If I understand the customer's mindset it goes something like this. The
customer requires the vendor to do EDI. The enticement is two-fold, (1) you
want to continue to do business and (2) there will be cost savings.
For a while all is well. Then the customer discovers they need to make
increase margins. Somebody thinks, hey the vendor is saving money by using EDI
we are entitled to some of that savings. Being the lowly vendor you don't have
a lot of recourse so you grin and bear it.
Eventually somebody gets the idea of charge backs and the bandit without a mask
game starts all over again.
"Beecher, Anthony" wrote:
> Yes, I have only heard of charges for NOT using EDI.
>
> Why don't you bluff and float the idea of using paper? See if they suddenly
> discover the "benefit of EDI".
>
> Anthony Beecher
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Divoky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> We have all heard of extra charges for sending paper documents but not
> vice versa, I suspect. If the use of EDI and any possible EDI charges were
> not specified in the original contract,
> someone slipped up.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Pokraka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Now that the deal is struck, supplier comes back and
> > says that EDI is of no benefit to them, but merely a service that they
> > provide as part of the package, thus they will charge their customer for
> it.
>
> =======================================================================
> To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
--
Glenn Thompson
Programmer/Analyst
American Trouser, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
=======================================================================
To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
