OT - Obnoxious customers & limits




> Mark Shaw wrote:
>
> > Elaine Parrish <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 17 Dec 2005, Julia Altshuler wrote:
> >
> > > > Under what circumstances is an employee justified in throwing out an
> > > > asshat customer?
> >
> > > Never. Without a decision from the boss, an employee never has the
> > > "right" to do so without putting his/her job in danger.
> >
> > Not true, depending on the job and company policies. Bartenders
> > and bouncers typically eject customers without getting permission
> > from anybody.
>

And just how does "decision from the boss" differ from "the job and
company policies"? Does "the job" description not come from "the boss"
however many levels, states, or countries away? "Company policies" also
come from "the boss" - whoever or wherever he/she may be.

Efficient and effective "bosses" give employees guidelines for handling
situations that arise in the form of verbal instructions, job
descriptions, or company policies. "Mom and Pop" places can be very lax on
communicating these things to employees. That doesn't change the fact that
until "the boss" does communicate his/her perceptions of properly handling
situations of all kinds, an employee never has the "right" to make these
kinds of decisions **without standing to account for them** which means,
in the extreme, putting one's job on the line.

Your examples of bouncers, bartenders, etc are no exception. Their job
descriptions, whether verbal or written, call for them to do the things
they do. They aren't making it up as they go along - even though each
situation must be assessed individually. The first time that bouncer drags
a drunk toward the door and breaks the arm he has twisted behind that
drunk's back, and visions of lawsuits start dancing in the boss's head,
that bouncer will be called to account - maybe with his job.

Most employee actions are judged "after the fact". What was (or was not) a
correct action by an employee depends on what the boss thinks was right -
in lieu of specific written instructions. Employees make decisions every
day. You win some and you lose some. The trick is to win more than you
lose. The whole idea is for the situation (a decision made by an
employee) to be as correct in hindsight as it seemed at the time. The
cues must come from "the boss'" perceptions of the right way and wrong way
to handle situations.

Elaine, too
 
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:52:22 -0500, Dave Smith
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Denny Wheeler wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 19:03:48 -0500, Dave Smith
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >A few years later I did the upstairs bathroom. I got the supplies
>> >from the same store and paid a $25 deposit to borrow the tools. I
>> >finished the job, returned the tools and got my deposit back.
>> >Wouldn't you know that a few weeks later I get a call from the same
>> >woman trying to tell me that someone had returned the deposit
>> >without getting the tools back.
>> >
>> >I had been quite polite the first time it happened. I was not so
>> >restrained the second time.
>>
>> You didn't get a signed (and maybe notarized) receipt for the tools
>> the second time? tsk, tsk.
>
>I figure that getting back my deposit was good enough :)

Good point. Hm.
Occurs to me that perhaps one could earn a few bux selling that store
a tracking system for tools.

--
-denny-
"Do your thoughts call ahead or do they just arrive at your mouth unannounced?"

"It's come as you are, baby."

-over the hedge
 
sf wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:30:28 GMT, "Ophelia" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"The Ranger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:59:58 GMT, "Ophelia" <[email protected]>
> >> replied:
> >> [snip]
> >>>Jones! [..]
> >>
> >> To want something in an uncontrollably compulsive way. "I was
> >> Jonesin' for a piece of that Chocolate Decadence Instant Death!"
> >
> >Thanks:) I think I am getting the picture:) I am still curious as to
> >how it got the name Jones though:)
> >
> ever hear the term "keeping up with the jones" - coveting/lusting for
> what someone else has

I'm not sure that's the source of the phrase though - it initially was
a term used by addicts when they needed another fix.
-L.
 
Denny Wheeler wrote:

>
> >> >I had been quite polite the first time it happened. I was not so
> >> >restrained the second time.
> >>
> >> You didn't get a signed (and maybe notarized) receipt for the tools
> >> the second time? tsk, tsk.
> >
> >I figure that getting back my deposit was good enough :)
>
> Good point. Hm.
> Occurs to me that perhaps one could earn a few bux selling that store
> a tracking system for tools.

The system was pretty simple. You pay a deposit on the tools and get then you get
the deposit back when you return the tools. It was the human element that betrayed
the system. I don't know why anyone would be stupid enough to suggest that I got
my deposit back without returning the tools. It was bad enough when it happened the
first time, but it floored me when it happened the second time.
 
