Only if there's an actual crisis. Then I have rehearsed responses ready. Pretty rare, tho.
Obviously, the point of worrying is that if you don't worry the thing is more likely to happen, for the reason that it would be just too coincidental if you worried about it, and then it ended up happening.
Similarly, one carries an umbrella to ward off rain.
I do carry an umbrella to ward off rain. But that's just common sense.
(Actually, it's the only superstition I allow myself to indulge.)
Is fretting, about things that really are going to happen and have to be dealt with (say, work problems) distinct from worrying? That is, are you restricting 'worrying' only for things that are likely to never happen at all?
Similarly, one carries an umbrella to ward off rain.
And bombs onto airplanes.
5: Because what are the odds that there'd be two?
So: on the occasion that the object of your worry does come true, does the worrying make you more readily able to deal with the emotional fallout? Is there any protective benefit in that one case?
Maybe, if you act on the worrying. I think my dad worries about losing his mind in his old age. His father had Alzheimer's and he recently took care of putting an elderly relative in a nursing home. He came back by that stressed by all putting-affairs-in-order stuff - 20-year-old bank statements, antiques that are probably worthless but you never know, etc. He has resolved to simplify his own life and not leave such a mess for my sister and I. If he does, it won't keep him from losing his own mind (hell, it would probably hasten it), but at least it will mean he can stop worrying about being a burden on us, not having control over what happens to him later, etc.
Short answer: maybe!
Also, OT question: what's the preferred blog-hosting site these days? I have a personal blog I update now and then and mainly use as a link depository, but I've been writing about work more these days and plan (well, hope) to do it even more than that and I'm a little bit worried about anonymity, so maybe I shouldn't put work details on the same blog as my personal life going back eight years.
what's the preferred blog-hosting site these days?
LiveJournal!
Maybe, if you act on the worrying.
Ideally, if you take reasonable measures based on a worry, that should alleviate the worry. And sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. Does continuing to worry offer anything protective?
Is fretting, about things that really are going to happen and have to be dealt with (say, work problems) distinct from worrying? That is, are you restricting 'worrying' only for things that are likely to never happen at all?
Hmmm. I think I'm restricting worrying to events that are unlikely to happen in the immediate future.
I learned some time ago, after one of the very, very bad natural disasters that the world seems to be full of, that a professional with whom I had worked on a transaction a few years back had, in the disaster itself, lost his wife and two very young children. I try to think of that when I catch myself worrying about tomorrow or complaining about today.
More eloquently, some guy:
"Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? ...."
I wish my parents would worry about one or the other of them needing long-term care: they're not divorced, but have been informally separated and not speaking to each other for fifteen years. If either of them ends up in a nursing home, I think the other gets impoverished. I've brought this up, but I have absolutely no effect on their behavior.
3: G.H. Hardy used to do this too, on related grounds, so I'm totally going to assume that the reasoning is sound.
I wish my parents would worry about one or the other of them needing long-term care:
Well, to nit-pick in the spirit of the OP, presumably you wish your parents would take action that addresses the possibility that one or both might need long-term care. You don't really care about them worrying per se.
3, 16: In the abdominal-muscle-shreddingly-bad '90s movie version of The Avengers, Sean Connery tells Ralph Fiennes' John Steed, at one point, that "[t]he man who carries an umbrella is afraid of rain." I gather that this misses the point of Steed's umbrella, which is to underline his toffy, public-school-prefect background or something like that, but still, Connery has a point.*
* "Just like your mother did last night, Trebek."
(But that sounds worrisome. I forgot to have compassion for a moment.)
Something I'm not actually worried about.
15: Huh. So you don't even have to be a practicing-Catholic Irish Catholic to do this?
Nope. Mom was raised Catholic, but hasn't been observant since she got married to Dad, who's raised Methodist practicing atheist. They went to an Episcopalian church for a while, but quit in the mid-70's after the priest stole Mom's sewing machine.
They're just both really avoidant, and don't want to get involved in splitting up their assets. I think each is secretly hoping that one of them will die suddenly without having a period of significant ill-health first, thus avoiding the issue.
They went to an Episcopalian church for a while, but quit in the mid-70's after the priest stole Mom's sewing machine.
Sheesh. Even episcopal scandals are dull.
I have anxiety and shame pretty bad, but not worry. I sometimes wonder if worry particularly affects parents, because there's this being that is out there that you're responsible for but not always literally with, but whose welfare you have more than reasonable (in my mother's own case) concern for, to the point that you are driven nearly insane by the wisp of a thought that anything bad could ever happen to her. I don't think I could handle that stress. I was a nanny for a while, and just putting the kid in my car to drive to the museum made me crazy.
In fact, I am able to use my lack of worry to help treat my anxiety and shame. I do not worry about a friend going on a job interview and everyone thinking she's a shithead because she's not, so why should I be anxious about myself? I don't hold it against a friend that he was kind of a dick to me, so why let it eat me up for years that I was kind of a dick to someone?
I am not immune to worry, of course, but I have it less bad than my mom, who is barely functional due to worry.
25: That sounds depressingly familiar.
I mostly don't worry at all about my kids, which makes it startling when it kicks in. I went on a longish bike ride with the kids a couple of weeks ago, and hung back with Newt while Sally tore off ahead of us. And found myself really sweating about "What if she gets lost (absurd, given the geometry of the bike path and where we live), or gets hurt and I'm not right there?" It's a surprisingly upsetting feeling, as someone who hardly ever feels that way: usually I'm blithely confident that they'll manage fine with whatever happens to them.
27: way to get in some recreational riding!
I have been alarmed to discover, recently, that the last stronghold of my confidence, which is my ability to perform in front of a formal audience, has been taken captive. I get bad anxiety one-on-one, and small groups have always been impossible for me, but the one thing I could do without any fear at all was talk with ease and fluency in front of an audience. (This used to make me nervous, too, of course, but I got control of it during high school.) Recently I've been getting heart palpitations and such. God, I hope this is a phase.
When my baby sibs were three and five (four and six?), we were hiking up on dirt Mulholland Blvd. Let the kids run ahead, maybe 100 yards. But I could see them, so what could happen?
Then we heard what sounded like a mountain lion growl and I had the most shocking feeling. 100 yards is TOO FAR! That instant of adding in a new threat and re-evaluating felt pretty drastic.
Anyway, they ran to me, I ran to them. Don't remember how, but I had each of 'em sitting on a shoulder in a second. Told them to put their hands in the air, in hopes that a lion wouldn't want to charge an eight-foot, three-headed monster.
We never saw it, so maybe it was an overhead jet or a great dane or something. I don't even know whether mountain lions growl before they charge. But I'll never forget that instant of knowing I couldn't get to the kids before a lion did.
(Not that my being right next to them could necessarily change anything about a mountain lion charge.)
31: I wasn't going to say nothin'.
The important thing is not that the mountain lion could get to them before you did. It's that the mountain lion could get to them before getting to you.
"Kids! Run in opposite directions so that at least one of you will survive to adulthood and reproduce!"
34: If they have genes worth preserving, they'll do this instinctively.
Then we heard what sounded like a mountain lion growl
One more data point for "California is, properly considered, uninhabitable."
36: I'm not actually sure driving all large predators to extinction is the best-considered precondition for habitability.
Extinct? Eh. Excluded from the city limits of your major metropolises? That I'm all for.
If wolves and cougars weren't extinct on the eastern seaboard I suspect they would find habitat somewhere within the city limits of New York (maybe some of that weird wasteland on the coast in queens where feral dogs attack people). Probably not on Manhattan, sure, but Manhattan has less 5000 foot peaks than the city of Los Angeles.
If I had to vote for "Unfogged commenter most likely to be able to kick a mountain lion's ass", I think Megan would be the one.
If I'm remembering some popular press write-up of research accurately, one of the surprising findings from putting radio tags on mountain lions in the San Diego area is how far and how frequently they went into urban areas. There hadn't been sightings.
