 |
|
| General Cooking (rec.food.cooking) For general food and cooking discussion. Foods of all kinds, food procurement, cooking methods and techniques, eating, etc. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
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. Some countries are worse than others when it comes to law suits. Look what happened in the US when a woman burned her crotch. Sure, the coffee was what, but what kind of an idiot holds a cup of hot coffee with her thighs? Canada is not much better. I recently cited the case of a small company that had to pay an employee because she got drunk after leaving a company party, and another case where two kids on dirt bikes sued the city that owned the land that they were trespassing on when they crashed into each other. > >... 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 was my understanding that the bake sale was a fundraiser. I guess that since the Home and School Association was not investing anything in the venture it is not a matter of profit and loss, but the whole idea was to raise money for the association. 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. > 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. You provide the baked goods for free, which means they > don't have to pay the overhead involved with materials, labour, and > facilities, that would otherwise cut into the amount of direct money they > made off the bake sale. And they stand to make more than they would if they > priced it at some margin above the cost to produce the items, because more > people will be attracted by the opportunity to buy quality baked items at > cheap prices. Thus the school achieves its goal and raises maximum funds. 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. > I don't know about you, but I *like* the fact that my baked fare is being > sold for less than it cost to make them. It warms my heart to know somebody > out there is going to be able to get and enjoy high-quality baking for less > money than they could do it themselves for, much less buy it at some > bakery. In some cases, I'm sure, this means the difference between somebody > being able to enjoy an item and not being able to afford it at all. How can > I complain? 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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dave Smith wrote:
> 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. Okay, my ISP has been having newserver problems this week, that's no bit deal, but I take it people have to bring store bought baked goods at a *bake sale*. The hell with that, I'll get my own Entemann's coffee cake, thankyouverymuch. If they are afraid of a bake sale, find another fundraiser. I've heard some stupid things in my life, that idea is hard to top. And I agree, the home baked items usually seem way underpriced to me. nancy |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
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) |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Alex Rast wrote:
> > >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. On the contrary, due diligence can be a defense in a law suit. Failure to do otherwise may be deemed to be negligence. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
at Fri, 29 Oct 2004 22:35:39 GMT in >,
(Dave Smith) wrote : >Alex Rast wrote: > >> >> >Being sued can be a big deal. It can put companies out of business. >> >> Perhaps, then, that's what's necessary... The basic point is, Lawsuits >> Happen. >> It's pointless to go to obsessive lengths to stop them... > >On the contrary, due diligence can be a defense in a law suit. Failure >to do otherwise may be deemed to be negligence. If you follow that line of reasoning, you've already succumbed to the fear of lawsuits. Spending time considering how a situation might best be positioned legally in advance of actually having a lawsuit amounts to the kind of paranoia I'm talking about, that leads to irrational behaviour. .... >> 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. > >I did not have a problem providing the ingredients or the time and work >to do the baking. I expected that they would attach a price that would >consider the value of at least the ingredients. It's up to them to decide what pricing to attach to an item. Since they're the ones running the sale, they're the ones who should make the final decisions. The idea is - in contributing to a bake sale by providing baked goods, you don't provide them with all sorts of restrictions placed on them like how much they can charge for them or who to sell to or what tables they must set them on. If you did, then it would become more your sale instead of theirs, in which case, again, you're perfectly free to set up a private bake sale and forward the proceeds on to them. But if you donate to their sale, then what price they decide to set is up to them. >> 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. ... > >I would tend to view simply buying the baked goods at below cost of >ingredients along the same lines as a parasite. Well, if you'd feel parasitic in buying somebody else's stuff, then again, the option of simply donating money is always there. But begrudging others because they don't price according to what you would price is trying to impose your will on somebody else's decisions. .... >> >They could have considered the value of the goods and priced them >> >accordingly. ... >> >> 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. > >As I said before, it is a