Volume 37 Number 38
Produced: Wed Oct 16 5:59:00 US/Eastern 2002
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Business Ethics (6)
[Perry Zamek, Carl Singer, Zev Sero, Ari Trachtenberg, Frank
Silbermann, Nachman Yaakov Ziskind]
Crock Pot - Hatmana?
[Janet Rosenbaum]
Patronizing stores violating Credit Card Agreements
[Russell J Hendel]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perry Zamek <jerusalem@...>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 11:17:36 +0200
Subject: Business Ethics
In mail-jewish Vol. 37 #35, Ari Trachtenberg wrote:
>I have a couple of questions of business ethics that the mail-jewish
>might be able to help with:
>
>1) Many (most?) restaurants and stores impose a minimum charge for
>credit card use. This clearly violates the store's credit card
>agreement with Mastercard and Visa (I checked independently). Thus, is
>there a halachic issue with patronizing such stores, especially when you
>would be aiding a violation of an agreement?
This may be a case where Tochecha (reproof) may be appropriate, but
perhaps only if it will have the desired effect. You may certainly point
out to the owner that you believe the policy to be inappropriate.
However, I am not sure that patronizing such an establishment you would
be "aiding a violation of an agreement" -- the most you would be doing
would be acquiescing to such a violation, not actively "aiding".
>2) Are there halachic issues with providing poor service at kosher
>restaurants (chillul hashem, etc.), or is this a market-driven issue, in
>which case a business might try to reduce service in order to cut costs?
Reducing service (number of staff, etc.) may be good economics, but its
not good business. Is it a Hillul Hashem? Perhaps only if the restaurant
advertises itself as offering "fast and friendly service." It would be a
Hillul Hashem if the owner worked his staff off their feet, in
contravention of appropriate labor laws.
But I would raise a different question, in the same spirit as those
raised by Ari. Suppose there are two competing stores, one owned by a
Jew, the other by a non-Jew. Normally we would be supposed to patronize
our coreligionist. What if he provides very poor service, as opposed to
his competitor, who goes out of his way to provide good service (assume
price is not an issue). Are we still to purchase from the Jewish-owned
store?
With best wishes,
Perry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <CARLSINGER@...> (Carl Singer)
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 07:37:47 EDT
Subject: Business Ethics
Related thoughts
I've seen situations where merchants offer not to charge tax if they are
paid in cash. Are YOU as the consumer thus violating the civil law by
abetting the merchant (who, likely, wants cash to "hide" revenue from
his books to thus avoid taxes.) What are the halachik implications
regarding dino malchuso dino -- laws of the land.
What are your obligations, if any, to report such transactions? Or to
inform the merchant that tax fraud is illegal?
What is the prohibition re: YOUR participating in such transactions? As
merchant OR as consumer?
I've had a few incidents in "distinct dress" communities -- that is
those where even my suit & tie & black fedora would still mark me as an
outsider - where merchants have offered to sell merchandise to me
significantly higher than that charged previous, "local" customer.
Fortunately, since Yiddish is my first language (a) I knew what was
going on and (b) I could express displeasure and reject the offered
price.
Re: Poor service -- If dining at another restaurant is not an
alternative (i.e., one might say that the market place is inefficient
when there are very few suppliers.) then you might wish to speak up to
management.
Is there an issue of loschen hora if you complain to your friends about
the poor service? (Even if they already know?) "I'll never go to
Plony's again, it took 30 minutes to get served and the food was cold!"
Chillul HaShem is an interesting point -- presuming it's a kosher
restaurant with poor service, etc., then the general (non-Jewish)
population doesn't or wouldn't frequent the place (as opposed to "good"
kosher pizzerias that attract Asian Indians, and other vegetarians) Is
the presence of non-Jewish a necessary ingredient for Chillul HaShem?