We're used to having coyotes in the suburbs, of course. Like your feral dog population, I guess.
Well, I am an eight-foot, three-headed monster.
Gswift is probably the commenter most likely to be armed at any given time -- while a handgun isn't ideal as an anti-lion weapon, I'd bet on him over anyone engaging in hand-to-paw/fang combat.
Coyotes are everywhere. Including Manhattan.
45: WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO ABOUT IT?
44: Yeah, we get the very occasional confused coyote. And the park down my street has skunks, which are cool. They are very clearly aware that they need to take no shit from anybody -- you occasionally see one strolling down the sidewalk expecting people to get out of its way.
We had coyotes in the middle of the country where I grew up, too. It's a good reason not to get an electric fence, which for some reason douchebags around KC always do.
There was a sighting of a lion a few years ago in a suburb of my fair city. There was great panic and excitement, but it turned out to be merely another mass hallucination.
I have anxiety and shame pretty bad, but not worry.
How does worry differ from some intersection of these? Is it that anxiety is more diffuse, and shame is backward- rather than forward-pointing?
The secret to withdrawal from a mountain lion situation is a measured and urbane politesse, accompanied by steady rearward advance. My folks have coyotes, up by KR's PDBS. Bear one time, too.
I think worry has more to do with future or otherwise unknown events. Anxiety is, god I don't even know but it's awful and totally formless, and shame is about things I have done or want to do.
I am good at fixing my anxiety onto any passingly plausible object, so the two end up tightly entwined for me.
53: Hmmm... maybe...
Reminds me of that wonderful song the Eagles wrote about my hamster that was actually a lion in disguise.
You can't hide your lion eyes
We're used to having coyotes in the suburbs, of course.LikeReduce your feral dog population, I guess.
I'll have a longer response but first I want to quote this again, because it's apt.
Don't worry 'bout the future, you can't afford the price.
There's madness to the method when you pay the piper twice.
Once when you start to worry,
once again when you begin to take the future on the chin.
I know that you think worry is your ever-faithful friend,
cuz nothin' that you worry over ever happens in the end.
And there might be somethin' to it, but it sure gets in the way of fun today.
My advice to compulsive worriers is to get open heart surgery. It completely resets your fretting priorities, so that you no longer worry AT ALL about anything non-lethal or anything you can't personally fix.
This could be a slightly extreme solution, but you may be able to find less radical life events which have the same effect.
Related, you could try surviving an aeroplane crash. Studies have shown (really) that crash survivors are much less likely to suffer from mental illness, anxiety or depression.
58: I would do that, except that I'd worry that my insurance wouldn't cover elective open heart surgery.
Studies have shown (really) that crash survivors are much less likely to suffer from mental illness, anxiety or depression.
And non-survivors, even less than that!
Now that I've read the thread it's possible that Panther In Michigan would have been the more appropriate song.
C'mon, there have to be some fans of the venture bros. here.
67: Thanks for reminding me that awesome show exists. I've only ever seen a few episodes, though.
The other day there was an article on a couple wolves attacking a mother, her toddler and their small dog in the middle of the day in Sweden. One snatched the dog, the other started moving towards the baby. The mother jumped in front and started screaming and waving her arms at the wolf, which promptly ran away. I found that sort of reassuring in the 'no, most predators do not want to fuck with humans, we're too dangerous to be safe prey'. Also read somewhere that lions will cede their kills when confronted by humans carrying long sticks.
We are very large animals, as animals go.
I sometimes wonder if worry particularly affects parents
I wonder if other parents worry as much as I do and just don't say anything about it. My mom had a picture in her office of a birthday balloon being extracted from a dead 8-year-old girl's lung, so I worry about that, and she did the death investigation of a 12-year-old who was murdered by a couple of teenage boys, so I worry about that, and she had plenty of other cases involving kids dying in various ways, so I worry about those. And I had a cousin who was struck and killed by a car when she was the same age my daughters are now, so I worry about that. Maybe I wouldn't worry so much if I didn't grow up being reminded of death all the time.
Also, my daughters saw (one of) the neighborhood coyote(s) the other day, but I'm not so much worried about that, since there are plenty of tasty cats around.
I don't worry as much as you do, but I do worry that good parents worry more than I do.
re: 70
Humans are, contra all that shit about us being soft hairless bipeds, pretty fucking bad-ass. It only takes a stick or a hefty rock to even the score with almost anything short of a big cat or a bear.
but Manhattan has less 5000 foot peaks than the city of Los Angeles
Is there some quality to the Manhattan peaks that makes them uncountable, Mr. Tweety?
re: 76
Against most of the things most people are likely to encounter in the wild, and against all those except the rhino, it'd only take a couple of hairless bipeds with sticks to even the score. There's a reason we predate fucking everything.
If I got more predate fucking, I wouldn't have to go on dates.
If I got more predate fucking, I'd eat fewer dates, what with the post-coital sleepiness.
Possibly if you did, there'd be more fucking.
it'd only take a couple of hairless meat eating, badass bipeds with sticks to even the score.
FTFY.
74, 78: Except for bacteria. And viruses.
65, 67: "Speedsuit, Dean Dona Quixote. I don't want to hear you say 'jumpsuit': not ever again!"
I was hiking with my three year old a few weeks ago, and she suddenly said "Look Daddy, a wolf." I thought "hahahaha here comes some more crazy talk," but then a large coyote ran out about 10 feet away from us. That was scary for about 10 seconds but mostly super cool.
Clearly, you're raising a badass cavekid. (Sally's baby-nickname was, in fact, Clan of the Cave Baby. She had this sort of tousledly purposeful, primitive look about her.)
In a few years that cavekid will need a good belt knife to hike with. I'm partial to the ESEE line.
89: Why buy a knife when chunks of obsidian are just lying around? It's like volcanoes are giving the stuff away!
Those are pretty sweet, but so far our only hikes have been in city parks, where a knife might be necessary but not for wilderness-related reasons.
Remember when Rupert Murdoch wanted to buy the Dodgers? And baseball wasn't run by a shambling imbecile with a haircut that my high school vice principal would have shunned?
Remember when Rupert Murdoch wanted to buy the Dodgers?
When they were still in Brooklyn?
I remember when Robert Maxwell bought Oxford United and wanted to buy Reading and merge them. Asilon and ttaM will appreciate how this idea went down with the fans on both sides.
74, 78: Except for bacteria. And viruses.
Nope, one human vs. one bacterium or one virus will be a pushover virtually every time. It's just that the little blighters tend to gang up on us.
My mom had a picture in her office of a birthday balloon being extracted from a dead 8-year-old girl's lung
Jesus, why? My mom is an insane worrier, too, and was obsessed with stories of little girls getting kidnapped, so she wouldn't let me out of her sight, which was ridiculous and borderline-abusive, and got worse as I got older until I was in high school, but gruesome pictures like this in a public workplace?
Isn't JMcQ's mother a medical examiner or similar?
||
Advice question: at what point does it become permissible to disregard a bill? I have a bill for about $1,400 for some work that was done to my house last August. Part of the work was done incorrectly (a very small part), and I told them they needed to come out and fix it before I would pay the bill. That was early September. And then I waited. And waited. And then in early October I sent a follow up note saying "I'm really not paying your bill until you come fix this." And I waited, and waited some more, but I haven't ever gotten a response or any follow-up bills or late payment notices, etc. It's now mid-April.
The thing is, I'd like to correct the stuff that was done wrong, and if they're not going to come back and do it then I'd like to go ahead and do it myself. But I feel like if I do that then I'll be obligated to send them their payment, since I won't have any basis for withholding the payment any longer. And that doesn't seem right either, if I have to fix it myself. (Subtracting off my costs for materials, etc. would be a trivial amount.)
If I fix correct the problems, am I morally obligated just to go ahead and pay the bill? Or do I have to wait until the statute of limitations runs before I correct the flawed work?
|>
Can you get someone else professional to do the fix, pay them, subtract their bill and send the remainder to the bad contractor with a letter explaining? (You could do the same if you did it yourself, just paying yourself a reasonable hourly rate, but I could see feeling sketchier about that.)
