4 ms·
The way I see it, Amazon accepted this risk of losses because they make more money by skipping additional QC checks. If people stopped generously returning pro
by jiggunjer 4y ago
The way I see it, Amazon accepted this risk of losses because they make more money by skipping additional QC checks.
If people stopped generously returning profits maybe they'd get their orders right more often?
- mritun 4y agoI can’t speak for my employer but respectfully, that’s not true at all.
- WalterBright 4y agoAccepting a risk of loss is not granting a license to steal.
- amanaplanacanal 4y agoAt least in the US, I believe you are not required to send back things that are sent to you by mistake. Not sure I would call it stealing in that case.
- WalterBright 4y agoJust because you aren't required to doesn't change anything. You might be surprised how much people appreciate others doing more for them than is required.
- jiggunjer 4y agoAre you "stealing" if someone delivers their tv into your possession and never asks for it back? Your awareness of their mistake doesn't obligate you to correct it, especially when the mistake is easily avoided and fixing is a non-trivial effort. In the case of a business, I wouldn't be surprised if they count on exploiting that free labor in their cost projections.
- tekknik 4y ago> Are you "stealing" if someone delivers their tv into your possession and never asks for it back? by law no, but if this were a mom and pop operation, would you then return the TV? if so, then you know it’s wrong.