Chip Stein

"Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<FjNTc.652$3O3.161@newsread2.news.pas.earthli nk.net>...
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote
> > "Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > Do YOU give YOUR time and expertise away to random people who
> > > > walk in the door?
> > >
> > > You said it.
> > >
> > > How many white collar professionals don't get this is amazing. I propose it
> > > says
> > > a lot about their "education."
>

didn't take much to get you guys started did it?. techs don't
work for free, we work on flat rate. have for many years. this is
nothing new.
if you go to your doctor and he finds nothing wrong with you you
can damn well bet he will still bill you insurance company. but you
don't care about that until they raise your rates, then the bitching
starts.
Chip

Chip Stein

"Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<FjNTc.652$3O3.161@newsread2.news.pas.earthli nk.net>...
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote
> > "Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > Do YOU give YOUR time and expertise away to random people who
> > > > walk in the door?
> > >
> > > You said it.
> > >
> > > How many white collar professionals don't get this is amazing. I propose it
> > > says
> > > a lot about their "education."
>

didn't take much to get you guys started did it?. techs don't
work for free, we work on flat rate. have for many years. this is
nothing new.
if you go to your doctor and he finds nothing wrong with you you
can damn well bet he will still bill you insurance company. but you
don't care about that until they raise your rates, then the bitching
starts.
Chip

Caroline

"Chip Stein" <chip@chipanddebby.com> wrote
> "Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote
> > "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote
> > > "Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > > Do YOU give YOUR time and expertise away to random people who
> > > > > walk in the door?
> > > >
> > > > You said it.
> > > >
> > > > How many white collar professionals don't get this is amazing. I propose
it
> > > > says
> > > > a lot about their "education."
> >
>
> didn't take much to get you guys started did it?.

You talking to Elmo and me?

It seems clear to me that he and I are on your side here.

> techs don't
> work for free, we work on flat rate. have for many years. this is
> nothing new.
> if you go to your doctor and he finds nothing wrong with you you
> can damn well bet he will still bill you insurance company. but you
> don't care about that until they raise your rates, then the bitching
> starts.

Agreed on all counts.

Caroline

"Chip Stein" <chip@chipanddebby.com> wrote
> "Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote
> > "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote
> > > "Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > > Do YOU give YOUR time and expertise away to random people who
> > > > > walk in the door?
> > > >
> > > > You said it.
> > > >
> > > > How many white collar professionals don't get this is amazing. I propose
it
> > > > says
> > > > a lot about their "education."
> >
>
> didn't take much to get you guys started did it?.

You talking to Elmo and me?

It seems clear to me that he and I are on your side here.

> techs don't
> work for free, we work on flat rate. have for many years. this is
> nothing new.
> if you go to your doctor and he finds nothing wrong with you you
> can damn well bet he will still bill you insurance company. but you
> don't care about that until they raise your rates, then the bitching
> starts.

Agreed on all counts.

Dave Kelsen

On 8/15/2004 6:40 AM Elmo P. Shagnasty spake these words of knowledge:

> In article <wCBTc.34465$wM.11543@twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
> Dave Kelsen <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> It's free enterprise, of course; I don't have to take my Honda there for
>> service. But it isn't right, not by a long shot.
>
> If people pay for it, it's right.
>
> People pay five bucks for a cup of Starbucks coffee. That isn't right,
> not by a long shot. Are you suggesting that Starbucks ought not to be
> allowed to charge that for a cup of coffee?
>
> If people are willing to pay it, there's nothing wrong with charging it.

Did you read the part about free enterprise that you quoted above, Elmo?
I don't have to do it. They have the right to charge what they want,
and I have the right not to take my business there. [This is why
monopolies are illegal, Elmo; it denigrates this particular right of the
consumer].

You seem to be confusing the semantical meaning of 'legally allowed
within the bounds of our current incarnation of free enterprise', that
is economically *a right*, and 'right' - which such gouging is not.

I am a laissez faire capitalist, and I believe they have *a right* to
charge whatever the market will bear. I experimented with driving the
85 miles to the next closest dealer, as is my right. It didn't prove
economically feasible, due to the cost of my time.

