Business Ethics: Opening a Shop Next to a Shop - Rabbi Shlomo Cohen

[Music] a [Applause] question that often comes up thats related to a very large topic which is actually not discussed anywhere in chaste of benefiting from someone else's effort let's say that you've got a shot on the high street and your shop has been there for many years because of the great name that your shop has people come from all over town whenever they want to buy shoes right you have a shoe shop everyone who needs shoes they all know that you've got a great shoe shop and they all come to you now another guy comes along and opens up a shoe shop next door to you and you come to him with it with China's hang on a sec everyone that comes around here is coming because of me they're coming to my shop you're going to be taking away my business you have to close up your shop is that a valid claim in Jewish monetary law or not the Gamorrean moset about the batter asks the question are you allowed to open up a shop next to someone else's existing shop not necessarily in a case where they have tremendous they have a tremendous name and attracting large amounts of people to this store but even where they're not just in a normal case where one of the shop owner says there's not going to be enough business here for the two of us well I'm not going to be making that profit if you're here next door to me the Gomorrah wants to bring a case to prove from this case as to whether there's a problem with opening up a shop next to someone else to shop or not the gamal says it tells us a case like this let's say you're going fishing you're going fishing you go down to the river and when you get there you see that there's already a fisherman there the fisherman's been there all day fishing away when you come to fish says the Gomorrah you shouldn't stand next in and fish right next in but you should move down the river find a piece of river for yourself and there do your fishing but don't come and fish next to him why the first guys been there all day long and he's put a lot of bait in the water he's put a lot of effort into catching fish and the fish are all gathering around him and why the fish gathering around him because of his effort for you to come along and benefit benefit from his effort is immoral it would seem from this piece of gomorrah carries on the gomorrah to say that this doesn't apply in every case there's an argument amongst the different commentators as to what exactly is the case here where we're saying that the second guy could can't come and fish next to the first guy some say that the case is talking about a case where the fish are not just gathering around the first fisherman the fish are actually already inside his neck but his net is still inside the water so he hasn't taken out his net to actually make any act of acquisition on those fish the fish of course our own Alice right fish dinner in a in a in a river don't belong to anyone as long as the river doesn't belong to someone right in a normal case the fish don't belong to anyone and we're talking about a case like that so the first guy doesn't own any of the fish yet only when he takes the net out of the water will he make an active ax acquisition on some on the fish that are inside the net while the net is still in the water the fish are not yet his nevertheless we see that someone else shouldn't come along and take those fish out of his net another way of explaining the Gomorrah is that the case is talking about where there's one big fish that's got an underground cave over there this first fisherman has been looking after this fish foot looking looking out for this fish for a long time and he's found out now where the fish's hole is and he's put his bait just outside the hole and it's just a matter of time until the fish comes out and takes his bait even though he hasn't yet caught the fish the fish doesn't yet belong to him nevertheless seeing as it's ninety-nine point nine percent certain that this fisherman is going to catch the fish it's just a question of waiting until the fish comes out and takes his bait so for someone else to take that fish is not right it's considered as immoral from here the gamal wants to say that you see let's compare this case to the case of a shot I've opened up a shop on the high street i'm selling shoes everyone is coming around here all the fish the fish are my clients to customers they're all coming around here because of me maybe they're coming around here because of my advertising campaign maybe I spent millions on advertising and because of that people are coming to my shop and you now want to come and open up next door to me and take away those fish those customers which are already coming straight towards me we see from here from this piece of gomorrah that that's immoral so that's not the right thing to do answers the Gomorrah you can't bring a proof from the case of the fish to the case of a shot there's a very big difference between customers buying from a shop and fish that are going to being caught going to be caught by the fisherman what's the difference the difference is that the customer's always have a choice to choose for themselves from which shop they're going to buy they will come along they'll see your shop and they'll see his shop and let them decide you can't decide for them human beings have understanding they have the the free will to make decisions for themselves they will decide themselves from which shop they want to buy the fish has much less of a choice and he sees food boom he grabs it he doesn't have a choice to sit and think I should I take this well should I take that don't want to eat this type of food today or select a different food today he doesn't really make choices like that as far as we know so the fish is almost caught even though he hasn't yet been caught he's definitely going to be caught by the fishermen that's why the attempts of fair ads in here that for someone else to take away those fish it's not just immoral he said the tremendous kedusha he says someone that takes away those fish from the first fishermen is a thief which is a tremendous huge because the first guy doesn't get on them nevertheless is a cat