7 ms·
There's another force at work here: in the name of efficiency and standardization, companies worked to make human interactions less useful. There's a reason Mc
by trjordan 9y ago
There's another force at work here: in the name of efficiency and standardization, companies worked to make human interactions less useful.
There's a reason McDonald's is seen as a bottom-of-the-barrel job. There's nothing about it that fundamentally requires judgement, empathy, or decision-making. Sure, the pleasantries are nice, but think about the last time you had something go wrong with a fast food transaction. Did the worker just fix it? Half the time, they have to drag a manager over, or reboot a machine, or some other fix that's above their pay grade.
I love interacting with people who own their car repair shops, because they can help me work things out beyond a simple transaction. But larger companies? There's nothing to the interaction besides just talking with another human who's worried that if anything goes wrong, I'll take it out on them and there's nothing they can do to fix it.
- tcbawo 9y agoI can't remember the last time I talked with a fast food employee that I thought was incompetent. Most of the time, I'm shocked at how capable they are given how little they are probably making.
- derefr 9y agoI don't think the parent poster was talking about incompetence; rather, they're referring to staff who have no organizational power to do their job—people who are not empowered to help you, but rather are required to go get someone else every time anything you'd assume would be "their job" (i.e. the reason they are being paid, as human, to work there) happens. In most chain fast-food restaurants, if the shift manager does a rotation taking orders, those orders go much more smoothly, and the line moves 10x quicker. Because, under that setup, the person with the responsibility for the order is also the person with the power to ensure the order happens correctly.
- bamboozled 9y agoHonest question, do you ever think about not eating there if you know the staff are getting screwed over financially? My logic is if they have such little regard for their staff, they probably don't have much regard for my health. That and I just think it's cruel to work people like robots.
- maxerickson 9y agoOpting out of the part of the economy they do have the leverage to participate in isn't going to increase their economic leverage.
- nefitty 9y agoYour logic is similar to what led me to vegetarianism, and what makes me feel guilty for not being full-on vegan. My mind immediately jumps to excuses and rationalizations, "I'm not rich enough to be picky", "We're all just cogs", "It's too much effort to care", etc. I'm going to take some time to consider your comment more. It has unearthed some deeply-buried cognitive dissonance...
- NoGravitas 9y agoMy go-to rationalization these days is "there's no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism". Combined with "individual lifestyle choices can't produce the systemic change we need to solve the problem those lifestyle choices are aimed at fixing".
- Trundle 9y agoThis seems to me to be the same argument people use for boycotting companies that use foreign sweatshop labor paid cents on the hour to make clothing and it doesn't make sense to me. If working like a robot is cruel, why are people doing it? Because it's better than their alternatives? Ok then, how exactly does taking that option away from them help? I'm all for a strong welfare state, universal income, state funded scholarships, and other "lift people up" sort of activities but I just don't see how punishing companies for utilising low value labour does that.
- Qwertious 9y ago" If working like a robot is cruel, why are people doing it? Because it's better than their alternatives? Ok then, how exactly does taking that option away from them help?" The idea behind boycotting sweatshop labor is that it creates a market for non-sweatshop clothing, which creates a better-paid alternative for the people working like a robot.
- labster 9y agoI visit the same Taco Bell where the Hindu man sued them for providing him with a beef burrito instead of a bean burrito. He was understandably upset, and eventually got money to bathe in the Ganges, etc. as compensation. A year later, we got the telescreens right below the drive-thru speaker. "Is your order correct on the screen?" Technology improves, and everyone's experience gets better. So it goes. And sometimes it's better to remove some of the human element so that mistakes/incompetence is limited.
- abandonliberty 9y ago>There's nothing to the interaction besides just talking with another human who's worried that if anything goes wrong, I'll take it out on them and there's nothing they can do to fix it. This is a basic IQ/humanity test. It's very informative, and shocking how many people abuse helpless customer service agents.
- harlanji 9y agoI sure notice my tone getting agitated at times and take a breath and apologize. It is a horrible situation; people in my private life know me as an unmovable rock and yet support scripts can really get under my skin. If I have a serious complaint I ask if they have a way to escalate before saying what I think--never been ill recieved.
- abandonliberty 9y agoReally! I have had no success escalating lately (with offshore call centers). The standard tactic is a 2-5 minute hold then an apology that they couldn't secure anyone. A good tactic is to be able to voice your displeasure and frustration without making it personal. It's normal for a person in an agitating situation to be agitated. Just don't take it out on the helpless.
- jpatokal 9y ago...and you get a little taste of this when you use the supermarket self checkout. Accidentally scan an item twice and need to cancel one? Approval needed. Scan unknown barcode? Approval needed. Press the wrong button when trying to use a gift card? Approval needed.