Why the Terms of Service matter

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by taustin

According to your account, the customer got loud first (and immediately), then, in your words, "got agitated" and questioned the late fee. That is asking for it to be waived. Had I been the manager in charge, that kind of behavior is a real warning sign that the customer is trying to pull a fast one of some kind. (However, if this was Sweden, which you imply, the cultural differences may account for the different perceptions. Certainly customer service standards are quite different in Europe, from what I've read in trade rags.)

IT DOESN"T MATTER. Even if the customer was "trying to pull a fast one," so what? The clerk should not have retaliated by being obnoxious and loud.

This is not to say that the clerk should have automatically accepted the story and waived the fee--though it probably would've been the simplest action. But there is no excuse for the clerk to yell at the customer. None.

Frankly, your supposition that the clerk may have been a manager only makes the situation worse. The higher you go up the ladder, the more cool-headed you should be. The clerk in the story acted unprofessionally and cost the store business. Yelling at a customer is wrong.

P.S. We were discussing Amazon in this thread. Amazon's greatest strength is probably its customer service. You have a problem with an Amazon purchase? Fine, send it back, no problem, no hassle. You call Amazon annoyed and angry, and the rep bends over backwards to fix your problem. I'm sure Amazon has plenty of people trying to "pull a fast one" and loses money on spurious returns (e.g., e-book returns), but the trade-off is the sterling reputation Amazon has for customer service, which translates into more customers and more sales.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

It's generally true that if you jump out of an airplane in flight without a parachute, you will die. It's not universally true, of course, people have fallen from airplanes without a parachute and lived, but it is rare.

People lying to a retail store trying to get something they don't deserve is a bit more common, though. Really.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Catlady

IT DOESN"T MATTER. Even if the customer was "trying to pull a fast one," so what? The clerk should not have retaliated by being obnoxious and loud.

I'm glad I don't work for you. Seriously. People with attitudes that absolute don't make good managers.

Originally Posted by Catlady

This is not to say that the clerk should have automatically accepted the story and waived the fee--though it probably would've been the simplest action. But there is no excuse for the clerk to yell at the customer. None.

There is no excuse for the customer yelling at the clerk first. Nor is there any excuse for the customer because "agitated" at not being offered something they didn't have coming.

Originally Posted by Catlady

Frankly, your supposition that the clerk may have been a manager only makes the situation worse.

I'm not supposing anything. I've made it very clear, several times, that we do not have enough infromation to suppose much of anything. Don't put words in my mouth. It's offensive.

[QuantumIguana]

Perhaps the customer was lying to get out of a late fee. If you want their business, waive the late fee, the old "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" thing, it's a common business practice. If you no longer want their business, fine, don't waive it, but there are plenty of competitors. Screaming at a customer doesn't accomplish anything, and creates a negative impression on other customers.

[BeccaPrice]

I can't believe that we're arguing over an anecdote that took place several years ago and that bears all the hallmarks of an urban legend anyway.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by taustin

I'm glad I don't work for you. Seriously. People with attitudes that absolute don't make good managers.

If you worked for me you wouldn't last five minutes if you yelled at a customer. Seriously. People with attitudes don't make good clerks.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Catlady

If you worked for me you wouldn't last five minutes if you yelled at a customer. Seriously. People with attitudes don't make good clerks.

Since I work in the corporate office of a very successful regional retail chain, I'm quiet comfortable in my professional skills.

And if I worked for you, I'd quit and sell pencils on a street corner. But I doubt you'd get through the interview process anyway. I don't like working for amatuers.

[QuantumIguana]

Most businesses have a policy not to scream at the customers.

[odiakkoh]

Young kid probably at his first job with less than par training on how to handle difficult customers, I'd cut the kid a break. I was like that when I first got a retail job too. If it was a 40yr old with the company for 20 years then I'd question it but man, some of you guys either forgot how it was in the beginning or never worked in retail.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by taustin

Since I work in the corporate office of a very successful regional retail chain, I'm quiet comfortable in my professional skills.

And if I worked for you, I'd quit and sell pencils on a street corner. But I doubt you'd get through the interview process anyway. I don't like working for amatuers.

Well la-di-da. Am I supposed to be impressed? Considering how rude you've become in this thread, no wonder you think rudeness is acceptable.

How many pencils do you think you'd sell if you yelled at your customers?

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Well la-di-da. Am I supposed to be impressed?

You're supposed to be exactly as impressed as you expect me to be.

Originally Posted by Catlady

Considering how rude you've become in this thread, no wonder you think rudeness is acceptable.

How many pencils do you think you'd sell if you yelled at your customers?

I'm not on the job here, and you're not a customer.

I also notice you haven't apologized for misrepsrenting what I said earlier. Notice, but am not surprised by.

[dreams]

Moderator Notice
Just a reminder that this thread has moved way away from the intent of the first post. Please keep any comments after this reminder specific to the intent of the first post of this thread, and remember to Discuss Things Politely.

Posts after this reminder, that do not stay on the original topic, or that are impolite, will be removed without notification.

Just to refresh memories, the first post of this thread in under spoilers.

Spoiler:

A new bill will felonize violating terms of service for online services.

Why Fibbing About Your Age Is Relevant to the Cybersecurity Bill – “Congress is about to decide whether it is a crime to violate terms of service governing your use of Gmail, Facebook, Hulu, or any other on-line service. One of the amendments to the Cybersecurity Act that the Senate is likely to take up this week would substantially increase already severe penalties for violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), an important law designed to prevent malicious computer activity, such as hacking. The amendment would eliminate provisions setting lower sentences for first time offenders, establish mandatory minimum sentences for many offenders, make computer crimes “racketeering” predicates, and subject homes to civil asset forfeiture for computer crimes committed inside. The problem is, there is widespread agreement that the statute is already overly broad, sweeping in common online conduct, and the Department of Justice has interpreted it in a way that turns many – maybe most – Internet users into potential criminals.”

my favorite line from the article:

The CFAA makes it a crime to use a computer "in excess" of "authorization." This has been read to mean that it is illegal to use a computer in a manner that violates contractual agreements.