Amstell fair it's almost as if he owns them it's almost almost he's about to catch them someone who takes that away it's from him is considered as a thief in the case of the shop the people decide for themselves from where they're going to buy their their their goods and therefore that the conclusion of the gomorrah and the conclusion that allotted conclusion to of the question as to whether you're allowed to open up a shop next to an existing shop is that you are allowed to and there's no problem of morality in doing that unless what you're doing is something that is going to definitely close the first shot if you're doing it and certainly for doing it with that intention to cause damage to the existing shop then that's definitely immoral a lot the right way for a nice Jewish boy to behave but if you're not doing it for that purpose then you wouldn't be considered as having acted immorally by by by doing so it's interesting that we should say just that it's accepted today amongst economists that's on the contrary having a large number of shoe shops for example in a particular area is good for everyone because that means that the place becomes a place where everyone in the whole town that needs shoes knows that that's the place to go there's four or five shops there to choose from and having a large number of the same type of shop in one area can be good for everyone right but also it can certainly be damaging as well and there are a lot of cases where people come with a claim that why are you going to open up the same shop next to me you're going to cause me damage but let's take it a specific situation and see if it may be comparable to the case of the fish in most major towns you have a central bus station the central bus station is something that may have been built by the bus company and they built it so that all the buses that are traveling from our town outwards they all have a central place to be everyone that needs to travel knows that I'm going to go to the central bus station and from there i'll get the buses that i need to ever i'm traveling around the country so this central bus station is like a large next that is attracting all the travelers all the travelers are coming then if someone is now standing in line in that central bus station to buy a ticket to take a bus to somewhere and a driver comes along to them while they're standing in line assistant you know leave them come with me I've got a car waiting outside we're just leaving for your destination come with me I'll take you for the same price so now maybe that situation is similar to the case of the fish which to hurt am so fair calls theft that customer is in the net already of the bus company he's just about to buy his ticket once he buys his ticket is a cocky few guys in front of him in line as soon as he buys his ticket he's caught he's been caught by the bus company's gonna travel with them without any doubt so for you to come along and take him away that maybe is similar to taking the fish out of the net of the fisherman where the fisherman hasn't yet taken the net out of the water and that would be even if it wouldn't necessarily be considered as theft as the hurt am so fair said is the case of a case that's similar to the fish but it would certainly be considered as having acted immorally because here the customer has given up on that the option of having any more choice once he's already there in line as he's already given up on choosing she's not choosing anymore so here even though as we said the difference between humans and fishes that human how humans have the truth that always can always change their mind here it looks like this guy has really been caught by the bus company the same thing would apply if in the case of our two shoe shops if the second the second shoe shop instead of putting his shop passively outside and allowing people to choose into which shop they wish to go into he comes into the other first guy shop people in the first guy shoppers standing in line after his already chosen issues and he comes into the shop and he persuaded them to buy those same shoes from him water by other shoes from him that also says the curtains affair would be similar to the city to the case of the fish and would be a morally wrong it couldn't wait would made maybe be even considered as theft for the second guy to come into the shop of the first guy and do that now even though I said that opening up a shop next to someone else's shot is allowed I made a condition that it's not you're not doing it intentionally to close up the other guys shop but it's interesting that the better Seth brings a case of a dead-end Road a road with a dead end we're at the end of the road there's a shop owner because it's a dead end road it's a road as know when either way in apart from one way in if someone else were to open up a shop at the entrance to that dead-end Road right our guy yo CEA's got his his shop at the end of dead end road and another guy comes and opens up his shop at the entrance to that dead-end Road so now he's closed down the foot the first guy completely no one is going to get to the first guys shop the beit yosef says that even in such a case it's a it's permitted for the second guy to open up his shop at the entrance to that dead-end road even though here it looks like he is really going to shut down the first guy shop but nevertheless it's interesting that we see in the post him over the generations that they pass conduces the jalapao like this case it's called the case of the BSF that where the second guy is going to open up his shop in such a situation that it's gonna close the first guy the first guy got no real chance of doing good competition with him then we wouldn't allow the first the second guy to open up his shop but I have to qualify this what about where the second guy that's opening up is a large chain of supermarkets that is going to be selling things cheaply at prices which the original shop can't compete with but you're right is going to close down the first shop there's not going to be room for the small little grocery shore store that we've all been buying from for the past 50 60 years but what about the good of the consumer