The Market drives good service, not poor service (except for abberations
such as restaurants known for their surly waiters.) Good service brings
higher tips, brings better employees. Faster service improves
throughput thus higher revenues, etc. More to the point, many companies
compete today on the basis of service as much as on the basis of
product. (For the record - I am not speaking in my role as Senior
Consulting Instructor, IBM Advanced Business Institute.)
Finally, and this of great interest to me -- is there a ".... or
tolerate those who do." clause in halacha. That is most honor codes
(say West Point, for example) have in common I shall not -- lie, cheat,
steal OR tolerate those who do -- a responsibility re: the ethics of
your peers. Is this bain Adam L'Makom or Adam L'Chavayroh?
Carl Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Zev Sero <zev.sero@...>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 14:01:51 -0400
Subject: Re: Business Ethics
Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...> wrote:
> 1) Many (most?) restaurants and stores impose a minimum charge for
> credit card use. This clearly violates the store's credit card
> agreement with Mastercard and Visa (I checked independently). Thus,
> is there a halachic issue with patronizing such stores, especially
> when you would be aiding a violation of an agreement?
I don't understand how this would be aiding the violation, except in the
case where your bill is under the minimum, AND you prefer to pay with a
card, but the store refuses to accept it, and rather than put up a
fight, at the cost of time and agmas nefesh, for what's after all a
small amount, you take the easy way and give in. And I really don't
think you are obligated to donate your time and sanity to the credit
card company to assist them in enforcing their contracts, and nor do
they expect it. If it really bothers you, and simply mentioning the
agreement on the spot doesn't do the trick, why don't you pay cash and
then in the morning give the company a call, and let them deal with it?
This is no more mesira than it would be to tell your goyishe landlord
that the Jewish plumber he sent you to fix your sink never showed up.
Zev Sero
<zsero@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 10:33:41 -0400
Subject: Re: Business Ethics
Zev Sero wrote:
> I don't understand how this would be aiding the violation, except in
> the case where your bill is under the minimum, AND you prefer to pay
> with a card, but the store refuses to accept it, and rather than put
> up a fight, at the cost of time and agmas nefesh, for what's after all
> a small amount, you take the easy way and give in. And I really don't
> think you are obligated to donate your time and sanity to the credit
> card company to assist them in enforcing their contracts, and nor do
> they expect it.
I don't think that the problem is so simple. The reason merchants have
a minimum is that their transaction fees are (relatively) high for small
transactions. As a result, by precluding a buyer who would otherwise
use a credit card from using the credit card, the merchant might be
stealing from the credit card company. By being involved in such a
transaction, you could be aiding in theft.
> If it really bothers you, and simply mentioning the
> agreement on the spot doesn't do the trick, why don't you pay cash and
> then in the morning give the company a call, and let them deal with it?
> This is no more mesira than it would be to tell your goyishe landlord
> that the Jewish plumber he sent you to fix your sink never showed up.
I'm not looking for any solution...as those are plentiful. I'm seeking
to determine the halachically (first) and ethically (second) correct
solution.
Kol tuv,
-Ari
Ari Trachtenberg, Boston University
http://people.bu.edu/trachten mailto:<trachten@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Frank Silbermann <fs@...>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 09:05:04 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Business Ethics
I have seen no halachic discussions of the issues raised, so the
following answers are merely my own best guesses based on common sense.
In V37 N35 Ari Trachtenberg asks:
> 1) Many (most?) restaurants and stores impose a minimum charge for
> credit card use. This clearly violates the store's credit card
> agreement with Mastercard and Visa (I checked independently).
> Thus, is there a halachic issue with patronizing such stores,
> especially when you would be aiding a violation of an agreement?
In such a store one should be careful not to ask to pay with a credit
card for an amount below their minimum charge, lest you entice them into
violating their agreement witht he credit card company. To save them
from sin you should offer only cash if the amount is small.
> 2) Are there halachic issues with providing poor service at kosher
> restaurants (chillul hashem, etc.), or is this a market-driven issue,
> in which case a business might try to reduce service in order to cut costs?
If the people delivering the service say or do things that would be a
chillul hashem outside the context of restaurant service, then yes.