bake sale, not a food bank. The idea was to >raise money for the association. I expect that they would consider >contributions to be on a value added basis. Just because their sale wasn't being operated in the "official" capacity of a charity doesn't mean they can't price at rates that include more people rather than fewer. If an organisation pursues activities that have an unintentional quasi-charitable effect I think this is altogether for the good. Why not have the maximum benefit come to the maximum number of people? > I suppose that I could just >go with money and make my contribution by getting the bargains on things >that I could buy cheaper than I can make at home. But if everyone did >that there would not be anyone stupid enough to go to the expense and >the work to provide a contribution. Well, if everyone did that it wouldn't be a matter of that was no one "stupid" enough to make a contribution - it would rather be a simple matter of fact. If everyone is going with money rather than baked goods, then, by definition, there's no one providing a baked-goods contribution. One of the ways society operates is under the premise that there are some people who will give freely of their time, effort, and resources in order to help other individuals or institutions without expecting any physical compensation in return. In this case, the Association trusts that there will be a certain number of people who will gladly provide baked items without asking to be paid for the items they provide. That's the whole way by which these kinds of events make money. If you take the opposite viewpoint and require that everybody receive compensation for their contributions, this is the pure free-market capitalist economy, without any not-for-profit entities whatsoever. A pure free-market economy is a model some people advocate, but this would make it impossible (essentially, by definition) for Associations and other such entities to operate. So such organisations assume from the start that there will be those who will contribute unconditionally. -- Alex Rast (remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply) |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Alex Rast wrote:
> > > One of the ways society operates is under the premise that there are some > people who will give freely of their time, effort, and resources in order > to help other individuals or institutions without expecting any physical > compensation in return. In this case, the Association trusts that there > will be a certain number of people who will gladly provide baked items > without asking to be paid for the items they provide. That's the whole way > by which these kinds of events make money. > > If you take the opposite viewpoint and require that everybody receive > compensation for their contributions, this is the pure free-market > capitalist economy, without any not-for-profit entities whatsoever. A pure > free-market economy is a model some people advocate, but this would make it > impossible (essentially, by definition) for Associations and other such > entities to operate. So such organisations assume from the start that there > will be those who will contribute unconditionally. > > -- But isn't there a disconnect when a group of people donate items that cost them $10 and the organization prices them at $2.50? The organization receives only a small percentage of the donated value and there's absolutely NO telling whether the purchasers/beneficiaries are impoverished or millionaires. gloria p |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Puester" > wrote in message ... > Alex Rast wrote: >> >> >> One of the ways society operates is under the premise that there are some >> people who will give freely of their time, effort, and resources in order >> to help other individuals or institutions without expecting any physical >> compensation in return. In this case, the Association trusts that there >> will be a certain number of people who will gladly provide baked items >> without asking to be paid for the items they provide. That's the whole >> way >> by which these kinds of events make money. >> >> If you take the opposite viewpoint and require that everybody receive >> compensation for their contributions, this is the pure free-market >> capitalist economy, without any not-for-profit entities whatsoever. A >> pure >> free-market economy is a model some people advocate, but this would make >> it >> impossible (essentially, by definition) for Associations and other such >> entities to operate. So such organisations assume from the start that >> there >> will be those who will contribute unconditionally. >> >> -- > > > > But isn't there a disconnect when a group of people > donate items that cost them $10 and the organization > prices them at $2.50? The organization receives only > a small percentage of the donated value and there's > absolutely NO telling whether the purchasers/beneficiaries > are impoverished or millionaires. > > gloria p It's also possible that the people pricing the products had no idea what they cost to make. They figure a cheap boxed cake mix and frosting costs a buck and a half on sale, plus an egg or whatever, and $2.50 seems about right to them. Never mind that you used some exotic nuts and expensive flavorings; either they don't know the price of those things, or they didn't know they were in there at all. OR -- they've done these bake sales a dozen times and they know what the market will pay for a home-baked cake. Consumers look at those things and they really don't care if they buy a cake or not, they're buying as a "donation" and they have no idea if it will be edible or not, so there's a limit to what they'll pay. You know you used quality ingredients and a good recipe and it's going to taste good, but the person buying doesn't know that. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
