Port Supply problems

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

Some people clearly understand why this isn't ethical; others do not. That doesn't speak well of the latter group. Regardless of how one rationalizes it.

Still no explanation...(sorry Jolly, but I'll use Shrew's excuses #1 and 2 as my ethical rationalization). Looking forward to an education from my betters.

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Still no explanation...(sorry Jolly, but I'll use Shrew's excuses #1 and 2 as my ethical rationalization). Looking forward to an education from my betters.

Your sarcasm aside, I say this without hopelly sounding condescending as it isn't intended as such - I could give you an explanation but it's apparent I can't make you understand. It's an integrity issue.

Try reading the PS member agreement and come back with any questions.

[Jolly Roger]

All I want to do is mitigate my boating costs, I didn’t expect to start a sanctimonious discussion about buying ethics. If trying to buy at the lowest price is unethical, than half the yachtsmen in the world are guilty. The other half are just dumb—and broke.

[svninkasi]

I have a decent one and most of the time i can beat it with defender, ebay, and amazon. Just have to have patience and check around.

[Red Sky]

Those without ethics are unable to see their own lack of said ethics.

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by Jolly Roger

All I want to do is mitigate my boating costs, I didn’t expect to start a sanctimonious discussion about buying ethics. If trying to buy at the lowest price is unethical, than half the yachtsmen in the world are guilty. The other half are just dumb—and broke.

You conflate how one buys with the price one pays. And it's inappropriate to label people who don't break the rules as "dumb". When did it become fashionable to criticize people who are ethical?

[Suijin]

In Annapolis West Marine cracked down on use of port supply accounts. Everyone started going elsewhere, like Fawcetts, two blocks away. So West Marine got lax again. Revenue is king.

Their new price matching policy is in the same vein. They want people being frequent customers. They want revenue, even at a lower margin.

Just because it’s “supposed” to be for commercial customers only does not mean that it really is. If they were actually losing money as a result of it you can bet that they would change it.

If I tell you that you can only buy a pencil from me if you have red hair, and then sell it to you anyway, does that mean you’ve acted unethically by letting me sell it to you?

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

Your sarcasm aside, I say this without hopelly sounding condescending as it isn't intended as such - I could give you an explanation but it's apparent I can't make you understand. It's an integrity issue.

Try reading the PS member agreement and come back with any questions.

And yet again, no explanation--and worse yet, a negative assumption about my personal ability to understand a well-made argument, plus the apparent assumption that participating in a corrupt system (corporate capitalism) somehow influences and/or dictates (what you fail to define as) my 'ethics'.

Let me help.

S/V Illusion, "Well, Jim, If you sign an agreement agreeing to "X" conditions(s), and then fail to uphold those conditions, then you're being unethical."

Or, to use Shrew's hyperbole, 'incredibly unethical'.

The real 'ethical question' here would be, 'if an action agreed to by all parties is, or turns out to be, detrimental to all parties, should it be acceptable to work within or around the agreed action to benefit all?'. The stand both West and Jolly Roger appear to take is that it is acceptable.

Sounds to be a bit like 'outsider jealousy' (but of course we can't be sure since none of the ethics experts have bothered to make an argument, or even their case, clear). Does seem to me that you're conflating 'capitalistic morality' (if we can stand such an odd oxymoron) with whatever you're trying to define as 'ethics'...

Originally Posted by Red Sky

Those without ethics are unable to see their own lack of said ethics.

Yes, of course, 'ethics' are in the eyes of the beholder, as your quip so clearly demonstrates. (hope you recognize the mild sarcasm)

Originally Posted by Jolly Roger

All I want to do is mitigate my boating costs, I didn’t expect to start a sanctimonious discussion about buying ethics. If trying to buy at the lowest price is unethical, than half the yachtsmen in the world are guilty. The other half are just dumb—and broke.

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

You conflate how one buys with the price one pays. And it's inappropriate to label people who don't break the rules as "dumb". When did it become fashionable to criticize people who are ethical?

Fashionability aside, when did making an observation about an action that, at least in one sense of the word, accurately describes that action become a (I assume you mean negative) 'criticism'?


And with that, I hope to leave it to those with 'better' ethics than mine...

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by Suijin

In Annapolis West Marine cracked down on use of port supply accounts. Everyone started going elsewhere, like Fawcetts, two blocks away. So West Marine got lax again. Revenue is king.

Their new price matching policy is in the same vein. They want people being frequent customers. They want revenue, even at a lower margin.

Just because it’s “supposed” to be for commercial customers only does not mean that it really is. If they were actually losing money as a result of it you can bet that they would change it.

