B&H Has Lost My Business

[Orrin]

I have been shopping at B&H since all they had was a tiny shop on Warren St. They only sold film and videotapes then. (I worked in lower Manhattan at the time)

Then they moved to a decent sized store on 17th street. It was a friendly shop and no-one tried to rip you off like some other camera stores at that time.

Then they opened their current photo-video supermarket behind Penn Station which had, and still has, most everything you need!

Now that I have retired to Nevada, they still supply my photo and some of my electronic needs. Although since I no longer use film, all I order now is ink, paper and and occasional usb drive!

Also over the years, Henry Posner has been a friend of the NY area camera clubs.

I really do not care what they do behind the scenes as long as my orders are filled accurately and shipped in a timely manner!

 

[DarkShadow]

Um that sounds like Extortion to me.

It is, but who is going to prosecute it?

Funny we do that, we go to jail, they do it its called legal.

 

[smoke665]

Um that sounds like Extortion to me.

It is and they don't care, because they've gotten away with it for so long. Had another federal agency tell me in a face to face meeting WITH MY ATTORNEY PRESENT, that he recommended I fight it in court because I would win, but their department "policy" was to always force companies to take them to court. A quick mental calculation eliminated any doubt I paid the extortion fee.

 

[waday]

Now if you choose not to shop at a store because of their belief aren't you then being discriminatory

No, you're being a consumer with the option to choose where to shop. Competition and all that...

 

[smoke665]

Here's another little fly in the ointment on "Federal Investigations" into wrong doing by companies. If they have sufficient evidence to bring a case to trial - why in the world would they let a company agree to a consent decree? Why not prosecute them????? Yet you never see a headline " Feds agree to let company off the hook because they don't have sufficient evidence to prosecute".

 

[table1349]

Here's another little fly in the ointment on "Federal Investigations" into wrong doing by companies. If they have sufficient evidence to bring a case to trial - why in the world would they let a company agree to a consent decree? Why not prosecute them????? Yet you never see a headline " Feds agree to let company off the hook because they don't have sufficient evidence to prosecute".

That's a simple one. MONEY!!!! The cost of going to trial is far higher than most people understand. If you can come to an agreement you save the taxpayers a whole lot of money. Especially when you consider the loosing party in the trial is probably going to appeal which will cost the tax payers even more money. It is the basic concept of pick your battles.

 

[smoke665]

It is the basic concept of pick your battles.

And yet people automatically assume the company is guilty when they take that attitude, but never consider the Feds might be incompetent or unabashed scam artist merely trying to justify their existence.

 

[tirediron]

If you can come to an agreement you save the taxpayers a whole lot of money. ...

Dude... you didn't seriously just suggest that a government was concerned about fiscal responsibility and how it spends the tax-payer's money????? WTF are you smoking, and can I have some?

 

[vintagesnaps]

The NY Post is a tabloid so I wouldn't just go by that article - which is old news anyway (with a poorly done photo and a poorly written article - I could write better on my school newspaper). Apparently B&H had a number of Hispanic employees who worked in the warehouse and obviously it would be different in a warehouse compared to working in a store, but I don't know about specific complaints or how/if things were resolved. I remember reading about this but don't remember what came of it. Probably you'd need to look up other articles from when this happened to find out how it turned out.

 

[table1349]

If you can come to an agreement you save the taxpayers a whole lot of money. ...

Dude... you didn't seriously just suggest that a government was concerned about fiscal responsibility and how it spends the tax-payer's money????? WTF are you smoking, and can I have some?

Actually yes they are in these sorts of cases. Not just the Federal Government but State Governments as well. There is only so much money to go around. There have been instances where counties have had to shut down courts for some periods of time, usually a day a week or something to that effect.

Keep in mind that everyone's main concern is the violent felony crimes. Those will always be at the top of the list. It is usually cheaper for all concerned to settle than to go to court in civil cases. Don't think for one second that Dewy, Cheatum & Howe, Attorney's at Law come cheap. Back in the early 1980's it cost the government $600.00 an hour to pursue a civil case. It's far more expensive now. How many photography jobs have you had for $600 an hour.

The Toronto Star reports that in Canada a three day trial will likely cost $60,000.00. Here is an article from 2010 on the very subject. Fewer civil cases go to juries due in large part to cost

Frankly the cost of litigation is outrageous. In my little berg the good lawyers now require a 15,000 -20,000 retainer, and that is just the start. In the bigger cities and when dealing with higher profile cases that retainer fee goes up tremendously.

If you are interested here is a report from the 90's regarding Canadian litigation and costs. The Cost of the Civil Justice System - Ministry of the Attorney General

 

[smoke665]

Frankly the cost of litigation is outrageous. In my little berg the good lawyers now

Not defending B&H at all but if a business brings a frivolous lawsuit agonist someone not only can you get hammered but in some cases the attorneys themselves face sanctions. Not so when the Feds bring indefensible claims.

 

[table1349]

Frankly the cost of litigation is outrageous. In my little berg the good lawyers now

Not defending B&H at all but if a business brings a frivolous lawsuit agonist someone not only can you get hammered but in some cases the attorneys themselves face sanctions. Not so when the Feds bring indefensible claims.

Sorry but that is false. Have you ever been in Federal Court. Have you ever seen a pissed off Federal Judge? I have, fortunately not at me. It is not just in Federal court but State Court as well.

Recently in a criminal case in Colorado a prosecutor was fined $580,000.00 for failing to turn over one document to the defense. Now the laws of discovery are important, however after all was said and done it was determined that the document had no bearing on the trial what so ever and secondly that the failure was inadvertent. The document had gotten stuck to another document as they were being photocopied for the defense. None the less that slight error by the prosecutors support staff cost him not only monetarily but he was sanctioned by the bar.

Don't believe that there are no checks and balances for there are.

 

[smoke665]

Actually I have been both litigant and defendent, to the tune of several million in Federal Court. Criminal cases follow a stringent set of rules of discovery which is very different from from my earlier statement regarding filing of frivolous civil cases.

 

[table1349]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I have yet to see a frivolous civil case brought by the USA that did not result in grave consequences for the US Attorney and the office.

 

[HelenOster]

.....[speculation]....Adorama ..... is within the same family? ...

And that is what it is. Speculation. (Much like the contents of the article IMHO). And it's incorrect - unless the fact that one employee is a distant cousin by marriage of another employee counts as being within the same family?