>But isn't there a disconnect when a group of people
>donate items that cost them $10 and the organization >prices them at $2.50? > >gloria p When people choose to spend more on the product they donate ($10) then the prearranged selling price of that product ($2.50) that simply means that the pinhead's few remaining brain cells are what're disconnected. Normal brained folks are usually far better at reasoning than you are. Based on common knowlege and what has transpired previously regarding what people are usually willing to spend they would prearrange a selling price of $10, so would agree that no one spend more than $2.50 in assembling the products. Are you getting the drift or are you of some planet where decisions are made with no foreTHOUGHT whatsoever? ---= BOYCOTT FRANCE (belgium) GERMANY--SPAIN =--- ---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =--- ********* "Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation." Sheldon ```````````` |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
>But isn't there a disconnect when a group of people
>donate items that cost them $10 and the organization >prices them at $2.50? > >gloria p When people choose to spend more on the product they donate ($10) then the prearranged selling price of that product ($2.50) that simply means that the pinhead's few remaining brain cells are what're disconnected. Normal brained folks are usually far better at reasoning than you are. Based on common knowlege and what has transpired previously regarding what people are usually willing to spend they would prearrange a selling price of $10, so would agree that no one spend more than $2.50 in assembling the products. Are you getting the drift or are you of some planet where decisions are made with no foreTHOUGHT whatsoever? ---= BOYCOTT FRANCE (belgium) GERMANY--SPAIN =--- ---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =--- ********* "Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation." Sheldon ```````````` |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Alex Rast wrote:
> >On the contrary, due diligence can be a defense in a law suit. Failure > >to do otherwise may be deemed to be negligence. > > If you follow that line of reasoning, you've already succumbed to the fear > of lawsuits. Spending time considering how a situation might best be > positioned legally in advance of actually having a lawsuit amounts to the > kind of paranoia I'm talking about, that leads to irrational behaviour. I only follow that line of reasoning because of the time I have spent in court rooms and listened to due diligence defences. If you want to conduct some sort of business venture that offers products or services that may result in injury, go ahead. There will be lots of lawyers lining up to extract as much money from you as they can. It is an unfortunate reality. > It's up to them to decide what pricing to attach to an item. Since they're > the ones running the sale, they're the ones who should make the final > decisions. The idea is - in contributing to a bake sale by providing baked > goods, you don't provide them with all sorts of restrictions placed on them > like how much they can charge for them or who to sell to or what tables > they must set them on. If you did, then it would become more your sale > instead of theirs, in which case, again, you're perfectly free to set up a > private bake sale and forward the proceeds on to them. But if you donate to > their sale, then what price they decide to set is up to them. Yes, it is there sale so they can price things however they want. However, after seeing that they considered my goods to be worth less than I paid for the ingredients it was the last time I bothered. > Well, if you'd feel parasitic in buying somebody else's stuff, then again, > the option of simply donating money is always there. But begrudging others > because they don't price according to what you would price is trying to > impose your will on somebody else's decisions. Yes, I could simply donate the money. And as I have suggested, they would have made more money if the donors had simply given the money they would have spent on ingredients and saved themselves the work. However, it would not have been much of a bake sale. It would be a different matter if it was a soup kitchen or some sort of food bank. > >As I said before, it is a bake sale, not a food bank. The idea was to > >raise money for the association. I expect that they would consider > >contributions to be on a value added basis. > > Just because their sale wasn't being operated in the "official" capacity of > a charity doesn't mean they can't price at rates that include more people > rather than fewer. If an organisation pursues activities that have an > unintentional quasi-charitable effect I think this is altogether for the > good. Why not have the maximum benefit come to the maximum number of > people? One good reason is that, as mentioned before, the people who go to the expense and effort to provide the goods are disappointed in and insulted by the value placed on their contribution and lose interest in participating. > One of the ways society operates is under