that we're going to boot if we allow the supermarket to come to town your right is going to close down the first shop the further that the little grocery store won't be able to compete with him but it's good for the consumers so what comes first in the halacha does it do the consumers come first or does this guy come first a locker is there a more says that where the second guy is going to come and put down prices cut prices the hall at of then he's doing a good thing because you're doing something that's good for the community and therefore even though there might be a gloss it might be a clear loss to the previous shop owner nevertheless the supermarket is a out to come and you they can't be shut down and not allowed to open with the claim that they're going to cause damage to the first shop on wherever it's possible in such cases there are many cases you can imagine in many small communities where where there's just not enough people for there to be more than one kosher kosher grocery store yeah it happens in a number of places and then a second one wants to come and open our so what do we do so we always try the but i did i'm always try in such cases to make sure that the first shop which is going to be suffering from the second shop is nevertheless there's going to be some employment for the previous foot for the grocery store owner the original grocery store owner even if it's going to be sometimes there can be competition sometimes they can certainly is you cannot any economists can tell you that a small shop can sometimes if you specializes and as special service and does things in a special way he can compete with the large store but nevertheless barbadian always would try and make a compromise in such a situation that the the employment and the power no sir of the first shop owner wouldn't be harmed this whole subject of one person benefiting from someone else's effort is a very very large topic it comes up in many many different situations let me just mention another one to you and with that we'll finish off the the sure for today of the case of someone who's got a job and he's happy in his job and you are now opening up your own company and you think this guy's exactly who you need for your company are you allowed to take him away from his previous employer are you allowed to go to him and say listen I wanted to come and work for me here in a way to in a way to your taking away this worker from the place where where he's he's if you like been caught in the net already of his employer his employer is employing him he's already there he's already working there and now you're coming to take him away he could have been trained by the first employer and he could have deployed first employer might have put a lot of effort into training this guy in getting him good at his job and now you want to come and take him away and have him work for you so is that too considered as immoral as I said leben a user laughs at him that I college boy who says that the Jewish people are slaves to me and not slaves to each other from here we learn that any employee can quit whenever he needs to quit he shouldn't be working no employee should be working in a situation where he's considered like a slave to his employer that he can't leave and that's one of the the cardinal principles of freedom that you can just get up and go whenever you need to get up and go whenever you want to get up and go so any worker can leave whenever he lacked if he's got a contract there's problems if he's bound himself in a contract he has to keep the Condor conditions of his contract but generally a worker can get up and leave whenever he needs to leave sometimes there can be financial consequences to that if he leaves in the middle of a job that needs to be finished right there are so are certainly financial consequences but a worker generally can get up and leave whenever he needs to leave so does that mean that you're allowed to poach a worker that shooken off says you are he's allowed to choose for himself who he wants to work for you can offer him the job you can say listen I want you to come and work for me and that is not considered as acting immorally that says the shock on or off what about if the opposite situation arises what about if the situation arises where an employee is already in a particular job but you want that job you think that that job is exactly the job for you you're qualified and you're trained and you want to get that job for yourself are you allowed to aggressively approach the employer and telling listen throw him out and take me in his place I'm much better than he is and I'll prove it to you are you allowed to do that who is that considered as acting immorally says the shoppin off that you're not allowed to do that you're not allowed to do that the ploy is already working working for this person the employee here has got the employer in his net and it's not right for you to come and take the employer away from him now you could always count with a hanger let the employer decide for himself as if I as a prospective employee am sending my CV I'm sending my prospectus to an employer then that's not there's no certain no problem with that and let him decide for himself i can even approach him passively and and tell him the the advantages of employing me but we're talking about aggressively pushing the other guy out let's say if the manager is your uncle and so you're gonna go there and you're going to say listen uncle uncle joe throw him out I've just qualified as an accountant and take me in his place that says the show phone off you're not allowed to do the aggressive approach to throw him out and take me you're not allowed to do that similar maybe to the case of the fish that you're taking the fish which in this case is the employer out of the net of the employee so bizarre to Shem we see from these cases these few cases that we've discussed there's much more to talk about but in these cases of different different situations that can arise in our everyday in our everyday lives in everyday business life or even a life at home and even the life of a housewife which are all connected to Jewish business ethics thank you [Music] you