That's precisely what Phrelin said, and I quote: "So I can comfortably say that I don't think it was unethical for a customer to add the DHPP for one month to address an issue, then drop it after getting the free/reduced rate repair. Just like Dish didn't feel obligated to notify current customers about the free Platinum, those who got the free/reduced rate repair were under no obligation to tell Dish about the apparent cost problem with their policy nor were the customers obligated to not save money."
You confuse me with someone that believes a company is a person or person-like entity. I simply believe it is unethical to lie, cheat or steal... whether that is stealing from an individual or from a company.
Likely it's just a difference in background.
Let me repeat myself. I got my free Platinum through interaction with a Dish CSR. And everyone who posted here about the DHPP interacted on the phone with CSRs and TSRs who themselves had to act to do what was requested. And all of it was in conformance to published policy. None of us lied, cheated, or stole.
To me, "steal" means "to take the property of another without permission." We all got permission to save money.
Perhaps we do see things differently. My view is I live in a world where Dish Network, Comcast, PG&E, AT&T, Verizon, my local bank, Bank of America, Ing Bank, Discover Bank, Chase Bank, Scottrade, Anthem Blue Cross, etc., all dance across my economic life with rather overwhelming volumes of paperwork all designed by expensive attorneys to assure that these corporations extract as much money from me as they can. My goal is to not give them more money for services rendered than I am obligated to give them as determined by their policies to which I have agreed to conform.
And given that caveat emptor
(let the buyer beware) is still the fundamental law of the capitalist jungle, I believe it is essential that we all seek the greatest value for our money within the framework of contracts we choose to enter into with large corporations.
Don't get me wrong. I like your idea of how the world should be. But I didn't shake Charlie's hand when I agreed to pay Dish for service, offering the assurance of two regular honest guys agreeing to operate with a common sense of fair play.
I signed a rather complicated legal contract with a corporation, a contract that many customers have trouble understanding, a contract in which the key financial provisions are essentially subject to change as determined by Dish, normally through habit in February, but this year in June also which will represent a $4 a month increase for me.
The contract was developed by highly paid attorneys whose assignment was to protect Dish's profit. Like most people, I don't have the money to hire an attorney to come over to my house and wait for the installer to arrive late, an installer who after the installation shoves the contract in front of me to sign. The state - which sanctions how banks, oil companies, and other questionable corporations operate - doesn't offer funds for me to hire an attorney to read Dish's contract either.
And I couldn't negotiate with Dish on the terms of the contract anyway, partly because many of the terms are essentially referenced to other written documents. It's take it or leave it, caveat emptor
. (The fact that none of the three guys who showed up to do the installation when I went to HD could have sufficiently understood legalese in English to explain the contract to me should be noted as further proof that the arrangement was not between a person and another person with any common sense of fair play.)
As Chief Justice Marshall explained in Laidlaw v. Organ
, 15 U.S. 178 (1817), establishing caveat emptor
as the law of the land: "It would be difficult to circumscribe the contrary doctrine within proper limits, where the means of intelligence are equally accessible to both parties. But at the same time, each party must take care not to say or do any thing tending to impose upon [i.e. take advantage of] the other."
I take reasonable care not to take advantage of Dish Network. But I'll be darned if I'm going to allow Dish Network to take advantage of me and pay them more than they, through their written policies, tell me I obligated to pay.
I do not consider that stealing from them.
And at no time do I think that the terms of the contract between Dish and its customers constitutes a situation "where the means of intelligence are equally accessible to both parties." Dish writes new policy frequently. They don't drop me a note explaining it. I have to come to this Forum where someone else notes the new policy and we all explore what it means, sometimes saving us money but mostly not.
It isn't a situation where Charlie and I sit down for a beer and to negotiate the new rates, where my sense of fair play meets his sense of fair play, and we come to a mutual agreement.
I could still do that with the guy who built my fence last year. There are other opportunities for that approach in my world. But none of those large corporations getting my money on a regular basis fit that model. With them, I must operate in a world of writing and law, not interpersonal ethics and handshakes.
Finally, IMHO if I and these corporations had a common sense of fair play, I wouldn't frequently find myself talking to someone in Asia about a problem or read that someone in Asia is processing my banking transactions or learn that my new iPad was en route from China where it was manufactured. Because there was a time in my lifetime these things were done for American corporations exclusively by American workers, I determined that what I thought was "fair play" wasn't a shared opinion in the larger world of big corporations.