Really, I think it comes down to how small is small. If the work was all fucked up, I wouldn't feel bad about stiffing them at all. But it sounds as if they basically did the job, you were just holding up payment as leverage rather than because they didn't deserve most of it. At which point I'd fix it and pay them.
You've been more than patient. Fix it yourself and don't send them a dime. They've decided to cut their losses on it. Construction guys don't wait 8 months and then decide to resolve the issue.
99 is correct. I should ask her why she had that specific photo visible in her office (which wasn't a public space), but I saw a lot of stuff that like growing up, on visits to her office and the morgue.
But it sounds as if they basically did the job, you were just holding up payment as leverage rather than because they didn't deserve most of it.
This is 100% correct. But factually, I think 102 is also likely completely correct.
102 is probably right that they're not going to come after you for it. Maybe split the difference? Fix it, keep the records of what the fix cost, and if the bad contractor ever resurfaces and asks for payment, pay them then. It probably won't come up.
That seems like taking advantage of someone else's administrative incompetence.
urple, are you looking for ethical or for CYA advice? If the former, go with 101; if the latter, go with 102.
You've contacted them twice, and the work they were supposed to do was presumably covered in the contract. The ball's in their court.
107: I'm not sure what "CYA advice" means exactly. I think I'm looknig for confirmation that 102 isn't unethical, since it sort of feels that way to me.
110: Right, I know that, but I guess I didn't know how t you meant that as applied in this context. CYA legally? (In that case 102 doesn't seem like the answer you would suggest.) CYA ethically? I just didn't know what you meant.
102 seems somewhat unethical to me as well. urple hasn't said how big an outfit these contractors are, but if they're small, follow-up may not be their strong suit, yet at the same time, stinting them any money whatsoever seems harsh, and frankly unethical in light of the economic straits of small businesses these days.
112: Oh, I guess I mean you'll probably get away with it. If they were to come after you, you can document that you told them you'd pay once the job was completed.
parsimon makes good points about the size of the business, though I don't think that by definition makes 102 wildly unethical. You're (presumably) not stiffing someone who's living hand-to-mouth or exploiting some power you have in order not to pay.
But if you want to go for straight up mensch, pay for the work that was done correctly, with whatever discount for the unfinished work and the hassle you think is appropriate, whether or not you hire another professional.
If you're actually worried about the ethics, go with 101. They did significant useful work for you, and not paying them because it wasn't perfect and they're bozos about communication isn't right. (I'd flip if the required fix were significant in comparison to all the work, but you're clear that it isn't.)
I wouldn't feel terribly about not paying them if they never get in touch, but it's not actually the right thing to do.
Pwned by Sir Kraab, and I like "straight up mensch."
pay for the work that was done correctly, with whatever discount for the unfinished work and the hassle you think is appropriate, whether or not you hire another professional
Sending them payment for something less than the full bill just seems like an invitation for them start complaining about the missing amount, which would make me very unhappy.
102 is not unethical, wildly or otherwise. If they need the money, they'll follow up. Did you sign a contract?
(Unless I actually did hire someone else to do it, but that would be ludicrously wasteful.)
120 to 118.
I don't think I signed a contract, no--they quoted a price up front, and I said okay. The bill was for the price they quoted.
102 doesn't seem remotely unethical given the nature of the business of contracting. If they're a small business who needs the money desperately, they would have followed up, and they certainly could do so -- don't these things ordinarily get done by a mechanics lien?
If they come back and ask for a discounted bill and you negotiate one with them, fine, but I don't think you have an obligation to preemptively pay them.
(Although it might be easier for you psychologically to just call them up, say, look, you haven't pursued this for months and there's no way I'm paying you the full amount unless you do the job right, but how about I just pay you X and we call it a day; that way you could just budget the money instead of living in fear that they'll show up with a demand or a lien).
gswift and Jesus versus LB, parsi, and me. Cage match!
like an invitation for them start complaining about the missing amount
If that's a real concern, then do my 105 -- fix, pay the discounted bill if they ever ask, and don't worry about it. If you wanted to be a good person, you could set an alarm for the statute of limitations, and give the balance to charity so you don't get a windfall out of their being bozos.
Uh oh. If Halford's getting into it, we might need Megan.
I think Halford's right that they don't need the money desperately or they'd have asked, but I also don't think their need is ethically important. You owe them the money because they did the work, and would even if they were swimming in vats of gold coins.
Halford joins our side! Urple has already made efforts to settle the situation; he's fulfilled his ethical obligations.
If you wanted to be a good person, you could set an alarm for the statute of limitations, and give the balance to charity so you don't get a windfall out of their being bozos.
Why is it unethical to get a windfall from their being bozos? They're a business.
The part that's weird to me is that roughly $1000 of the $1400 bill was the actual cost of an appliance, which I'd ordered from a third party but they paid for (and then just added that cost in my bill). Or at least I presume they paid the third party. I haven't heard from the third party, either.
129: That's weird. Maybe they're not so much "contractors" as "fences."
You owe them the money because they did the work
But they didn't do the work. He owes some money for some work, but they've not only not agreed to complete the work, they're not even agreeing to settle the payment. Incidentally, my views on this are colored by my last experience with awful contractors, but the point stands.
Why is it unethical to get a windfall from their being bozos? They're a business.
So if a business gives you the wrong change, it's ethical to keep it as long as you don't bankrupt them?
I've got a strong tipping point reaction on the uncompleted work. I'd agree with you if the flaw in the work were a big deal, but it doesn't seem to be.
133: Yeah, Halford doesn't have a leg to stand on with that moral reasoning.
I've lost track a bit: the contractors/installers haven't contacted you (urple) at all since the initial bill in September, and you haven't even paid for the $1000 appliance itself?
If you had overpaid you'd want them to make an effort to get your money back to you. Put in the same amount of effort you'd like them to invest in paying you back.
Another way to put it is that if they came back and said "We're not returning to fix anything, but pay us," it seems clear to me that Urple would owe them their bill minus the cost of the fix. The failure to do a complete job doesn't mean that they aren't entitled to be paid for the work they did.
The work is definitely "substantially complete", as they say. OTOH, I didn't gin this up as a way to attempt to screw them--it's something legitimately wrong with what they did, that there's no way they didn't realize they were doing it, and I was annoyed initially because it was more indicative of pure laziness on their part than anything else. But I also never initially imagined they wouldn't just come fix it. I would cost me somewhere between nothing and next to nothing to fix, but would probably take 2-3 hours. Someone with the proper tools and experience could, I bet, do it in 15-20 minutes.
I'd hire someone, whether or not it seems wasteful. It covers you better when you send the original guys the discounted payment, and is less trouble for you -- you aren't obliged to put yourself out to mitigate as cheaply as possible by doing it yourself.
(BTW, anonymity and all that is all very well, but would it compromise security too much to tell us what the job was and what's wrong with it?)
"We're not returning to fix anything, but pay us,"
See, no, that would warrant a "go fuck yourself." (You might be right on the law, I guess, but now I'm talking ethics.)
I was almost in a somewhat similar quandry recently when my hard drive crashed and the particular guy at the shop I brought it to for data recovery turned out to wholly incompetent. He had it for 10 fucking days and kept telling me that the data was particularly hard to get at because it was super compressed and this and that.
I finally went to just get the thing back, ready to fight but not sure whether he would ask me to pay for the time he'd put in and what would be fair. As it turned out, he wasn't in and the other staff apologized heartily and didn't charge me anything.
And then I found 5 uncorrupted sectors.
140: Say there was a face-saving excuse: "Koalas ate all our power tools, so we're not fixing anything, but pay us."
Great. Now I'm going to worry about koalas eating my electric drill.
Have you contacted the third party from whom you ordered the appliance to determine whether they've been paid? That would actually be of more relevance to me. The issue with the installers is over (only) $400, but the $1000 for the appliance which you have not paid for seems kind of important.
