did i just miss somthing or are some people or me just rude

[sensu]

yesterday i went to the local library to print some family court documents, now i know that to most people 80p is nothing and should not be argued over but on welfare its a lot in the uk and a court document can be dismissed if un readable.

 

when i went to collect the print outs the lady at the desk asked me for the money, as i know that public printers are not all ways the best at printing documents clearly all the time i asked to see the 8 pages first which i think is fare. (in the past people have had no problem with this and they have been given the money no problems)

 

the lady then said that i had to pay first before i could see the documents, i asked if i would be refunded if the documents were faded or out of alignment as in some missing text, she said no i told her i would not in any form purchase something without seeing it first

 

this upset her and she tried to argue with me and stated i had to pay as i walked back to the pc to collect my things and leave

 

the main problem is was it my directness that caused the conflict in communication or a policy that she had to addhear to this kind of thing i have clocked before in people and its really starting to rub me the wrong way as a child of the care system i know i may go to far in the future i have worked hard at being calm and collected but i can see problems in the future if not addressed   anyone els have this and what is the best way to deal with it??

[shirgall]

This scenario is a conflict of the underlying interests. The printer lady spends money every time something is printed, even in error. You only want to pay for printouts that are usable to you. The negotiation here should have been around possibly reprinting things that are in error at a lower cost that you could both agree to, as it is likely that what she charges is enough to cover her costs plus a little more to handle overhead, people who print things that never pick them up, etc.

 

Acknowledging the interests of the other is an important aspect of negotiation for mutual gain.

 

I think the rudeness you experienced could have been curtailed with this approach. People are used to "positional bargaining" where they hammer a stake in the ground and refuse to budge without concession. This method works when the best alternative to a negotiated agreement is no agreement... which is where you ended up. It was worth more to you and to her to protect your positions than it was to walk away.

[thebeardslastcall]

I think the problem here is that you tried to negotiate after you'd printed documents instead of setting terms ahead of time. Thus you'd already committed to a cost on their end and then challenged that cost. I think the better approach is to set terms ahead of time if you think you're going to challenge them or to print a small amount and "take the hit" and then go elsewhere to print more if they won't correct or compensate you for the poorly printed pages. Proper trade negotiation is all about setting terms ahead of time, otherwise you will inevitably run into problems. You have to be on the same page and you clearly weren't. And if this was a government worker all the more reason to not expect standard customer service and customer appeasement for future "business".

[DaVinci]

This scenario is a conflict of the underlying interests. The printer lady spends money every time something is printed, even in error. You only want to pay for printouts that are usable to you. The negotiation here should have been around possibly reprinting things that are in error at a lower cost that you could both agree to, as it is likely that what she charges is enough to cover her costs plus a little more to handle overhead, people who print things that never pick them up, etc.

 

Acknowledging the interests of the other is an important aspect of negotiation for mutual gain.

 

I think the rudeness you experienced could have been curtailed with this approach. People are used to "positional bargaining" where they hammer a stake in the ground and refuse to budge without concession. This method works when the best alternative to a negotiated agreement is no agreement... which is where you ended up. It was worth more to you and to her to protect your positions than it was to walk away.

  

 

Except he did walk away? After trying to negotiate? I'm confused by your point.

 

I think the problem here is that you tried to negotiate after you'd printed documents instead of setting terms ahead of time. Thus you'd already committed to a cost on their end and then challenged that cost. I think the better approach is to set terms ahead of time if you think you're going to challenge them or to print a small amount and "take the hit" and then go elsewhere to print more if they won't correct or compensate you for the poorly printed pages. Proper trade negotiation is all about setting terms ahead of time, otherwise you will inevitably run into problems. You have to be on the same page and you clearly weren't. And if this was a government worker all the more reason to not expect standard customer service and customer appeasement for future "business".

Most places don't set terms ahead of time. The terms ahead of times is that there are no terms that can be set ahead of time. And since there is no recourse for bad business people end up stuck.

[shirgall]

Except he did walk away? After trying to negotiate? I'm confused by your point.

 

Based on the question, I did not interpret "walking away" as the best possible solution, and the rudeness indicating positional bargaining.

[sensu]

This scenario is a conflict of the underlying interests. The printer lady spends money every time something is printed, even in error. You only want to pay for printouts that are usable to you. The negotiation here should have been around possibly reprinting things that are in error at a lower cost that you could both agree to, as it is likely that what she charges is enough to cover her costs plus a little more to handle overhead, people who print things that never pick them up, etc.

 

Acknowledging the interests of the other is an important aspect of negotiation for mutual gain.

 

I think the rudeness you experienced could have been curtailed with this approach. People are used to "positional bargaining" where they hammer a stake in the ground and refuse to budge without concession. This method works when the best alternative to a negotiated agreement is no agreement... which is where you ended up. It was worth more to you and to her to protect your positions than it was to walk away.

I think the problem here is that you tried to negotiate after you'd printed documents instead of setting terms ahead of time. Thus you'd already committed to a cost on their end and then challenged that cost. I think the better approach is to set terms ahead of time if you think you're going to challenge them or to print a small amount and "take the hit" and then go elsewhere to print more if they won't correct or compensate you for the poorly printed pages. Proper trade negotiation is all about setting terms ahead of time, otherwise you will inevitably run into problems. You have to be on the same page and you clearly weren't. And if this was a government worker all the more reason to not expect standard customer service and customer appeasement for future "business".

thanks guys i was so blind to it and to my self.

 

in the aim to be less aggressive, i have become to submissive or passive limiting my choices and ability to take control of my environment (i got to comfortable) i maid an assumption that the actions of past  would be the same again 

 

it looks like i have allowed my ability to control my anger control my actions ... the fear of anger or moment has blinded my ability to negociate in a more appropriate way .... i need to work on my communication and needs more