BP Gas stations

[elessar78]

I have been making a conscious effort not to gas up at any BP stations. Not necessarily because of the spill, moreso from the company's reaction. Anyway someone was telling me yesterday that you're really just hurting a local business owner/franchisee and not the actual company.

I can see the validity of that argument. I mean this guy chose to market BP as opposed to any other brand of gasoline and he/she was just unlucky that this company had the bad luck of causing an oil spill. I'm not sure if BP was negligent. But really it could be any company: Shell, Exxon-Mobil (already did that), etc

[talltom]

I think your observation about BP gas station owners is correct. They're independent small business owners that are tied to a very unfortunate event. Guilt by association?

Anybody can say whatever they want about BP, but given the circumstances, what more can they do currently? No cleanup, restitution, or damage mitigation process will be perfect, especially when the feds step in. Someone somewhere can find fault with that too. Heck, if they were perfect, this mess would have never happened.

Anyway, my thoughts and prayers go out to all the people on the gulf coast who are adversely affected by this tragedy.

Talltom

[elessar78]

It wasn't my observation, but nonetheless I think it's valid. I don't know how it affects my current stance. I'm still in boycott mode right now.

[Broken Arrow]

Relevant article.

[disneysteve]

Very interesting. I have never personally supported any type of boycott and this is one of the reasons why - unintended consequences. The boycott often doesn't really have any significant effect on the intended target but hurts a bunch of others in the process.

[Snodog]

I think boycotting BP could be counterproductive. If the boycott gains traction and BP goes under who is going to be stuck with the cost of cleaning up the mess? The taxpayers. So maybe we should reverse boycott?

[Snodog]

I have been making a conscious effort not to gas up at any BP stations. Not necessarily because of the spill, moreso from the company's reaction.

I cringe whenever I see one of those BP ads. It makes it seem as though the company is more worried about its image than capping that hole in the ocean floor. If they really wanted more effective PR couldn't they use those millions for something else? Maybe instead to buy food for the people there who are cleaning up - just off the top of my head?

[feh]

What's happened and is happening in the gulf makes me sick, but I usually buy my gas from BP stations, and that habit hasn't changed. The person that owns the station isn't responsible for the spill.

[bjl584]

I don't support boycotts in general. Usually, as in the case of this one, the target or focus of the boycott is not the guilty party of the action that you are boycotting. A local ga station owner and his employees have no impact, knowledge, or blame for what occurs 25 miles out to sea a mile below the surface.

[jpg7n16]

I say if it bothers you that much, vote with your feet. It isn't your boycott that is hurting the small business owners, it is the negligence of their corporate representatives that is hurting them.

Would you have done business with EnRon if you knew what was going on behind the scenes? Well why not - the lower level employees aren't to blame for what's going on up top... EnRon salespeople had children to feed too, and you're just hurting the middle class.

At some point, the large corporate division of BP will have to understand that it and its actions are directly responsible for the effect of public attitude towards their small business owners. And if small business owners hurt as a result of their inappropriate actions, that is on them (aka corporate directors) - not you as a concerned customer.


I personally don't use BP anyways, so it has had no effect on my gas preferences. I also am not terribly upset to the point that I would boycott even if it was Shell. There are certain things I would boycott a corporation for though.

So it's not the small business owner's fault, but it most definitely is their problem. They should speak up.

[disneysteve]

Would you have done business with EnRon if you knew what was going on behind the scenes?

So it's not the small business owner's fault, but it most definitely is their problem. They should speak up.

That isn't a fair comparison. The lower level employees still worked for Enron. The independent gas station owners do not work for BP.

Owners are speaking up. They are switching their brand as fast as they can and getting away from selling BP, except for the ones who are under contract and stuck with it.

[jpg7n16]

My point wasn't that BP is on par with EnRon - it was more that the corporate directors are responsible for taking care of those underneath them in the corporate structure.

It'd be like McDonald's violating USDA standards by corporate directive or coming out with statements derogatory to Hindus, or something else ridiculous that is inappropriate. McDonald's is primarily operated by franchise owners, who would suffer based on the actions of corporate directors. (i haven't heard of mcd's doin anything like that. goooo big macs!)


If the owners can change brands, and feel they should as a result of actions taken, then they should. But if they want to stick with BP through the whole thing, that's fine too.

But customers shouldn't feel obligated to stick with a company solely for the reason that it might hurt the middle class citizens that work there.

[disneysteve]

It'd be like McDonald's violating USDA standards by corporate directive or coming out with statements derogatory to Hindus

Totally OT, but McDonald's did get in trouble a number of years ago when it was somehow discovered that although their fries are fried in 100% vegetable oil, they didn't bother to tell anyone that they made the fries with beef tallow. So all of the vegetarians and Hindus who don't eat beef for one reason or another had actually been consuming beef tallow all that time.

[jpg7n16]

ha really??? wow, I was makin that up, but okay. see that would be a legit reason to boycott McDonalds then. Even though it is hurting the independent franchise owners.

That's pretty messed up.

[wincrasher]

So you'd rather they go belly up and stick the taxpayers with the expense of the cleanup and claims? Or maybe just screw the victims?

Boycotting makes as much sense as boycotting GM. Rather they not pay back the government? Rather a million more on unemployment benefits?

Life isn't black and white. Neither is right and wrong.