(BTW, anonymity and all that is all very well, but would it compromise security too much to tell us what the job was and what's wrong with it?)
I didn't know anyone cared. It was the installation of a zoneline HVAC in the wall of a room that had been unconditioned space. The added trim around the hole they'd cut, but across the top they put the trim too close to the unit itself, so the front cover of the unit can't actually snap on as designed and is instead just hanging loose. The trim needs to be moved up an eighth of an inch, maybe less. To look right, that would probably also require re-cutting two new side trim peices, each to be an eighth of an inch longer or so. All measurements are approximate.
Maybe Kraab gets it right at 130, they're not so much "contractors" as "fences."
I've got a strong tipping point reaction on the uncompleted work. I'd agree with you if the flaw in the work were a big deal, but it doesn't seem to be.
Someone went to law school!
So if a business gives you the wrong change, it's ethical to keep it as long as you don't bankrupt them?
Probably not, since the imposition (on you) is so minor, but it's certainly reasonable to expect businesses to act like businesses; if they can't get their shit together enough to respond to an offer of settlement and explanation about the bill, I don't see why you need to do their job for them. It's not like Urple lied, cheated, stole, or did anything improper or is reaping the benefits of doing anything improper; the ball is in the contractor's court with full knowledge of the situation, and they're not doing anything.
146 before seeing 145. I'm doubting fences normally do trim work.
144: I haven't contacted them. I assumed they would have contacted me if they hadn't been paid. I ordered the unit directly from them--they have my contact information. But maybe I should give them a call.
Although I don't actually like just calling people on an unsolicited basis and asking if they need me to give them large sums of money.
Or at least I presume they paid the third party
This strikes me as the especially dodgy bit. I'd call the third party.
Which does partially solve your ethical problem. If they haven't been paid, then you can pay them and feel good about it -- they didn't do anything wrong.
Realistically, it seems like the most likely situations are (a) that the contractor never paid the third party for the HVAC unit, and the third party hasn't been following up for some reason; (b) the contractor got super busy and it's worth more than $1400 to them to not move someone from a worksite for a few days to your house to finish the job, and they don't care about it enough to follow up with you. Neither one of these situations, it seems to me, creates an obligation for you to send the contractor a discounted check for the work completed.
Does it make a difference if I note that the store where I ordered the HVAC is the one who set me up with the installers? It's who they said they always use. I ordered the unit, the installers picked it up (and presumably paid in the process?), and then sent me a single bill for the whole thing.
150 before seeing 149.
But does 149 change 150?
Incidentally, my views on this are colored by my last experience with awful contractors
Word. Contracting is already full of weasels and witholding payment is the only leverage we've got. What urple's describing is 110 percent weasel. If they can't be bothered to do a proper install and won't follow up they deserve to go out of business.
Not an ethical difference.
Seriously, if you're wondering whether not paying will ever be an issue for you? It probably won't ever come up -- gswift's right.
If you want to know what the ethical thing to do is, it's pay for the work that got done. If you're concerned about who the money should go to (the installer or the store), you can ask. I doubt that there's much chance that you'll end up getting in trouble that way.
I never had anything like the situation in 154 in my home renovation. I always paid the store where I got the equipment for the equipment, and then paid the installers separately. There's something a little weird about ordering through a store but then not paying the store directly.
Does it make a difference if I note that the store where I ordered the HVAC is the one who set me up with the installers? It's who they said they always use.
That is interesting. It makes it sound like a reason to expect the contractors to be more businesslike.
Honestly that makes it more difficult for me to guess why the contractors haven't gotten back to you -- that seems like odd behavior.
(145 cont.) They also did a pretty shitty job caulking it, although that's not something I would have raised an issue about by itself, nor something I would ask them to fix if they were coming back.
Further to 153, another likely situation is that you were quoted a consumer price, and the contractor might have gotten a contractor discount which they didn't want you to know about. In any case, I suspect malfeasance, or at least misfeasance.
But does 149 change 150?
No.
It is weird, to the point where I'm wondering if they're just bad with the paperwork, and have lost track of the whole job: no one's aware either that you're unhappy or that you haven't paid. Again, if you're interested in doing the right thing, maybe make a phone call?
159, 164: What that sounds like to me (or at least one possibility) is that the contractor is an arm of the store, or vice versa. Overlapping or identical ownership, even if they aren't the same legal entity, and a casual attitude about passing money back and forth, which could explain how they lost track of you -- each entity thought you were on the other's books.
This is not generating much consensus. The most likely result of that is me doing nothing and continuing to wait while I mentally sort through the ethical obligations. Not to imply I'm losing much sleep about it. The main downside of that is that the problem will remain unrepaired, but I can probably live with that for the time being.
I mean, basically, the dilemna is that you would be getting a free HVAC unit; the installation was shitty so you're pretty cool with withholding $400 but you're worried about the right to keep the $1000 HVAC unit? Is that right?
If that's true, no problem not paying the $400 for the job not done, and the fact that they haven't collected on the $1000 HVAC unit seems like just a product of bad recordkeeping or something at the store. Which, go ahead and profit from, I say, without worrying about these nervous nellies.
165 seems possible. The contractor was actually incredibly shitty about setting up the installation appt in the first place, so much so that after a few weeks of not getting much of a response I called the store back to see if they could recommend anyone else, and they said no, they always used these people, and they called them directly and told them to call me back, etc...
Ugh... lots of pronouns in 168. It all made sense in my head.
149, 154: Huh. I don't know, man. If I bought a $1000 HVAC thing from a store, I'd expect to have paperwork showing that I'd paid for it, perhaps that there was a warranty, maybe or maybe not a maintenance agreement.
If you have no paperwork whatsoever showing that, that's weird, and would be reason enough to get a little shouty insistent with the installers, or else contact the original store.
Is there anyone who's saying that you shouldn't pay them a discounted fee if they follow up? I don't think so.
Is there any argument that their getting back in touch with you changes the ethics of the situation? I also don't think so.
The lack of consensus comes down to "Do you want to act ethically, and pay what you owe, or do you want to say 'Screw them for being assholes'?" I wouldn't really think less of you for taking the second option -- they do seem to be assholes -- but I don't think there's any argument that it's ethical.
(I also think that your hesitancy to fix the problem is silly. Fix it, keep the records, and brood over the problem to your heart's content. You can either send them the balance unsolicited, or not unless they ask, but there's no reason not to fix it.)
I have, like, the manual and manufacturer warranty registration card that came in the box with the unit. But no other paperwork.
Is there any argument that their getting back in touch with you changes the ethics of the situation?
Of course there is. He's made an offer to them about payment, and they haven't responded.
The lack of consensus comes down to "Do you want to act ethically, and pay what you owe, or do you want to say 'Screw them for being assholes'?"
No it doesn't. You don't have an ethical obligation to run their business properly for them.
I also think that your hesitancy to fix the problem is silly. Fix it, keep the records
This, I agree with.
(I also think that your hesitancy to fix the problem is silly. Fix it, keep the records, and brood over the problem to your heart's content. You can either send them the balance unsolicited, or not unless they ask, but there's no reason not to fix it.)
It allows me to maintain my posture of "I'll pay your bill as soon as your fix the installation", which I don't regard as unethical. (Do you?) Once I fix it, I'm in the zone that you, at least, are identifiying as unethical.
172: Which counts for jack as far as accounting goes. If your contractors regularly do this kind of work, they might have a unit that another client rejected or returned. Ask for paperwork to show that your contractors paid for the thing.
Huh. 176 is a very interesting thought... I've had strong suspicions the thermometer in the unit might be faulty.
176 might well explain the entire thing. Of course they're not going to press you for payment in that scenario.
I think the answer to 174 and 175 is the same -- the contractor, by not responding in a reasonable amount of time, has implicitly rejected the offer to pay IFF they come back and fix it (or they're not aware of the offer for some reason). At which point your offer is meaningfully off the table, and the question is what do you owe them for the work they did and the goods they provided? Fixing it doesn't change the ethical position AFAICT.