I have absolutely no idea what Starbuck's charges for a cup of coffee,
as I have never been in one. But the charge is not just for the coffee
- it is for the atmosphere and ambiance as well. I don't pay it, but
then I have many choices for coffee. This is not the case with respect
to servicing my Honda, in two aspects: there is no ambiance provided,
and I do not have many choices.

Finally, Elmo, you have completely missed the point. It is
short-sighted *economically* to treat people this way. Eventually,
someone will come along and treat them fairly, and you will lose
customers. This shop has a right to say " you" verbally as well as
symbolically when the customer pays his bill, but they don't; they
perceive that doing so would cost them customers. They don't have any
such perception about their abusive charging practices. Presuming they
have given it some consideration, they believe that they cannot be
successfully competed with. They have an exclusive deal with Honda, or
they have some other real or perceived advantage (perhaps to do with
training personnel). Their business model may work in the short term,
but it makes customers unhappy; they don't just feel that they overpaid,
they feel that they were cheated. This will cost in the long run. But
they have a right to conduct business as they wish.


RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
Would I ask you a rhetorical question?

Dave Kelsen

On 8/15/2004 6:40 AM Elmo P. Shagnasty spake these words of knowledge:

> In article <wCBTc.34465$wM.11543@twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
> Dave Kelsen <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> It's free enterprise, of course; I don't have to take my Honda there for
>> service. But it isn't right, not by a long shot.
>
> If people pay for it, it's right.
>
> People pay five bucks for a cup of Starbucks coffee. That isn't right,
> not by a long shot. Are you suggesting that Starbucks ought not to be
> allowed to charge that for a cup of coffee?
>
> If people are willing to pay it, there's nothing wrong with charging it.

Did you read the part about free enterprise that you quoted above, Elmo?
I don't have to do it. They have the right to charge what they want,
and I have the right not to take my business there. [This is why
monopolies are illegal, Elmo; it denigrates this particular right of the
consumer].

You seem to be confusing the semantical meaning of 'legally allowed
within the bounds of our current incarnation of free enterprise', that
is economically *a right*, and 'right' - which such gouging is not.

I am a laissez faire capitalist, and I believe they have *a right* to
charge whatever the market will bear. I experimented with driving the
85 miles to the next closest dealer, as is my right. It didn't prove
economically feasible, due to the cost of my time.

I have absolutely no idea what Starbuck's charges for a cup of coffee,
as I have never been in one. But the charge is not just for the coffee
- it is for the atmosphere and ambiance as well. I don't pay it, but
then I have many choices for coffee. This is not the case with respect
to servicing my Honda, in two aspects: there is no ambiance provided,
and I do not have many choices.

Finally, Elmo, you have completely missed the point. It is
short-sighted *economically* to treat people this way. Eventually,
someone will come along and treat them fairly, and you will lose
customers. This shop has a right to say " you" verbally as well as
symbolically when the customer pays his bill, but they don't; they
perceive that doing so would cost them customers. They don't have any
such perception about their abusive charging practices. Presuming they
have given it some consideration, they believe that they cannot be
successfully competed with. They have an exclusive deal with Honda, or
they have some other real or perceived advantage (perhaps to do with
training personnel). Their business model may work in the short term,
but it makes customers unhappy; they don't just feel that they overpaid,
they feel that they were cheated. This will cost in the long run. But
they have a right to conduct business as they wish.


RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
Would I ask you a rhetorical question?