But otherwise, just as you and I are free not to offer any kind of
restaurant service whatsover, so is one who does offer restaurant
service free to choose what level of service he will offer.
Likewise, even though the owner may be a pious Jew, those who feel no
desire to receive the services he offers have no halachic obligation to
purchase them.
Frank Silbermann
<fs@...>
New Orleans, Louisiana
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nachman Yaakov Ziskind <awacs@...>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 11:34:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Business Ethics
1) In New York State a merchant is not allowed to impose a minimum
charge for credit card use. Lots of stores ignore this rule. Putting
Halachic to the side, do you really want to do business with a store
that breaks the law and conducts unethical business practices? Who says
that you won't be the next victim?
2) As the Gemara states [Rav(?) said, if I don't pay the butcher, it's a
chillul hashem ...] business ethics are a portion of our daily life, and
just as important as putting on tefillin. More so; no one inspects your
ritualistic religious practices (usually), while everyone in Boro Park
talks about restaraunt x who got caught (I'm making this up) cheating on
taxes, or who flunked a sanitary inspection.
Nachman Yaakov Ziskind, EA, LLM <awacs@...>
Attorney and Counselor-at-Law http://yankel.com
Economic Group Pension Services http://egps.com
Actuaries and Employee Benefit Consultants
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Janet Rosenbaum <jerosenb@...>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 10:56:14 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Crock Pot - Hatmana?
Shimon Lebowitz <shimonl@...> writes:
> At that time, the entire ceramic insert
> is removed from the shell, and the food inside is then served (one
> cannot serve from a pot still on the heat source, as this stirs the food
> and helps cooking).
There is a case to be made that this is only a problem if the food would
benefit from further cooking. If the food would not benefit from
further cooking, serving directly from the crockpot may not be a
problem. See your local rabbi. (e.g., Rav Auerbach ruled that chicken
cholent is always improved by further cooking, since the bones get
softer, but beef cholent may not be.)
> Recently, someone told me that this is forbidden, since putting up the
> cholent on Friday in this way is 'Hatmana' (burying? hiding? "enveloping
> a food"?).
Hatmana is the prohibition of wrapping pots in materials which 'increase
heat'. SA OH 257 discusses this --- the Shulchan Aruch itself is very
strict, not allowing even bidiavad (ex post facto) uses of food which
was wrapped before shabbat, but the Rema permits bidiavad. The Mshna
Brurah defines 'hatmana' in terms of preserving (shamor) heat, rather
than adding (mosif) heat, and says that the reason for the prohibition
is a gezeira lest you come to cook. I don't have my Shmirat Shabbat
here to see the modern halacha, but it seems that the sources could be
used to support varying degrees of stricture.
I have seen halachically well-informed people (e.g., rabbis) who even
wrapped food in towels on their blechs. While some require crockpots to
be lined with tinfoil or an empty tuna can placed beneath the removeable
portion, I believe that the only intention was to act as a kedeira
between the heat source and the food.
Tangentially, it seems that the understanding of hatmana has varied with
our understanding of the idea of heat --- it would be interesting to see
the implicit scientific understandings of each era and when the
Aristotelian view began to be less prevalent, and when this change in
view began to impact actual halacha.
Janet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 16:58:30 -0400
Subject: RE: Patronizing stores violating Credit Card Agreements
Ari Trachtenberg v37n35 raises the issue of whether it is prohibited to
patronize stores which violate their agreement with credit card
companies by chargning a minimum charge.
The answer is no, for 2 reasons. First,a well known talmudic principle
states that all waivers and conditions in monetary matters are
binding. Hence if you enter the restaurant KNOWING that they have a
minimum charge then you have in effect waivered your rights (And there
is no longer any prohibition).
Second: If a person really was concerned (About the credit companies
losing their rights) then they could file a complaint that the
restaurant is doing this.
Russell Jay Hendel; http://www.RashiYomi.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 37 Issue 38