I've had strong suspicions the thermometer in the unit might be faulty.
If the unit's faulty, we're in a whole different world. But the ethics only change if you actually do think the unit's faulty, which you didn't an hour ago.
Or, they might have impliedly accepted Urple's offer, and decided that they would give up on payment in exchange for not needing to come back and fix the installation. That's actually not that unrealistic a scenario, if (as I mentioned above) they're getting busy and it's worth more than the $1400 they'd get from Urple to not have to pull their people off of other jobs.
Well, I've been suspicious. I don't actually know if it's faulty or just not very good, but it's one or the other. But either way it's a lot better than nothing.
I'm only sounding stiff-necked because you asked for an ethical opinion -- in general, do what you like, but you ask for ethics, you're going to get ethics. And the ethical answer is pay for what you got, even if they're unbusinesslike and annoying about it.
Everything else that's been raised is about trying to figure out what you really do owe. And the answer there is that you owe the price you agreed upon to pay, less the cost of remedying the difference between what you agreed they were giving you and what you got if they substantially performed (that is, if they sold you a new, working unit and the only problem is the trim), or nothing if they put in a faulty, used unit without telling you. But that's a question of fact, and you're not going to know unless you check with the store.
182: Assuming there's nothing hinky about the unit, that's pretty implausible, given that they'd have a legal right to most of their payment even without fixing the problem.
in general, do what you like, but you ask for ethics, you're going to get ethics. And the ethical answer is pay for what you got, even if they're unbusinesslike and annoying about it
You do realize there is disagreement about this point being expressed in this very thread, right?
Even if the unit is unused and not faulty, it would be unethical for the contractor to charge for it based on your assumption that it came new from the store from which you ordered it. Which should be obvious, but it's something unethical contractors get away with very easily.
urple, really, I'd call the original store and ask about getting a receipt for your purchase. There's no harm in telling them that you've been trying to contact the installers for follow-up and haven't heard back for months, but in the meantime have no receipt.
It sounds to me as though the original store might want to get on the installers' case; but I do think, for practical reasons if nothing else, particularly if you think the unit might be faulty, you'll want to have proof that you actually purchased it. Let the freaking store and installers sort out their billing procedures; ethically, you owe at least the $1000.
185 -- Nah, not really. I have a good friend who's a contractor who pretty regularly makes these kinds of opportunity cost judgments. If this firm was really concerned about the money, they would be able to get it from Urple.
Honestly, the actually ethical thing to do would be to take the $1400 you would have spent on an HVAC and give it to an environmental charity or starving children in Africa.
186: That's Halford at this point. I think Jesus has come over to the other side; or rather, the question has changed from Should you pay the contractors? to Should you pay anyone?
Try it this way (and dropping the speculation that the unit was used or whatever, because it clutters up the problem and we can't tell from here).
They do the bad installation, and send you the bill. At that point, before you've contacted them, what do you think you owe them? I think it's pretty clear that at that point, you owed them the amount on the bill minus the cost to remedy the deficiency. I also think that it's pretty clear that nothing you did, unilaterally, from that point on could make you owe them less.
Then you contacted them and said that you'd pay when they fixed it. Presumably you didn't explicitly say that you'd never pay if they didn't fix it, and you wouldn't have been entitled to take that position even if you had said it explicitly -- they did valuable work for you, and their failure to do it perfectly doesn't render it valueless or mean you don't have to pay for it. The point of making the offer you made is that it's probably cheaper and easier for them to fix than for you to hire someone else, so everyone's better off if they do the fix than if you find someone else to do it. But the fallback position is still that you owe them for the valuable work they did do.
Waiting around for a long time for a response is fine -- they're the ones causing the delay, so they can wait for their money. But I don't see any argument at all (given the problem as originally stated) that you don't owe them anything for valuable work and goods that you asked them to provide for you, they provided, and they billed your for, because they didn't respond to your offer that they be allowed to mitigate your cost of remedying deficiencies in their work.
If this firm was really concerned about the money, they would be able to get it from Urple.
Right, because he owes it to them. Saying that it's not worth it to them to sue him for it doesn't make him not owe the money.
Waiting around for a long time for a response is fine -- they're the ones causing the delay, so they can wait for their money
Is there some point after which waiting no longer becomes fine? That seemed to be your position upthread. (In fact, that seems to be the implication of your very next sentence.)
I think Jesus has come over to the other side
I am unwavering. You are welcome to come over to my side, babe.
189.2 gets it right.
Honestly, the actually ethical thing to do would be to take the $1400 you would have spent on an HVAC and give it to an environmental charity or starving children in Africa.
Would giving it to another small-business contractor struggling to feed his or her family (in exchange for some repairs to my basement floor) be a close second?
Is there some point after which waiting no longer becomes fine?
There is no point at which waiting them out means that you don't owe them the money (the statute of limitations being a legal rather than an ethical matter). I don't have a problem with your waiting as long as the reason for waiting is that you think they might still show up and fix it, and you'd rather that than fix it yourself. Once you're convinced that they aren't going to show up and fix it, which it sounds as if you are (a) refusing to get it fixed is just cutting off your nose to spite your face, and (b) you should send them the money you owe them.
(And again, they do seem to be assholes, there does seem to be a question about the provenance of the unit which you should figure out with the store, I really wouldn't think less of you for taking the low road here. But your ethical obligations, once the facts are straightened out, are clear.)
Is there something specific about labor that's driving your impulse, LB? Say Urple had just ordered the HVAC unit from the store and installed it himself. The unit is somewhat deficient but still better than nothing. Urple writes back and says "I'm not paying you for the HVAC until you send me a proper unit." The store does nothing; it neither sends out a new unit nor presses for payment on the HVAC it delivered. Does Urple have some ethical obligation to send the store a check for the discounted value to him of the defective heating unit? I don't see that at all.
Under those circumstances he has an ethical obligation to return it, wouldn't you think? He can pay for it and keep it, or return it and not keep it. (Given that he can install it, he can take it out.)
or return it and not keep it
but can he have cake? And if so, can he eat it?
I don't see any ethical obligation whatsoever to return the HVAC unit in that situation. The store can legitimately ask you to return it in exchange for no payment, but if they do nothing why should you feel a moral impulse to return the unit to them?
LB, I have to say that I find it curious that your conception of what the idealized ethical obligations are in this situation overlaps so closely with 'whatever the law would require, were it being fully applied and enforced'. I mean, as long as we're talking pure ethics, and not law, do I get to subtract from my the payment you think I'm obligated to send them my subjective valuation of the psychic frustration this has caused me? Why not? Doesn't that get me back to the benefit of my bargain even moreso than would be possible under a strict application of the law?
194.1: You give me pause.
If I were urple, I'd try to get a receipt from the original store, and completely ignore the bill from the installers, meanwhile fix the damn trim problem myself, keep those receipts, and if the installers ever follow up, address that then.
You shouldn't. However, you should feel a moral impulse to pay the bill for the valuable object that you asked the store for and they gave you. You might be able to justify discounting your payment because it's less valuable than you thought it would be, but you asked them for something, they gave it to you, you considered it valuable enough to keep, and they asked for payment. What's the ethical argument for not paying at all, if you keep it?
(Given that he can install it, he can take it out.)
I don't want to wander too far down this particular hypothetical trail, but that would leave a giant rectangular hole in my wall.
201: First, contract law is supposed to track what's reasonable and fair pretty closely, so it's not surprising or arbitrary that what I think is fair is closely related to what's legal. Second, the contractors did something valuable for you in the underlying context of our legal system -- it's not unreasonable to think that you freely agreed, by accepting their services, to pay them what the law says you would owe them even if they don't legally force you to. I think people should generally do what they've agreed to, where it's practical and non-onerous.
If this has really caused you enough emotional stress that you think you need to get paid for it, I think you worry too much.