Dave Kelsen

On 8/15/2004 6:43 AM Elmo P. Shagnasty spake these words of knowledge:


> In article <wCBTc.34465$wM.11543@twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
> Dave Kelsen <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I know you asked Brian this question, but I'm going to answer; I have a
>> company that services computers, and does networking and other
>> computer-related work (www.wetumpkatechnology.com). Not long ago, I was
>> called to a law office to diagnose a computer problem. Although I spent
>> two hours, I was unable to determine the cause of the problem. My
>> hourly rate is $90, but in this case I chose not to charge even the $35
>> rate I charge just to show up. I told them that I didn't find, much
>> less fix, the problem. I told them (well, wrote down for them) what to
>> say to the manufacturer to take the next step in resolving it.
>>
>> That law firm has become one of my best customers; I have worked on
>> their systems, and worked on the home PCs of some of the employees as well.
>>
>> Because they trust me not to 'em over on the price, and not to
>> bullshit with them. Because I took a chance and didn't charge them when
>> I couldn't help them.
>>
>> This economic model works; older people will tell you that that's how it
>> used to work all the time. It still does - or can.
>
> It works for me all day long at my favorite Honda dealership. But we
> have a relationship that goes back over 20 years.
>
> When some random Joe walks in the door, someone they've never see before
> and therefore never expect to see again, it's a crap shoot. They can do
> it your way, and probably never see the guy again--in fact, read
> postings on the Usenet about how "I screwed that stealer, he gave it to
> me"--or they could do it by the book.

I disagree that they are more likely to 'never seen the guy again' than
they are to see him come back when he has another problem. I think if
you take a rational examination of the responses you would get if you
proposed the situation to a reasonably large group of individuals, you
would find that I am right. But until you do so, it would be
conjecture. (FWIW I have done so; this kind of business behavior is
anathema to me. But I don't expect you to recognize my results as valid.)


> Given the number of people who have serious attitudes about dealership
> service, it's probably prudent nowadays for the dealer to charge in
> those circumstances. The dealership is better off waiting to see if a
> customer will be a long term customer, and then take care of him. It's
> probably not prudent for the dealer to give stuff away and hope that
> such a gesture is meaningful, in this day and age of people inherently
> distrusting the dealership for no reason other than "it's the
> stealership, what did you expect".

You're reversing cause and effect here, Elmo. There's a reason that
most people used to trust the dealer's shop, and there's a reason that
many (I have no idea what percentage, but I don't suppose it's 'most')
'have serious attitudes about dealer service'. In fact, it is probably
prudent for the dealer to address the issue -- just the way you say the
dealer addresses it with you, but not with new customers. If you enter
into regular business relationships with customers you feel are
basically dishonest, you are not going to succeed in the long run, at
least if there is competition.

There are always examples of any particular notion; there are no doubt
many people in this forum who could tell us true and accurate stories of
people who have ripped off dealers, for various and sundry reasons. The
mistake you've made in your last paragraph is simply the inclusion of
the word 'inherently' in your last sentence. This behavior is in fact
distinctly not inherent. It is a lesson that has been taught, learned
and reinforced.


RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.

Dave Kelsen

On 8/15/2004 6:43 AM Elmo P. Shagnasty spake these words of knowledge:


> In article <wCBTc.34465$wM.11543@twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
> Dave Kelsen <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I know you asked Brian this question, but I'm going to answer; I have a
>> company that services computers, and does networking and other
>> computer-related work (www.wetumpkatechnology.com). Not long ago, I was
>> called to a law office to diagnose a computer problem. Although I spent
>> two hours, I was unable to determine the cause of the problem. My
>> hourly rate is $90, but in this case I chose not to charge even the $35
>> rate I charge just to show up. I told them that I didn't find, much
>> less fix, the problem. I told them (well, wrote down for them) what to
>> say to the manufacturer to take the next step in resolving it.
>>
>> That law firm has become one of my best customers; I have worked on
>> their systems, and worked on the home PCs of some of the employees as well.
>>
>> Because they trust me not to 'em over on the price, and not to
>> bullshit with them. Because I took a chance and didn't charge them when
>> I couldn't help them.
>>
>> This economic model works; older people will tell you that that's how it
>> used to work all the time. It still does - or can.
>
> It works for me all day long at my favorite Honda dealership. But we
> have a relationship that goes back over 20 years.
>
> When some random Joe walks in the door, someone they've never see before
> and therefore never expect to see again, it's a crap shoot. They can do
> it your way, and probably never see the guy again--in fact, read
> postings on the Usenet about how "I screwed that stealer, he gave it to
> me"--or they could do it by the book.