the premise that there are some > people who will give freely of their time, effort, and resources in order > to help other individuals or institutions without expecting any physical > compensation in return. In this case, the Association trusts that there > will be a certain number of people who will gladly provide baked items > without asking to be paid for the items they provide. That's the whole way > by which these kinds of events make money. No one was asking to be paid for their contribution. I am sure that we all felt that we were offering something of value. Obviously, they did not value the contribution and out efforts were squandered. > > If you take the opposite viewpoint and require that everybody receive > compensation for their contributions, this is the pure free-market > capitalist economy, without any not-for-profit entities whatsoever. A pure > free-market economy is a model some people advocate, but this would make it > impossible (essentially, by definition) for Associations and other such > entities to operate. So such organisations assume from the start that there > will be those who will contribute unconditionally. Once again, no compensation was requested or expected. All I wanted was for them to charge at least as much for the goods as I spent to make them, and preferably a little more because it was supposed to be a fundraiser. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dave Smith > wrote:
>Look what happened in the US when a woman burned her crotch. >Sure, the coffee was what, but what kind of an idiot holds a cup of hot >coffee with her thighs? You mean the lady who bought a cup of coffee from a store that had been warned on multiple occasions *because their coffee was much hotter than recommended*? In the end, the company paid and continued in business. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Derek Lyons wrote:
> > > You mean the lady who bought a cup of coffee from a store that had > been warned on multiple occasions *because their coffee was much > hotter than recommended*? > I had had coffee from the same place and never burned by crotch, but that's because I knew enough to use my hands. :-) > > In the end, the company paid and continued in business. > > D. > -- > Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. > > -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. > Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dave Smith > wrote:
>Derek Lyons wrote: > >> You mean the lady who bought a cup of coffee from a store that had >> been warned on multiple occasions *because their coffee was much >> hotter than recommended*? >> > >I had had coffee from the same place and never burned by crotch, but that's >because I knew enough to use my hands. :-) From the same *corporation* or the *exact same store*? The first, by and large, sold coffee within the guidelines. The second violated them and paid. Where the coffee was held has abzero to do with the issue. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
>You mean the lady who bought a cup of coffee from a store that had
>been warned on multiple occasions *because their coffee was much >hotter than recommended*? > >In the end, the company paid and continued in business. They said the coffee was too hot at 180 degrees. Well according to my instant read thermometer and my coffee pot a fresh brewed cup of coffee is between 175 and 180 degrees. Even if the coffee was "too hot" the woman was stupid for trying to hold it in her lap. Actually the stupid ones were the jurors who gave her the settlement. She wouldn't have received a dime if I were on the jury. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
>You mean the lady who bought a cup of coffee from a store that had
>been warned on multiple occasions *because their coffee was much >hotter than recommended*? > >In the end, the company paid and continued in business. They said the coffee was too hot at 180 degrees. Well according to my instant read thermometer and my coffee pot a fresh brewed cup of coffee is between 175 and 180 degrees. Even if the coffee was "too hot" the woman was stupid for trying to hold it in her lap. Actually the stupid ones were the jurors who gave her the settlement. She wouldn't have received a dime if I were on the jury. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >,
(Alex Rast) wrote: > I don't know about you, but I *like* the fact that my baked fare is > being sold for less than it cost to make them. It warms my heart to > know somebody out there is going to be able to get and enjoy > high-quality baking for less money than they could do it themselves > for, much less buy it at some bakery. In some cases, I'm sure, this > means the difference between somebody being able to enjoy an item and > not being able to afford it at all. How can I complain? I agree with this. Who cares, if you are already donating it in the first place? It's not like they are paying you a low amount in a deal, you make it to give to them so they can make money off of it. Regards, Ranee -- Remove Do Not and Spam to email "She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13 See my Blog at: http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/ |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Bake Sale Recipes??? | General Cooking | |||
| Bake Sale now a 'bought" sale | General Cooking | |||
| need help with cakes for bake sale | Baking | |||
| What I bought at The Bake Sale | General Cooking | |||
| The Bake Sale - lengthy | General Cooking | |||
Hybrid Mode