If I tell you that you can only buy a pencil from me if you have red hair, and then sell it to you anyway, does that mean you’ve acted unethically by letting me sell it to you?

They make the rules. They can change them. As to the pencil argument, why trivialize the principle except to rationalize breaking the rules?

[Capt.Don]

There's a subtle difference in asking complete strangers for their PS account vs. linking a friend's or associate's account. Ethics aside, it was very forward for OP to make this request of complete strangers.

As said by others -- I too find better deals on the internet (Defender, Hamilton Marine, FisheriersSupply, Go2Marine......) -- there's nothing I'm doing that can't wait a day or two for the item to arrive. I usually save on sales tax and most of the time have free shipping. The only thing I seem to buy at West Marine is line with their 30%-40% sale!

[smj]

Originally Posted by Jolly Roger

All I want to do is mitigate my boating costs, I didn’t expect to start a sanctimonious discussion about buying ethics. If trying to buy at the lowest price is unethical, than half the yachtsmen in the world are guilty. The other half are just dumb—and broke.

Your mitigating of your boating costs only drives up the costs for those that are being honest and paying full price.
The Port Supply Policy is that PS is for commercial accounts and can have signers that work for the business and the materials bought through PS are to be used in the business. If caught your privilege as a signer on the account would be taken away and the business your signing on will probably have their PS account deleted. So in my books it breaks the PS policy so is unethical. If you'd like, PM me your name address and phone number and I'll have my wife hand it over to WM home office, I'm sure they can let you know wether they consider it ethical or not.


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[Suijin]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

They make the rules. They can change them. As to the pencil argument, why trivialize the principle except to rationalize breaking the rules?

They make the rules, but don’t enforce them. There’s a reason for that.

As for the pencil analogy, the point was simplification. Substitute a $4k dinghy for the pencil and the lack of checking your name for the color of your hair and you have the same result.

I bet a good number of those talking about ethics exceeded the speed limit by 5mph or jaywalked at least once this week. And those are actual laws, not some marine supply store policy that they don’t even bother to enforce. Sheesh.

[smj]

Originally Posted by Suijin

They make the rules, but don’t enforce them. There’s a reason for that.

As for the pencil analogy, the point was simplification. Substitute a $4k dinghy for the pencil and the lack of checking your name for the color of your hair and you have the same result.

I bet a good number of those talking about ethics exceeded the speed limit by 5mph or jaywalked at least once this week. And those are actual laws, not some marine supply store policy that they don’t even bother to enforce. Sheesh.

You sure they don’t enforce it?

[Jolly Roger]

Okay, here’s the thing. I had no idea of the specific rules when the broker who I bought my boat through offered to put me on his account. I had actually never even heard of Port Supply, not having owned a boat in the US. Since it needed a lot of repairs and new parts, (which, by the way, he knew all about), I happily accepted his gesture and there was never any hiccup of any kind.
He later told me my purchases lifted his account to the top level of discount, so he and the others on the account, (no doubt all unethical robbers as well), benefited as well. West Marine also benefited because as Jimbunyard points out, 100% profit on a no-sale is zero, but any profit on a sale is still profit. No profit is what WM get from me at the moment.
Are all the holier-than-thou repliers here seriously telling us they would not have accepted the offer if they had known PS was only “supposed” to be used by “commercial” operators—which he was? That’s going to take some persuasion.
As to my initial query; I make no excuse for it. “Nothing ventured, nothing gained,” (at least I didn’t think so until now), because I thought I was offering a genuinely mutually beneficial arrangement all round, including WM. If nobody comes forward, then I will continue buying from the best source I can find. I certainly don’t want to compromise anyone's account.
It wouldn’t surprise me though, for someone to retort that I should be buying from West Marine at full price, to pay them back for all the discounts I’ve unethically received.
And just to throw another wrench in my broken post. Someone asked what had happened to ethics in this day and age. Donald Trump, and his ethics devoid gang is what’s happened! Ethics start at the top and trickle down, and at the moment it’s a river.
This is my 1000’th post and I certainly didn’t plan on it being like this.

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by Suijin

They make the rules, but don’t enforce them. There’s a reason for that.

As for the pencil analogy, the point was simplification. Substitute a $4k dinghy for the pencil and the lack of checking your name for the color of your hair and you have the same result.

I bet a good number of those talking about ethics exceeded the speed limit by 5mph or jaywalked at least once this week. And those are actual laws, not some marine supply store policy that they don’t even bother to enforce. Sheesh.

Nice rationalization... as if the magnitude of the cost is relevant.

Now, why don't you call PS on the phone and ask them if they consider it acceptable? I did and I'd bet you can guess their response.