I disagree that they are more likely to 'never seen the guy again' than
they are to see him come back when he has another problem. I think if
you take a rational examination of the responses you would get if you
proposed the situation to a reasonably large group of individuals, you
would find that I am right. But until you do so, it would be
conjecture. (FWIW I have done so; this kind of business behavior is
anathema to me. But I don't expect you to recognize my results as valid.)


> Given the number of people who have serious attitudes about dealership
> service, it's probably prudent nowadays for the dealer to charge in
> those circumstances. The dealership is better off waiting to see if a
> customer will be a long term customer, and then take care of him. It's
> probably not prudent for the dealer to give stuff away and hope that
> such a gesture is meaningful, in this day and age of people inherently
> distrusting the dealership for no reason other than "it's the
> stealership, what did you expect".

You're reversing cause and effect here, Elmo. There's a reason that
most people used to trust the dealer's shop, and there's a reason that
many (I have no idea what percentage, but I don't suppose it's 'most')
'have serious attitudes about dealer service'. In fact, it is probably
prudent for the dealer to address the issue -- just the way you say the
dealer addresses it with you, but not with new customers. If you enter
into regular business relationships with customers you feel are
basically dishonest, you are not going to succeed in the long run, at
least if there is competition.

There are always examples of any particular notion; there are no doubt
many people in this forum who could tell us true and accurate stories of
people who have ripped off dealers, for various and sundry reasons. The
mistake you've made in your last paragraph is simply the inclusion of
the word 'inherently' in your last sentence. This behavior is in fact
distinctly not inherent. It is a lesson that has been taught, learned
and reinforced.


RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.

Dave Kelsen

On 8/15/2004 9:37 AM Caroline spake these words of knowledge:


> "Dave Kelsen" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote
> snip
>> I know you asked Brian this question, but I'm going to answer; I have a
>> company that services computers, and does networking and other
>> computer-related work (www.wetumpkatechnology.com). Not long ago, I was
>> called to a law office to diagnose a computer problem. Although I spent
>> two hours, I was unable to determine the cause of the problem. My
>> hourly rate is $90, but in this case I chose not to charge even the $35
>> rate I charge just to show up. I told them that I didn't find, much
>> less fix, the problem. I told them (well, wrote down for them) what to
>> say to the manufacturer to take the next step in resolving it.
>
> You're comparing apples and oranges.

I compare business practices wherein I obtain diagnostic service to
business practices wherein I provide them. These are both the same
fruit. I suggest that what I did and the way I did it turned out to be
profitable for me and very satisfactory for the customer. I took a
chance that the customer would not call me the next time they had a
problem, or that they would only call me once more in the case that they
expected other kinds of service for little or nothing. I bet that the
members of the law firm would choose to believe that I am honest about
what I can and cannot do, and would understand that I am hesitant to
charge for effort rather than results. Both of these things are in fact
true.

I grant that in the case of the bulb, the dealer gave results but no
effort. I have not indicated that I believe they should not have been
compensated for it; rather, that I believe a fair (actually the word I
used was 'right') charge would reflect both of these aspects of the
business transaction. I used my own business as a example.


> What you did was essentially offer a teaser rate.

No. I would have charged the firm the book rate, had I been able to get
the proper result. I would not have charged them the book rate had I
only needed to, say, plug in the PC to the wall. Both aspects of the
transaction (effort and result), should be taken into account.


>> That law firm has become one of my best customers; I have worked on
>> their systems, and worked on the home PCs of some of the employees as well.
>
> You've simply undercut the market <shrug>.

I can't imagine where you get such an idea. <shrug>. What I did in
fact was make some people think I was honest. The firm and the people
there have become some of my best customers because after my second and
third time servicing something for them, they were convinced of it.


>> Because they trust me not to 'em over on the price, and not to
>> bullshit with them. Because I took a chance and didn't charge them when
>> I couldn't help them.
>>
>> This economic model works; older people will tell you that that's how it
>> used to work all the time. It still does - or can.
>
> So too does the economic model that a person's time is worth money. I don't care
> if a person is a doctor, a lawyer, a plumber, a nurse, or a car technician.

