You have arrived here from the Big Island Forum—Acknowledgments for merchants—so as to read more about the post titled, Borders—reading policy supports sneakiness and bad karma for everyone.

This post is about acknowledgment. Acknowledgment is a what's so communication (see definitions). The Acknowledgments for merchants forum is a place to acknowledge merchants.

Reading this topic may trigger/generate upset. It is educational—in support of communication mastery. The premise: When you can read another's point of view without getting upset it's said that you are clear on that topic (no emotional charges, no incompletes), no longer at effect of it. Post upsets/comments here.

Here's the text of the original post "Borders— reading policy supports sneakiness and bad karma for everyone."

Borders' bookstores have the following implied reading policy.

It's OK to select books and magazines (library style) and sit and read for free while snacking.

One problem with the policy is that it's not communicated up front, clearly, cleanly, in writing, for all patrons to see; it is in fact implemented sneakily by the patrons and begrudgingly, contemptuously tolerated by the staff of Borders and book authors.

Another problem with the policy is that when Borders returns damaged, wrinkled, bent, torn, stained, reading material to the distributor the authors end up paying by suffering the loss of income. Distributors deduct such losses from an author's profits each month.

The policy of supporting sneakiness has awesome consequences for Borders, its employees, its distributors, the authors, and the community; it doesn't support respect. It does not serve anyone.

Predictably it will contribute to the financial demise of Borders.

It's easy to understand why Borders allows free reading. What's not so obvious is that they've always had three options:

1. To patrol the aisles as skimming-time-monitors risking a customer—s anger when they are reminded that they have been reading too long, like kids reading comic books in a supermarket. This option sometimes upsets customers who often dramatize their upset and embarrassment by never returning.
2. To begrudgingly allow reading and return materials that are no longer in pristine condition, hopefully encouraging potential sales. This option supports sneakiness and rips off authors.
3. To place signs throughout their stores, "It's OK to read material."

With this third option Borders would not be supporting (rewarding-condoning) sneaky thwarting behaviors of its community members so as to survive financially.

This modification of the present implied reading policy would be acceptable to authors providing (big if here) Borders did not return damage materials. Authors would get paid regardless of a store's reading policy.

It's understood that authors would not choose to allow bookstore patrons to read their material without paying for it.

As you continue reading you'll see that Borders' present policy of supporting theft of an author's labors so as to survive financially can't work. Authors have come to accept that the price for distributing their book is that they lose money each time Borders returns a customer-damaged book to the distributor. Authors have no say in the matter other than to not publish, instead they compromise their integrity and submit to this unethical practice, for which there is also an unseen undesirable consequence.

Reading this topic may generate upset. It is  educational, in support of communication mastery. Post upsets/comments here.

More about this topic: —continued

Unbeknownst to most everyone the present implied policy has many undesirable compounded karmic consequences.

"Compounded" meaning: Borders supports community members in sneaky behaviors. Community members and the community at large, suffer the karma, the consequences, of ripping off another; meaning, community members create others thwarting their prosperity and have no idea as to the source of this trend. Children emulate a parent—s thwarting disrespectful behavior and themselves adopt ripping-off-is-OK attitudes. Borders wonders why sales are not as expected and why the economy is suffering, unawares that they are at the forefront of a revolution of thwarting the prosperity of the country's intellectuals (its authors).

Karmic consequence number one:

Most people are unaware that Borders board members made a conscious decision to support sneaky customer behavior in favor of its own financial survival.

This decision effects many people on many karmic levels. It's not a policy of one who is concerned about the welfare and prosperity of the community.

It works like this: It's a given that one or more Borders— employees in each of their stores has brought to management—s attention that they didn't feel good supporting customers in being sneaky. In so many words they've pointed out to management that it contributes to bad karma. However, this "Let them sneak so we can sell more books" policy has been in effect for several years. This means that management has ignored the support of their most honest employees, those intuitively aware of the consequences of this policy. These are the valuable employees who dared to speak up in support of their organization—s success. Invalidating the wisdom and integrity of such an employee cannot but have undesirable consequences. It's a formula for Chapter 11 type failure. When an employee points out an unethical practice and management ignores them it causes a chain of reactions, for both management and the here-to-fore honest employee. When an employee's suggestion is ignored the employee realizes that this is not their ideal organization, they then compromise their integrity by continuing to work for Borders because they too need money to survive. They lose some respect for "management."

Karmic consequence number two:

Borders employees have compromised their integrity in favor of having a job. Not only do they support management's "sneaky" policy they have conspired to support it. They know the policy invalidates the wisdom of their grandparents (don't steal) yet they continue to support community members in ripping off others. They intuit that customers feel guilty. With stuffed contempt they witness customers come in on schedule to read the newest issue of Hot Rod magazine. It could be said that Borders' employees can see a customer doing behaviors that support bad karma (eventual crashing and burning, bottoming out) while they remain silent, pretending to be friends.  Worse yet, daily they stuff their self-righteous judgments about parents and their sticky-fingered children running through the store with an arm full of books. A Borders employee wonders where the parent's child learned that it's OK to rip off others.

Karmic consequence number three:

Most browsers who drop by regularly to read, say, "PC World" magazine, know they are ripping off the employees of Borders—and PC World magazine. At some level they know that they are thwarting the prosperity of the staff of both organizations. They know it that it is stealing (getting something for nothing), they feel sneaky or even guilty while doing it.* Some have been taught that it's not right, they almost expect to have a clerk ask, "Would you like to buy that?" Others have accumulated a lifetime of such sneaky perpetrations that one more doesn't bother their conscience. They still come in a couple times a week to continue reading a novel. Their mind is chock full of reasons: "Everyone does it." "Borders knows and wants people to do it." "It's included in the cost of doing business." etc., etc.

These patrons rationalize thoughts having to do with their unethical behavior. Behavior that is ethical (in-integrity) doesn't trigger/require justifications. They ignore their experience of guilt (the integrity reminder that they are thwarting the prosperity of others). They pretend they don't know that it's bound to come back on them. It is in fact an unconscious cry for help, "Won't someone please speak up and support me in going straight?" Read  Parole—The 1st 24 hours—a short story.

* This guilt hangs around in the back of the mind. It serves as a barrier to the experience of communication. Instead of going into their next communication being whole and complete (in-integrity) they are unaware that they are dragging remnants of not feeling good having just ripped off someone. Later when they have a breakdown in communication with someone they cannot be certain that it's not a consequence of their sneaking prosperity-thwarting behavior earlier in the day.

It is possible to clean up life's perpetrations. Read The Clearing Process

Post feedback/comments Register (it's free) and press REPLY.

Update: On July 22, 2011 Borders announced it was going out of business.

Last edited 9/6/18

[ top ]

Permission to quote is encouraged providing you acknowledge Kerry King or Community Communications.

Sponsored by Community Communications, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) education organization

Close this window to return to the page you came from.