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005, Shaun aRe wrote:

>
> "Michael "Dog3" Lonergan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
> > Personally I don't think you have to put up with sexual harassment
> > anywhere.
>
> Sorry, but I really do not understand why all the qualifiers like
> 'personally' and 'I think' and 'maybe' that I'm seeing in this thread WRT
> sexual harassment. Well ANY kind of abusive harassment really. It is wrong,
> and you do not have to put up with it - period.

It is wrong. But "wrong" is a moral judgement unless there are laws on the
books that say it is wrong, adequate evidence to win in a court of law,
and money to pay an attorney, etc. Your opinion is correct - in a perfect
world.


>The boss wants to fire you
> for refusing to take abuse? Sue the **** for wrongful dissmissal and win -
>

This simply is not the case in the US. Many states, including the one in
which I live, have *NO* laws on the books to protect workers - called
Labor Laws. The only federal law specifies "discrimination based on race,
creed, color, national origin, or sex". Most of the "sympathies" of the
governing bodies lay with business, so Labor laws are almost impossible to
get passed and even harder to keep.

This is not to say that employees are not protected under other laws, such
as the statutes against assault, fraud, or sexual harrassment. However,
they are not protected as "employees", but as regular citizens.



> there is no law says You have to put yourself through psycho-emotional
> trauma - not from bosses, not from co-workers, not from customers. The boss
> may not like this one bit and may use the fact they hold your job as a lever
> to have you do their bidding no matter how traumatic, but that's not a law,
> not a legal requirement of you to put up with it - it's their tough ****
> should you decide you've had enough and take appropriate action.

You are mistaken here as regards most of the states in the US.
In many states, the employee has only one viable option - find another
job.

Union jobs, usually, build in some kind of protections for their members,
but unions don't even offer the level of protection they once did.

The larger companies that have "handbooks" or "policy books" or "rules
books" can use the policies to fire an employee, but the books (or
pamphlets, or handouts, etc) are only binding on the employee, not the
employer. The courts do recognize the policies books as a defense for
employers in firing an employee, but the courts do not recognize them if
presented by employees as proof of anything. The policy books do not
constitute a contract. Employment does not constitute a contract. This is
the law in much of the US and many companies have begun to state on many
forms, etc, "Employment does not constitute a contract"(which would fall
under "Contract" Law).

The only exception is legal, written contracts - as are negociated by a
unions or by some individuals, etc.

Elaine, too





<snipped>
>
> Shaun aRe
>
>
>
 
Ted Campanelli <[email protected]> writes:

[Customer experience snipped]

>> This leads me to the question I'm opening for discussion. What are the
>> limits?
>
>If the person is just being obnoxious and rude (this can very easily get
>into the 'loud' category - see above :), tell your boss what happened
>(and do not sugar coat it either ) and inform the boss you will not wait
>on this person again.

Having spent several years in the service industry and a few years in
the school district, I'm really confused by the experience Julia
described. Let me just say it doesn't sound that bad, that I've dealt
with much worse in places that have much less tolerance than a wine
shop.
The guy chewed you out. OK, he was a jerk. Jerks happen. Have you
never had a jerk before? Maybe it was just the tone of your post but
it seems like you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Also, when a
jerk gets jerky, for corn's sake DON'T just sit there grinning. It's
antagonizing at best. Think about the times you've complained and the
dorkus behind the counter just snickered or smiled and ignored you.
I agree with Ted that if he was that upsetting to you, tell the boss
you don't want to wait on this person anymore. I did that with one
family when I was a waitress (only to found out later that they were
deliberately rude because they got discounts on dinner when they
complained.) It shouldn't be a problem if you don't ask about this kind
of thing often, and if your boss is reasonable.
As for the other employee getting asked out, well, it doesn't sound
particularly lewd, just like you think the age difference alone is
creepy. That's your opinion. If the co-worker is so upset she's going
to hide when the guy comes in, then encourage her to talk to the boss
about it, but otherwise it's none of your business.

Stacia
 
Dave Smith <[email protected]> writes:

>Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

>> Customers can be rude and obnixious, but there has to be a limit. As some
>> point you step up and take action.

>I am sure there is a limit. I just feel sorry for the poor salesclerk who
>underestimates that limit and ends up getting fired.