As is mine. I have explained why in addition to being exploitive, this
kind of business is less economically advantageous than a more honest
approach would be. How much time (i.e. money) was installing that bulb
worth?


> If shops are now charging time for attempting to diagnose a problem without
> solving the problem, they are merely taking a cue from the so-called white
> collar professions that have been doing this for years.
>
> No white collar professional has grounds to complain.

I gather from this last sentence that you did not actually read what I
wrote. I'm not sure why you bothered typing a response. I am a 'white
collar professional', and I have explained why I have grounds to
complain (i.e. it is unwise to make potential repeat customers feel that
they have been cheated by charging them an hourly rate of -- let's see,
from the example, if the bulb cost $2 and replacing took all of 5
minutes -- just over $1000). And yes, I recognize the fairness of using
a book rate, at least in some circumstances. The point is that when the
customer feels cheated, the customer looks elsewhere.

Finally, your penultimate sentence indicates that as long as some
individuals or companies are ing people over, it must be OK for
anyone to do it. That'll certainly sell in Peoria. Ah, well, as you
say: <shrug>.


RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
"Reality is that which when you stop believing in it doesn't go away."
- Philip K. Dick

Dave Kelsen

On 8/15/2004 9:37 AM Caroline spake these words of knowledge:


> "Dave Kelsen" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote
> snip
>> I know you asked Brian this question, but I'm going to answer; I have a
>> company that services computers, and does networking and other
>> computer-related work (www.wetumpkatechnology.com). Not long ago, I was
>> called to a law office to diagnose a computer problem. Although I spent
>> two hours, I was unable to determine the cause of the problem. My
>> hourly rate is $90, but in this case I chose not to charge even the $35
>> rate I charge just to show up. I told them that I didn't find, much
>> less fix, the problem. I told them (well, wrote down for them) what to
>> say to the manufacturer to take the next step in resolving it.
>
> You're comparing apples and oranges.

I compare business practices wherein I obtain diagnostic service to
business practices wherein I provide them. These are both the same
fruit. I suggest that what I did and the way I did it turned out to be
profitable for me and very satisfactory for the customer. I took a
chance that the customer would not call me the next time they had a
problem, or that they would only call me once more in the case that they
expected other kinds of service for little or nothing. I bet that the
members of the law firm would choose to believe that I am honest about
what I can and cannot do, and would understand that I am hesitant to
charge for effort rather than results. Both of these things are in fact
true.

I grant that in the case of the bulb, the dealer gave results but no
effort. I have not indicated that I believe they should not have been
compensated for it; rather, that I believe a fair (actually the word I
used was 'right') charge would reflect both of these aspects of the
business transaction. I used my own business as a example.


> What you did was essentially offer a teaser rate.

No. I would have charged the firm the book rate, had I been able to get
the proper result. I would not have charged them the book rate had I
only needed to, say, plug in the PC to the wall. Both aspects of the
transaction (effort and result), should be taken into account.


>> That law firm has become one of my best customers; I have worked on
>> their systems, and worked on the home PCs of some of the employees as well.
>
> You've simply undercut the market <shrug>.

I can't imagine where you get such an idea. <shrug>. What I did in
fact was make some people think I was honest. The firm and the people
there have become some of my best customers because after my second and
third time servicing something for them, they were convinced of it.


>> Because they trust me not to 'em over on the price, and not to
>> bullshit with them. Because I took a chance and didn't charge them when
>> I couldn't help them.
>>
>> This economic model works; older people will tell you that that's how it
>> used to work all the time. It still does - or can.
>
> So too does the economic model that a person's time is worth money. I don't care
> if a person is a doctor, a lawyer, a plumber, a nurse, or a car technician.

As is mine. I have explained why in addition to being exploitive, this
kind of business is less economically advantageous than a more honest
approach would be. How much time (i.e. money) was installing that bulb
worth?


> If shops are now charging time for attempting to diagnose a problem without
> solving the problem, they are merely taking a cue from the so-called white
> collar professions that have been doing this for years.
>
> No white collar professional has grounds to complain.