What's the ethical argument for not paying at all, if you keep it?
I'm a consumer, you're a business, you didn't do your job, I would have paid you completely if you'd done the job, I made a reasonable offer, you did nothing and appear uninterested in resolving the problem. Meanwhile, I've grown attached to the HVAC unit in my home, so you, the business, are going to bear the full risk of loss on this one, which, through your conduct, you've implied you'll accept. Something like that.
205: So you'd go buy another one, same model, from another store, and install that one. Or pay what the one you installed and wanted to keep was worth. Either way.
I don't want to wander too far down this particular hypothetical trail, but that would leave a giant rectangular hole in my wall.
That I suspect a lot of us have a strong impulse towards "do your job you fuckers". They used shady install guys who you have notified twice and in writing of the problem. It's not your job to spend your time and resources to chase them down and give them money.
If this has really caused you enough emotional stress that you think you need to get paid for it, I think you worry too much.
To be clear, the "this" is their doing the job wrong in the first place, not the lingering nonpayment, and my psychic costs were mostly frustration, not worry.
153
Realistically, it seems like the most likely situations are (a) that the contractor never paid the third party for the HVAC unit, and the third party hasn't been following up for some reason; (b) the contractor got super busy
Here's my guess after reading 145: the on-site contractor who did the actual installation knows he did a shitty job and doesn't want his own boss to find out, so he got rid of the records somehow.
As for what to do, under a strict ethical view, 196 looks pretty persuasive. (201 doesn't. If the ethical principle in question is the Golden Rule, then the vague, probably-accidental "psychic frustration" they have caused you doesn't enter into it.)
That being said, practically, all I'd do is call the original store about the receipt, and get a professional to fix it and keep a copy of his bill. If the bad contractors ever do get in touch with you again, you can discount the cost of the other guy's work. This much money owed to a crappy contractor that isn't even taking any interest in getting it back is not the kind of moral debt that would keep me awake at night.
(Although I have now lost most of the past few otherwise-would-have-been-billable hours discussing this, so the value of that time is going to have to come off their bill as well.)
you didn't do your job,
They gave you something that you value highly enough to want to keep. The store might not have done its job perfectly, but it did its job.
you... appear uninterested in resolving the problem
I'm not seeing the ethical justification for ignoring my debts because my creditors aren't as active about pursuing me as I think they should be.
Really, I think our disagreement comes down to what I said in 191:
I think it's pretty clear that at that point, you owed them the amount on the bill minus the cost to remedy the deficiency. I also think that it's pretty clear that nothing you did, unilaterally, from that point on could make you owe them less.
If you've accepted performance, you owe consideration for that performance (either what was agreed upon, or what was agreed upon minus the cost to fix, or the diminishment in value). And you can make all the counter-offers you like, but nothing you do unilaterally is going to diminish what you owe for the valuable performance you accepted.
You seem to think that if you start to haggle over payment after a performance that you've accepted but are imperfectly satisfied with, and the counterparty won't negotiate, that suddenly you get a windfall and don't owe anything. I don't get that.
call the original store about the receipt
but the reason urple doesn't have a receipt is that he didn't pay for the thing. "Calling about the receipt" seems like it's definitely going to open up a chain of maybe-annoying, maybe-time-consuming discussions and phone calls and arguments.
I sort of agree with LB about the bottom line ethics, but I'm pretty sure my own behavior in actual life would be guided by a desire not to spend any more time or energy dealing with the situation.
211.last: Yeah, I wouldn't lose any sleep over doing that.
213: Well, hang on here. "Haggling" sounds like an agreement made in advance. I assume that if urple had known the thing wouldn't be fitted into the wall properly he would have said so at the time, but he was out the the room or at work or whatever when the installers worked. If he had known in advance what he would have got, what would he have agreed to?
If you've accepted performance
I'm not sure what this means in this context, which I'm sure is just me being fuzzy on recall of the basics of contract law. Have I accepted performance? They did the work while I was at work one day, and when I saw it I said "you need to fix this before I'll pay you for the work". Is that acceptance?
201: I mean, as long as we're talking pure ethics, and not law, do I get to subtract from my the payment you think I'm obligated to send them my subjective valuation of the psychic frustration this has caused me? Why not?
You have me completely confused now: how is financial compensation for psychic damage a matter of pure ethics, and not a legalistic perspective?
I'm with LB, more or less, on all of this, not that she invented the stance, and I don't think that the proposition that you owe for goods you received is a particularly legalistic (based in contract law) one. The question of the labor provided by the installers is distinct.
213 seems like it is somewhat ludicrously grounding ethical obligations in the minutia of contract law.
The key here is that the business has indicated through its inaction that it is willing to bear the entire loss. That is, the business is doing nothing that would remotely suggest it is unable to bear that risk and is accepting an arrangement in which it provides no additional service in return for no payment. Since businesses generally are better able to bear entire losses than consumers, there are solid reasons for letting the loss fall there -- or, there's at least no ethical reason that I can see to make a business that has made clear that it will bear an entire loss willingly not do so. You can call that "receiving a windfall" but that's just assuming the conclusion in your premise -- the reality is that the business has decided, for whatever reason, that it's not interested in avoiding the loss. Since the business is, well, in the business of providing the service, I can't see why you have an ethical obligation to do the business' job for it.
"Accepted performance" was to Halford, where he had an HVAC unit that he could have returned but wanted to keep, so he'd pretty unambiguously accepted it.
For you, it's not perfectly unambiguous, but (again leaving the maybe hinky unit out of it), the flaw isn't a big deal. If they'd called back and said, "Look, we're super busy, get someone else to fix it and knock the price off the bill," you'd have been happy about that. We're talking about a mostly done, slightly imperfect job, not something that's importantly screwed up, so I don't think you'd be entitled not to accept the performance. If it were importantly screwed up, you would be entitled to reject it, and not paying at all would be perfectly reasonable. (And yes, that's the 'substantial performance' rule, but it's in the law because it makes sense, I'm not arbitrarily following it because I remember the caselaw.)
If it turns out the unit's all screwed up, and not new, then we'd be in a world where not paying seemed perfectly reasonable.
219: Is there any way in which that argument doesn't apply to stores that fail to take measures against shoplifting, despite knowing that people will steal if they don't? And does that make you ethically entitled to steal from them, in a way that you wouldn't be if they had security guards?
If they'd called back and said, "Look, we're super busy, get someone else to fix it and knock the price off the bill," you'd have been happy about that.
See, no, that too would warrant a "go fuck yourself." If they suggested that, I'd tell them to hire someone else to come fix it. I've already dealt with more hassle here than I wanted to.
213 seems like it is somewhat ludicrously grounding ethical obligations in the minutia of contract law.
Sorry, it's the vocabulary I have for talking about this stuff.
Your manners remain charming as always.
222: Look, you're waffling way back and forth on how big a deal the fix is. It started out as small, you could fix it at no cost, it'd take someone with the tools and experience fifteen minutes, the contractor deserved most of the money for the work because the job was pretty much done. Now getting it fixed is such a big thing that the imposition of it all is reason enough to without payment in its entirety. I can imagine situations that fell into either category, and your ethical obligation would be different depending. I can't tell which one you're in, you're the one who's there.
221 is good.
I repeat that I'm puzzled by the ways in which people are referring to the ethical and the legal: do we not all know that all sorts of things are legally permissible which actually don't pass muster ethically? A couple of people have supposed that LB is viewing the ethical in a legalistic manner -- and granted, she does at times do that -- but I don't think she is here.
On a more prosaic note, I'll say with respect to 221's response to 219 that many, oh, say, small bookstores accept a quite certain amount of shoplifting loss because it's basically too costly to prevent it, but for god's sake, that doesn't make it ethically fine to steal books.
