.e. by buying the baked goods other people made. Nobody's forcing
you to bake for their sale. If, for you, every action is in essence an
investment for which you expect a return, then, by all means, contribute
simply by buying other peoples' stuff. Then you can indeed get the return
of a cheap baked good and still contribute to the organisation.

>
>> What
>> the school does is price things according to a reasonable margin they
>> might wish to make, so that every dollar somebody spends on the baked
>> goods goes into their coffers. ... they stand to
>> make more than they would if they priced it at some margin above the
>> cost to produce the items...

>They could have considered the value of the goods and priced them
>accordingly. IMO it was silly for me to spend $10 on ingredients for
>goods they sold for $5. I could have just given them the $5 and I would
>have been ahead $5. The only losers would be the cheap *******s who
>would have had to spend the extra $5 to get back the amount I spent, or
>the $15-20 it would have cost them in a bake shop for the same thing.

One way to contribute would have been indeed to give them $5.00. But as you
point out, then other people, either more bargain-oriented or perhaps not
otherwise in the financial position to buy more expensive baked goods,
would not have been able to enjoy the items which they did. Meanwhile, if
they had considered the "value" of the goods and priced them accordingly,
then they would have sold fewer, which would have meant that the dollars
you spent on baking them would either have ended up in the trash (a total
waste), or given away free after the fundraiser (for which there would thus
be *zero* return. So then *everybody* would lose - some people wouldn't get
to enjoy the baked goods, the organisation wouldn't have made as much
money, and your efforts would have been wasted.

An organisation may choose either to make a direct appeal for funds from
its members, or organise some kind of fundraiser. Since many people get
rewards (by this I mean feel internally some sense of satisfaction, not
literally receiving some kind of compensation in the form of cash or goods)
simply from participating in a fundraiser, more people are inclined to
contribute in such events than those prepared to hand over cash. For many,
simply donating money seems sterile. So often an organisation chooses the
fundraising approach. I'm sure they'd be happy to accept your $5.00
donation, and this is something you can do at any time. If in addition you
buy other people's items at the bake sale, then you've made a decent
contribution.

>I guess you and I feel differently. I was felt insulted that our goods
>were considered so cheap. I figured that if they were going to be so
>ungrateful for my efforts I need not bother in the future.

I doubt they were ungrateful. But by putting your own constraints on what
you consider to be an appropriate display of gratitude on their part you
may inadvertently have made yourself blind to any gratitude they had.

--
Alex Rast

(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)