I gather from this last sentence that you did not actually read what I
wrote. I'm not sure why you bothered typing a response. I am a 'white
collar professional', and I have explained why I have grounds to
complain (i.e. it is unwise to make potential repeat customers feel that
they have been cheated by charging them an hourly rate of -- let's see,
from the example, if the bulb cost $2 and replacing took all of 5
minutes -- just over $1000). And yes, I recognize the fairness of using
a book rate, at least in some circumstances. The point is that when the
customer feels cheated, the customer looks elsewhere.

Finally, your penultimate sentence indicates that as long as some
individuals or companies are ing people over, it must be OK for
anyone to do it. That'll certainly sell in Peoria. Ah, well, as you
say: <shrug>.


RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
"Reality is that which when you stop believing in it doesn't go away."
- Philip K. Dick

Caroline

"Dave Kelsen" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote
snip
> I am a 'white
> collar professional', and I have explained why I have grounds to
> complain (i.e. it is unwise to make potential repeat customers feel that
> they have been cheated by charging them an hourly rate of -- let's see,
> from the example, if the bulb cost $2 and replacing took all of 5
> minutes -- just over $1000).

This was not a bulb replacement.

Do you understand what it means when a check engine light comes on?

The techs had to hook up the equipment and take a reading, otherwise, in my
judgment they would have been incompetent. Yes, one has to have some training to
know how to hook up a scanner, to know even that it can be done, take a reading,
and interpret it. IIRC, it doesn't say something as simple as "loose gas cap,"
though that is a pretty good guess, all things considered here.

Your opinion is noted. You can complain about anything you want. My opinion
remains you don't have grounds to do so in this instance.

> And yes, I recognize the fairness of using
> a book rate, at least in some circumstances. The point is that when the
> customer feels cheated, the customer looks elsewhere.

Yup, this is the bottom line.

> Finally, your penultimate sentence indicates that as long as some
> individuals or companies are ing people over, it must be OK for
> anyone to do it.

It's an economic fact of life that it's okay to charge whatever one can get.

The guy shoulda gone to an independent shop first. I think he has conceded as
much and wisely chalked this up to a lesson learned, as we all have at at least
one time or another.

I don't call this effing people over. That's rather unfair. I call it reality.

Caroline

"Dave Kelsen" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote
snip
> I am a 'white
> collar professional', and I have explained why I have grounds to
> complain (i.e. it is unwise to make potential repeat customers feel that
> they have been cheated by charging them an hourly rate of -- let's see,
> from the example, if the bulb cost $2 and replacing took all of 5
> minutes -- just over $1000).

This was not a bulb replacement.

Do you understand what it means when a check engine light comes on?

The techs had to hook up the equipment and take a reading, otherwise, in my
judgment they would have been incompetent. Yes, one has to have some training to
know how to hook up a scanner, to know even that it can be done, take a reading,
and interpret it. IIRC, it doesn't say something as simple as "loose gas cap,"
though that is a pretty good guess, all things considered here.

Your opinion is noted. You can complain about anything you want. My opinion
remains you don't have grounds to do so in this instance.

> And yes, I recognize the fairness of using
> a book rate, at least in some circumstances. The point is that when the
> customer feels cheated, the customer looks elsewhere.

Yup, this is the bottom line.

> Finally, your penultimate sentence indicates that as long as some
> individuals or companies are ing people over, it must be OK for
> anyone to do it.

It's an economic fact of life that it's okay to charge whatever one can get.

The guy shoulda gone to an independent shop first. I think he has conceded as
much and wisely chalked this up to a lesson learned, as we all have at at least
one time or another.

I don't call this effing people over. That's rather unfair. I call it reality.

Steve

In article <elmop-DAC296.07402715082004@text.usenetserver.com>,
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

> In article <wCBTc.34465$wM.11543@twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
> Dave Kelsen <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > It's free enterprise, of course; I don't have to take my Honda there for
> > service. But it isn't right, not by a long shot.
>
> If people pay for it, it's right.
>
> People pay five bucks for a cup of Starbucks coffee. That isn't right,
> not by a long shot. Are you suggesting that Starbucks ought not to be
> allowed to charge that for a cup of coffee?
>
> If people are willing to pay it, there's nothing wrong with charging it.