I don't think 221 is on point; the point I was trying to make was "there's at least no ethical reason that I can see to make a business that has made clear that it will bear an entire loss willingly not do so." In other words, if the business has effectively communicated that it's OK with not being paid in exchange for not doing its job, it's OK for you to be cool with that too. If there really was a store that made perfectly clear that it was willing to have things shoplifted from it in the same way as Urple's contractors are willing to not be paid or the hypothetical HVAC store was willing, then yeah, I wouldn't feel too ethically bad at all about shoplifting from that store.
As for my manners, they generally suck but I assume we're all tough as nails around here.
has made clear that it will bear an entire loss willingly not do so
It sold you a unit and billed you for it, and you refused to pay. I can't see how that's effective communication that it's OK with not being paid -- how does the later non-communication override the prior bill saying "Please pay $X"?
I'm not waffling on how big a deal the fix is. But if the person who I'd hired to do the installation told me to go out and find someone else to fix their errors, I'd be pissed. I'm having a hard time even understanding how you think that's a reasonable suggestion, except in strictly legalistic terms. I don't want to spend more of my time finding someone I think might be trustworthy and decent and then setting up an appt., etc., which by the way most decent places will be busy enough that they're going to balk at a job that small anyway, since it makes them basically no money. I've already spent more time than I initially bargained for just by virtue of having the phonecall with the original contractor about his shitty work. No way am I interested in investing any more time in this. If the contractor can't be bothered to send someone out to fix it they don't deserve a goddamn dime. I feel pretty strongly about that, and if they were taking that position with me I'd have no problem saying that. I feel like I'm in a less ethically clear-cut scenario now, when they're just not responding.
To put that another way, if I thought that you were correct to interpret non-communication as "I agree that, under the circumstances, you don't owe me anything, have a nice life", I'd agree with you. I think a much fairer interpretation is probably "You still owe me the money, but I don't have the resources to make you pay me." And I think it's unethical to avoid paying your debts by being obstreperous enough about paying them that your creditors give up.
You've said "fix this defective merchandise or I won't pay you" and the store takes no action whatsoever, sends out no additional bill, and does nothing that would remotely indicate that it intends to either fix the problem or collect on the bill. How does that not communicate that, from the store's viewpoint, accepting the entire loss is preferable to repairing the problem?
229: There, I think you're being unreasonable, but I don't know how hard it is to hire people where you live.
232: Because the last communication from the store was a request for payment. Your attempt to haggle doesn't change that.
I think it's unethical to avoid paying your debts by being obstreperous enough about paying them that your creditors give up.
Absolutely (and, I think,Parsimon's writing-off-the-costs-of-bookstore-shoplifters scenario is similar to this) but it's not what we're talking about here. The question here is what do you do when you receive defective merchandise or services, ask for a fix before providing payment, and then the service provider or merchant does absolutely nothing to fix the problem or work out a solution, including asking for a reduced payment from you. Do you have some independent ethical obligation to apply the Redding Pipe rule in your head pay out of pocket for the substantial value of goods or services received? I say no, because you've clearly got a sophisticated party on the other side that's showing that it's willing and able to take the full risk of loss and is doing so.
229: There, I think you're being unreasonable, but I don't know how hard it is to hire people where you live.
I don't think it's any harder or easier than it is anywhere else, but if it's so easy why don't they do it? Why is the burden on me?
if the business has effectively communicated that it's OK with not being paid in exchange for not doing its job
Lack of communication is not, in any circumstances I think, effective communication. There are always going to be multiple possibilities - like the hypothesis of someone throwing away the file to cover his ass.
"You still owe me the money, but I don't have the resources to make you pay me."
That seems unlikely, given that urple (of all people) thinks he can fix it. I mean--what's he going to do? Use some weird ass tool with some bizarre choice of material, wolf a fishtankburger, and call it a day.
Even the most hand-to-mouth contractor can surely manage a minor repair.
Now you're just whining, urple. Not everything goes perfectly in life, and not everybody does exactly the perfect job. I fully agree that the installers should return and fix things, but given that they've not so far, I don't know: contact them again. Don't pay the bill until they do.
No, it shouldn't be on you, but it might wind up being on you, and that happens in life. The billable hours you lost in discussing this are your own affair, and don't go toward your psychic distress over the matter. People are not robots.
It's quite clear that we lack enough information until urple has attempted to use the HVAC unit to prepare at least one meal. And, frankly, I'm a little disappointed that all of you are so willing to rush to judgment without this basic level of data collection.
Shameful, really.
240 to ?? Do note that 222, 229 and 236 were all responses to a hypothetical settlement offer made up by LB. Not to the actual situation at hand.
240 was to 236, but I realize 236 was a response to a hypothetical.
I think I was just throwing up my hands.
As unfortunate an image as that is, on reflection.
Urple, contact them at least 3 more times. If they still do not respond then go see them in person. If they ask for a million dollars you may "attempt" to haggle with them but if they refuse to respond to you, you are ethically required to take the million-dollar quote as indicating their true desires when you work out in your head what you truly owe them.
236: Thirteenth amendment. Contract or no contract, you can't make someone work for you.
Also, that was a fucking bastard of a headwind. I think I broke my spleen somewhere around mile 8.
I think I broke my spleen somewhere around mile 8.
If it's still somewhat functional, I think you owe the headwind at least $200, ethically.
Also, sorry for being kind of a dick upthread.
No sweat -- I was not un-touchy myself.
Also, thinking about it, this thread has just reinforced my skepticism about universal ethical rules for these kinds of things. I'm glad that there's a legal system that treats everyone alike, but in the world of ethics my reaction to "should you pay the contractor for the work that they did that they're not trying to collect on" is so heavily dependent on circumstances. Is this a big sleazy construction firm or a few folks struggling to get by? Did they do a deliberately shitty job or did they seem well-meaning but slightly incompetent? Were they friends of friends?
246: super windy here, too! I was getting blown left and right.
Perhaps my fruit-baited snare was too obvious.
Counterpoint: upper-50s, clear, and no wind; running just now (to a rediscovered Wolf Parade album) was delightful.
And then I found five spleens.
I actually had a lovely bike ride this morning. For the second time, I crested in one go the nearest thing to a big hill we have in easy riding distance of my house, then took the back way up for good measure, then flew home with a tailwind in plenty of time to get to work. It was just my evening commute that was less-than-easily-manageably blustery.
235
... I say no, because you've clearly got a sophisticated party on the other side that's showing that it's willing and able to take the full risk of loss and is doing so.
I think it is rather unlikely you have a sophisticated party on the other side. More likely you have one or more struggling, marginal, unprofessional, low class losers who have trouble with just about all aspects of life. In which case this is a question of how charitable you are.
James, you can be trusted to put the most obnoxious classist interpretation on things. Good job.
What's the time-stamp discrepancy looking like these days with the new server? I will see momentarily!
You really did not just cite the Thirteenth Amendment, as a rationale for why I should feel obligated not to tell them to go fuck themselves, if they told me to hire someone else to complete the job they botched, did you?
To be clear: yes, I am aware that legally I cannot enslave them, even temporarily. I am also aware that legally they have a right to recover the contracted price of their work minus the cost to fix their errors. I didn't think that's what we were discussing. I thought we were discussing how happy I'd be on receiving that offer from them.
Seriously, that's why fixing it is your problem. They did valuable work for you. So you owe them money. They didn't do it quite right. So you owe them less money then you agreed on for the full job. They don't want to come back and fix it. For all of the moral reasons wrapped up in the Thirteenth Amendment, you can't make them. So getting someone else to fix it is your problem.
If the contractor were here, I'd say he was obliged ethically to come back and fix the job. And I understand why you're annoyed, and I sympathize. But I don't think that changes the ethical analysis.
See, whereas I don't think when someone (1) does a bad job doing what you hired them to do, (2) wastes your time as a result, and (3) seriously annoys you in the process, you have an ethical obligation to assist them with the enforcement of any legal rights they might have against you. You think it's unethical in that situation to make them sue you, if they want you to pay anything?
For all of the moral reasons wrapped up in the Thirteenth Amendment, you can't make them.