Terrific point. That's exactly what I was thinking. There's been
people worrying that this guy was a stalker or murderer or some other
crazed maniac, but we don't know that, and it's probably not likely.
Someone also said that they expected their boss to stand up for them.
I've NEVER had a boss stand up for me. Am I the only one here who has
worked in service with supervisors who just "Yes sir" their way through
complaints because they don't want to deal with the hassle?
For all we know, Mr Boss was supposed to put in a standing order for
this guy, forgot all about the order and the customer, and the clerk
unfortunately got the brunt of the customer's anger when he realized his
order was forgotten. Mr Boss then fields the phone call complaint and,
knowing he's in the wrong, yes-sirs his way right through it, trying to
keep the guy happy. In my previous jobs, that's what would have been
the most likely scenario.

Stacia
 
Glitter Ninja wrote:

> Dave Smith <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
> >> Customers can be rude and obnixious, but there has to be a limit. As some
> >> point you step up and take action.
>
> >I am sure there is a limit. I just feel sorry for the poor salesclerk who
> >underestimates that limit and ends up getting fired.
>
> Terrific point. That's exactly what I was thinking. There's been
> people worrying that this guy was a stalker or murderer or some other
> crazed maniac, but we don't know that, and it's probably not likely.

Let's just go by the reaction here. A number of us seem to think that they guy is
just a jerk, not a threat to the OP and not enough of a threat to the young lady
who was seen by the OP as a victim. If she can't get a consensus here, how can
we expect the mom and pop operators to react to her booting out a paying
customer?


> Someone also said that they expected their boss to stand up for them.
> I've NEVER had a boss stand up for me. Am I the only one here who has
> worked in service with supervisors who just "Yes sir" their way through
> complaints because they don't want to deal with the hassle?

Then there is the plumbing theory... **** flows downhill. If someone craps on
the supervisor he or she is going to turn around and **** on the employee.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Ophelia" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "RoR" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> > not like they were blind-sided with the call.
>
> Rick, please will you explain 'blind-sided?

It just means the side you can't see on. For instance, if you are
looking to the left, and get hit on the right, you were blind-sided. It
isn't usually this literal, though. It means that you tell someone
something, and then it happens. They are totally surprised by it. It's
not like they were blind-sided, you already told them about it.

--
Dan Abel
[email protected]
Petaluma, California, USA
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"jacqui{JB}" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Damsel in dis Dress" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > To throw this even further off-topic ... why is it
> > that complete strangers feel free to touch the bellies
> > of pregnant women? I hated that!
>
> I cannot imagine what possesses some people. Some of my friends and
> coworkers have reported the same thing (hm, when I say "some," I mean all of
> them that have been pregnant!). It's a real wtf from my point of view --
> I've been curious, but never even asked a close friend if I could touch her
> in that way.


I like nothing better. Sort of "sharing in the magic". Still, not a
perfect stranger. And I always asked first.

--
Dan Abel
[email protected]
Petaluma, California, USA
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Dave Smith <[email protected]> wrote:


> > you don't think the retail clerks should be able to take control over a
> > situation?
>
> It is because I was an officer appointed to enforce the law and had a badge
> that
> gave me the authority. Don't take that as a smug answer. It was not as
> there
> was no accountability, because abuse of that authority could get me in
> trouble.
> The point is that that authority is what is missing with a clerk.

You are so right. Authority and POWER. In a retail situation, the
clerk has no power. The products are just there. The customer buys
them or not. If the clerk doesn't want to take the abuse, the customer
just walks. They are under no obligation to pay if they don't take the
product.

As an officer, you have some leeway. In some cases you can just issue a
warning. If you get attitude, there's a ticket. Major attitude, and
you find something else. Really bad attitude, and you spend the rest of
the shift finding stuff. If this person is doing commercial stuff,
maybe there are missed deliveries and mandatory overtime. They are in
deep trouble.

--
Dan Abel
[email protected]
Petaluma, California, USA
 
"The Ranger" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>
> What do you want the owner to do? Yell
> at a paying customer to treat his staff with respect? Yeah;
> that'll happen.

It has happened at least twice where I work. Maybe you need a better
employer.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
sarah bennett <[email protected]> wrote:

> The Ranger wrote:
>
> So, yes, Ed, commissioned salespeople are
> > legalized prostitutes. Non-commissioned salespeople are stupid.
> >
>
> WTF?

The "F" stands for "screw". Commissioned salespeople screw you. That's
what they do. The ones not on commission are just waiting to find a
real job.

Of course, there are a lot of exceptions.