Stupid analogy.

Prices are posted in a Starbucks, you know what you are going to pay
when you place the order, no surprises.
If you don't want to pay it, you won't order because you know the price
beforehand.

He didn't get a price quote when he went in for service, got the bill,
was surprised by the amount.

That doesn't happen at Starbucks, it's not the same thing.

Then you say 'If people pay for it, it's right", and follow up with
"People pay five bucks for a cup of Starbucks coffee. That isn't right".

Obviously, this is not your day to make any sense.

The real analogy here, is that a cup of coffee at Starbucks costs $2
plus, for a big one. A $5 cup is a specialty drink, that takes
someone's time, and expertise to make competently, and that is what you
are paying for.

As far as this person's Gas Cap bill, the fact is that a lack of
knowledge will always cost you, either time or money.

Not asking questions beforehand - costs you, either time or money.

Diagnosing a loose gas cap, taking someone's time to do it, and using
someone's equipment and expertise, costs you if you can't do it yourself.

Steve

In article <elmop-DAC296.07402715082004@text.usenetserver.com>,
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

> In article <wCBTc.34465$wM.11543@twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
> Dave Kelsen <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > It's free enterprise, of course; I don't have to take my Honda there for
> > service. But it isn't right, not by a long shot.
>
> If people pay for it, it's right.
>
> People pay five bucks for a cup of Starbucks coffee. That isn't right,
> not by a long shot. Are you suggesting that Starbucks ought not to be
> allowed to charge that for a cup of coffee?
>
> If people are willing to pay it, there's nothing wrong with charging it.

Stupid analogy.

Prices are posted in a Starbucks, you know what you are going to pay
when you place the order, no surprises.
If you don't want to pay it, you won't order because you know the price
beforehand.

He didn't get a price quote when he went in for service, got the bill,
was surprised by the amount.

That doesn't happen at Starbucks, it's not the same thing.

Then you say 'If people pay for it, it's right", and follow up with
"People pay five bucks for a cup of Starbucks coffee. That isn't right".

Obviously, this is not your day to make any sense.

The real analogy here, is that a cup of coffee at Starbucks costs $2
plus, for a big one. A $5 cup is a specialty drink, that takes
someone's time, and expertise to make competently, and that is what you
are paying for.

As far as this person's Gas Cap bill, the fact is that a lack of
knowledge will always cost you, either time or money.

Not asking questions beforehand - costs you, either time or money.

Diagnosing a loose gas cap, taking someone's time to do it, and using
someone's equipment and expertise, costs you if you can't do it yourself.

Elmo P. Shagnasty

In article <Steve-6FFC91.03271516082004@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Steve <Steve@IHATESPAM.com> wrote:

> > People pay five bucks for a cup of Starbucks coffee. That isn't right,
> > not by a long shot. Are you suggesting that Starbucks ought not to be
> > allowed to charge that for a cup of coffee?
> >
> > If people are willing to pay it, there's nothing wrong with charging it.
>
> Stupid analogy.
>
> Prices are posted in a Starbucks, you know what you are going to pay
> when you place the order, no surprises.
> If you don't want to pay it, you won't order because you know the price
> beforehand.

And this differs from the car repair situation....how? Did he ask ahead
of time how much this would cost, or did he just say "fix it" without
asking how much?

I know of no dealer who does not give an estimate at the time the work
order is written, a minimum it would be. Further, you the customer have
to initial that estimate.

The minimum would be $86, because all they did was look at the code and
clear it. You know that, you sign for it, THEN they do the work. This
is NO different than Starbucks.



> He didn't get a price quote when he went in for service, got the bill,
> was surprised by the amount.

He got a quote. He just isn't telling us. Further, even if they didn't
offer a quote, why would he ask them to do the work without asking how
much? Either way, the onus is on him. If he wanted to act like Donald
Trump and just throw them the keys and say fix it, that's fine--but
don't bitch about what happens.