Um, what? It is indeed true that Urple can't actually enslave folks and make him work for him (I blame liberals) and in that sense it's "his problem" but I'm not really seeing why the Thirteenth Amendment gives the installers the right to be jerks or would prohibit Urple from not paying them for not doing the job and then not seeking out payment later.
Actually, why am I arguing. I'm going to do a shitty job for a client and tell him he's ethically obligated to pay me even when I don't correct the mistake. Thirteenth Amendment Baby!!!
With "bad job" defined as you did in the original comment, pretty much, that's right. If the work were seriously screwed up, I'd feel differently.
So while I've been absent all thread, I will say briefly that if someone doesn't do the job you agreed on, you don't pay them the money until they do, and you're not ethically obligated to help them not fuck up. It's their job. Also, that whole arrangement seems vaguely sketchy.
NOW. On to the thing I'm curious about:
Favorite examples of silly philosophers or philosophies, please. There must be some that are objectively silly*, no? In a field that takes itself pretty seriously?
*I don't mean "self aware silly", or goofy. I mean really going for profundity, and hooking it all the way into sillyland.
Whoo hoo. I'm leaving work right now. THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT IN YOUR FACE CLIENTS.
If my boss ever tries to call my out for commenting on unfogged all day instead of working, I'll definitely be citing the Thirteenth Amendment.
They didn't do it quite right. So you owe them less money then you agreed on for the full job.
But it was described as one job, yes? Not an itemized list of smaller jobs that had discrete assigned dollar values? Because the one job isn't done. And urple's already contacted them more than once. It's already cost him more in time and attention than it should. He is not his contractor's keeper.
It's not at all clear to me what urple owes relative to the previously agreed upon amount. That's a value that would have to be discovered via negotiation. Negotiation requires two parties. The contractor is falling down on this job, too, and urple isn't required to help him with it. I think urple's met his ethical obligations.
Silly philosophers, people. I know nothing of this, but feel there must be hundreds.
259: The wasting of your time and your annoyance are irrelevant, at least in this situation. Seriously. (1) is the only thing that's relevant.
What happened to the sentiment expressed in 138 that The work is definitely "substantially complete"?
And now you're looking for an explanation as to why it's unethical for you for force them to sue you for payment?
Look, just go into problem-solving mode. The problem is that you want the fucked up trim to be fixed; you prefer that the installers do that at no extra charge. Have you even called them, or have you only written?
And 261 has solidified the fact that I have absolutely no idea where you're coming from on this, and I'm finding whatever ethical theory you're using to be completely incomprehensible. I was actually nearly in agreement with you in the first part of this discussion, but the more you've said the less convincing it's become. I can't respond to 261 because I hardly feel like I can understand it.
The wasting of your time and your annoyance are irrelevant
This is...so not true. Free time and convenience are often the things people pay for, and are probably a big part of why urple hired someone else to install the thing in the first place. As he said, with appropriate tools (and probably that bible from home depot) he could theoretically have done it himself. But it would have cost him days of ulcer-inducing frustration, a few fingernails, etc. So he hired someone else to do it. The time and inconvenience that's resulted from the contractor doing a shitty job have diminished the value of the service. That is relevant.
The time and inconvenience that's resulted from the contractor doing a shitty job have diminished the value of the service.
If people tie themselves into knots over a job not perfectly done, and consider themselves grievously inconvenienced to the extent that they feel they need financial compensation, god help us all.
These things admit of degrees, obviously, but if urple chose to spend at least an entire day not working and instead talking on unfogged about this terrible problem, I don't think that's the contractor's fault.
Speaking of ethics, John Ensign just announced he's resigning from the Senate effective May 3rd.
I'm sure that was the result of long, considered ethical deliberation.
246: a fucking bastard of a headwind
You give oral arguments with that mouth?
This reminds of that antitrust case involving the bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows, and whether or not they constituted two different products.
If someone does the job, but suboptimally, you can't ethically withhold payment saying: do it right or you don't get paid. So, the carwash places I keep ending up at, where they do a crap job, but do move the car from being ridiculously dirty to only somewhat grimy. I expect it now, but even with respect to the first time, when I was surprised, it would have been a bit much for me to refuse to pay. On the other hand, if they clearly don't complete the job, then you can refuse to pay. IANAL, but I'm assuming that this is the ethical intuition on which the 'substantially complete' criterion is at least partly based.
Now the question in urple's case is: did they do the job badly, or did they not do the job? The complication is that the job contains a functional component and a cosmetic component. They've substantially completed the first component but not the second. Does this mean that there's one job that they didn't substantially complete, or did they substantially complete one job, for which they should be paid, and not another, with respect to which payment can be withheld?
(In other words, what donaquixote said, but at great and boring length.)
262: There's Kant's claim that if a society were to decide to dismantle itself (say, everyone were going to disperse and become hermits or itinerant HVAC-installers), if there were a guy waiting on death row the society would have an ethical obligation to carry out the execution before disbanding.
It seems to me that urple should have the right to expect his debt to be expunged upon payment. So if all that is properly due is a partial payment (i.e. the contract price, less the cost to cure), it would be reasonable and prudent to wait until the contractor indicates clearly that they are willing to consider the debt satisfied by the partial payment. Otherwise you forfeit all your leverage in exchange for nothing.
I do agree that something is due, provided the contractor will accept it as full payment. It will be somewhat difficult to disentangle your dissatisfaction with the work done, with your desire to pay less for it, but you should try hard to consider the first in isolation. Maybe get a fair-minded friend to take a look, and give their opinion on what % of the job they think has been done.
I don't disagree with 276, but I'm not sure I understand how the second paragraph relates to the first.
if urple chose to spend at least an entire day not working and instead talking on unfogged about this terrible problem, I don't think that's the contractor's fault
"Chose"? This is the same language republican economists use when they're busy blaming the victim (which is what you're doing to me here).
It would seem you are ethically required to pay them for the work they did complete, even if they are a bunch of no-account dill-wads. Discount the agreed price by whatever you pay for materials and your time at the hourly rate they quoted you.
Let's move away from HVAC units and holes in the wall, which I think are confusing the issue. I order 1,000 used books from parsimon. I don't care which ones they are; I just want them on my shelves to appear well-read. She sends me 950 books. I call and let her know she was 50 short, and ask her to send the rest. She says "I'm too busy right now, just go buy 50 more and deduct the cost from the bill." You really don't think I'm entitled to respond "go fuck yourself"? I'm just not getting that argument at all. I understand she could probably sue me and recover that amount, and I also (of course) understand that there's no way I can force her to send me the books (Thirteenth Amendment), but neither of those factors seems to me to even suggest that I have some ethical obligation to be happy about her offer. I would probably pay her, but I'd be pissed.
278 would seem about right. Which means of course that you don't pay them until you've finished making good.
277: The two paragraphs are not really related, I just wanted to qualify my support for waiting for a clarification, that it does not imply that nothing is owed.
279: neither of those factors seems to me to even suggest that I have some ethical obligation to be happy about her offer.
I don't thing there's any obligation at all to be happy about the service you've got, or not to be annoyed, or not to think that the contractor sucks (or the used-bookstore sucks in your latter example). Your emotional reaction is absolutely reasonable. I just think your obligation to pay for what you got is distinct from your right to be annoyed as anything about what you asked for and didn't get.
The ethics have been chewed to death, but also consider a practical issue: If the contractor enters Bankruptcy, or merely hands your account over to a collection agency, you may get billed for interest and/or costs. Best to pay the amount owed less cost of fixup.
277: This is the same language republican economists use when they're busy blaming the victim (which is what you're doing to me here).
I apologize for that -- I realized that's what it sounded like, but I was really just reacting to your 212, and pushing back against the suggestion that you (or anyone in a similar situation) should be compensated for time spent talking to people, or thinking about, what you should do, if you happened to spend that time during work hours.
I actually couldn't really tell if 212 was a joke. Apologies, though.
parsimon, that comment wasn't intended to be taken seriously.