--
Dan Abel
[email protected]
Petaluma, California, USA
 
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 04:15:48 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
replied:
>"The Ranger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > What do you want the owner to do? Yell at a paying
> > customer to treat his staff with respect? Yeah; that'll
> > happen.
> >
> It has happened at least twice where I work. Maybe you
> need a better employer.
>
Twice, huh? You guys must really screw things up to send customer
into screaming fits like that.

As far as my participation in the work force: My employers are the
harshest task mistresses I've ever had. 24-7, no paid holidays,
and no sick leave. I wouldn't trade them for anything I've seen or
experienced.

The Ranger
 
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:18:29 -0800, Dan Abel <[email protected]>
replied:
>In article <[email protected]>, sarah bennett <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The Ranger wrote:
> > > So, yes, Ed, commissioned salespeople are legalized prostitutes.
> > > Non-commissioned salespeople are stupid.
> > >
> > WTF?
> >
> The "F" stands for "screw". Commissioned salespeople screw you.
> That's what they do. The ones not on commission are just waiting
> to find a real job.
>
> Of course, there are a lot of exceptions.

Oh damn. The world should end any second... I'm finding myself in
agreement with Dan...

The Ranger
 
"The Ranger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> It has happened at least twice where I work. Maybe you
>> need a better employer.
>>
> Twice, huh? You guys must really screw things up to send customer
> into screaming fits like that.

Twice in 35 years. Guess we do screw up a lot.

>
> As far as my participation in the work force: My employers are the
> harshest task mistresses I've ever had. 24-7, no paid holidays,
> and no sick leave. I wouldn't trade them for anything I've seen or
> experienced.

If you like that, good for you. I think I saw a bondage movie about that.
 
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 04:55:40 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> As far as my participation in the work force: My employers are the
>> harshest task mistresses I've ever had. 24-7, no paid holidays,
>> and no sick leave. I wouldn't trade them for anything I've seen or
>> experienced.
>
>If you like that, good for you. I think I saw a bondage movie about that.

I think he's referring to his wife and daughters.

In which case I wonder how much they pay him, and where they got the
money.

--
-denny-
"Do your thoughts call ahead or do they just arrive at your mouth unannounced?"

"It's come as you are, baby."

-over the hedge
 
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 08:49:38 -0500, "Bob (this one)" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In foodservice in Virginia, the operator may choose to not serve anyone
>they wish to not serve for any reason. In today's political climate,
>refusing service for any reason that includes race, religion, etc. means
>there will be a discussion with attorneys.

Is there any stipulation that the refuser must give a reason? IMO,
any private business owner should have the right to refuse service
(for whatever value of 'service' applies) to anyone, period. In
this, I mean the sole proprietor type of owner, not shareholders.


--
-denny-
"Do your thoughts call ahead or do they just arrive at your mouth unannounced?"

"It's come as you are, baby."

-over the hedge
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Dan Abel <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> sarah bennett <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The Ranger wrote:
> >
> > So, yes, Ed, commissioned salespeople are
> > > legalized prostitutes. Non-commissioned salespeople are stupid.
> > >
> >
> > WTF?
>
> The "F" stands for "screw". Commissioned salespeople screw you. That's
> what they do. The ones not on commission are just waiting to find a
> real job.
>
> Of course, there are a lot of exceptions.

Does it count if you're screwed and don't know it? What constitutes
being screwed? The bottom line? Is "the bottom line" always a dollar
number and only a number? Are you allowed to factor in anything else,
like service?
--
http://www.jamlady.eboard.com, updated 12-18-05 - Church review (I think
I'll become a critic - Rob's been calling me one for years!)
and a toffee recipe.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Bob Terwilliger" <virtualgoth@die_spammer.biz> wrote:

> Better yet, say "Your tantrum is important to us. Please continue to blather
> like a bombastic twit. Someone will be with you shortly."

We had a friend who worked, among other things, with lost baggage in
an airline. He would get people who would yell at him, like it was his
fault their bag was lost. There was a fellow once, who got on a
different plane to a different destination (missed a flight or gave up
his seat, can't remember which), and expected his bag to follow him.
Our friend, after being yelled at and abused for some time, calmly told
this man that there were only two people on the planet who cared about
where his bag was and one of them was rapidly losing interest.

Regards,
Ranee

Remove do not & spam to e-mail me.

"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13

http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/
http://talesfromthekitchen.blogspot.com/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back