3 ms·
As somebody else noted: it doesn't have to be the company that does it, but a lower level employee who cuts a deal. So paying the company more wouldn't solve th
by TomVDB 8y ago
As somebody else noted: it doesn't have to be the company that does it, but a lower level employee who cuts a deal. So paying the company more wouldn't solve the issue completely.
All of these things are extremely cost sensitive. Your suggestion that people don't consider using economics is simply wrong. If you can manufacture a million pieces for a few cent less per piece, and the only negative is having to paying a bunch of inspectors who are fixed cost, it's an easy choice.
- dredmorbius 8y agoIf the solution to the problem involves line checks, independent audits, personnel checks, increased pay, etc., thenyes, throwing money at the problem is a large part of the solution.
- ericd 8y agoAnd again, you should make it the company's problem if they can't control their own employees. They can learn to put some controls in place once it starts hurting their bottom line.
- usefulcat 8y ago> All of these things are extremely cost sensitive. Say their profit margin is 1%. If you offer to pay them a 1% higher price, you're offering to nearly double their profits on whatever they sell to you. Admittedly, that only works if you are a sufficiently large portion of their business. If you're a tiny percentage, then it may take a lot more to motivate them if their other customers aren't willing to pay more.