From: gadfly@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (Gadfly)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers
Subject: Re: Why you shouldn't buy Nestle
Summary: Ethics and quality.
Date: 29 Sep 92 14:26:59 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Sep29.030125.10119@anomaly.sbs.risc.net>,
kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) quotes me:
> >In your rush to defend the free enterprise system you've failed to
> >think this through

> In your rush to condemn the evil yankee-pig-dog capitalist conspiracy,

I don't know where you got *that* paranoid idea--I don't think I ever
mentioned capitalism--but lets go on, I will do so soon.

> you fail to see common facts:
> 
> 	1. Contaminated water fed to children would also be consumed by
> 	   the mother, also making her sick and unable to produce breast
> 	   milk.

Possible, but not probable.  I suppose if the water were contaminated
enough they'd all die, but then there wouldn't be any babies to feed.
Adult immune systems work better than infants', especially in those
adults who have developed a tolerance to common pathogens.  The
"common fact" was that breast feeding was working just fine--that's
how Nestle saw a market to exploit in the first place.
 
> 	2. Once properly labelled, it is not the responsibility of the
> 	   product manufacturer to police how its items are used. Should
> 	   IBM start policing their PCs to make sure you're not using
> 	   them to pirate software?

Oh boy, I just *love* to discuss ethics.  You're right, it is not the
responsibility of the manufacturer to police how items are used.  But
if the item is causing significant harm and failing in its basic
mission, it is clearly the manufacturer's *moral* responsibility
to recall the product, regardless of his legal responsibility.
Why would an ethical person even *want* to sell something that doesn't
work in the first place?

This is actually a fundamental quality problem in America.  It speaks to
one of Deming's axioms--constancy of purpose.  Once a company gets wrapped
up in quarterly profits and making money purely for the sake of making
money, there's no way its products can remain competitive.  It takes
a real mission to motivate people.  An excellent case in point is
Johnson and Johnson, which has such a mission--and it puts customer
satisfaction and trust way ahead of profits (which are actually last
on the list).  When they got in trouble with a product--Tylenol (10
years ago to the day)--they did not hesitate; they knew what they
had to do.  Their action--total and immediate product recall--caused
significant havoc to their books, but they never lost customer
confidence, and they ultimately recovered their market position and
then some.

> >Does Nestle bear any
> >responsibility for this?  Yes, obviously.
> 
> Obvious to you only, I guess. Not to me.

What are you, some kind of sadist?  In civilized company, if one is
causing suffering--unintentional, of course--and one finds out about
it, one stops what one is doing and apologizes.

I don't know, Michael, call me a commie or something (although I think
you already did), but I have this business rule-of-thumb that if
my customers die unexpectedly on account of what I sold them, that's
bad--both for my business and my karma.

               *** ***
Ken Perlow   ***** *****
29 Sep 92   ****** ******   8 Vendemiaire An CCI
            *****   *****   gadfly@ihlpa.ATT.COM
             ** ** ** **
...L'AUDACE!   *** ***   TOUJOURS DE L'AUDACE!  ENCORE DE L'AUDACE!