5 ms·

> You want to add another layer after the company also tells them to pound sand where they can go to a government bureaucrat and make the company litigate the c

> You want to add another layer after the company also tells them to pound sand where they can go to a government bureaucrat and make the company litigate the case for why they don't want to do business or what face a fine? Sort of,if you ban a customer then you will be forced to provide documentation. The regulation I spoke of will clearly establish when a company crosses the line. This actually saves the company lawsuits because the consumer will not have merit for a suit if the regulatory body cleared the company. If it didn't clear the company then the customer's service will simply be restored and the company will be fined a standard well established fine. I don't know why you and others are misunderstanding my position. I am not advocating for companies to put up with abusive customers. I am simply stating a company that provides services or goods to the general public should not be allowed to refuse to do business with specific individuals without documenting their defensible reason where a customer being clearly rude,abusive,threatening or acting in bad faith would be a good and allowed reason. By what right does a company that relies on a business license from a govetnment of the people gets to unfairly treat the public? The peoplr decide what allowed reasons to refuse business are,not companies. A BBB complaint is nieither sufficient nor effective. Oh and... > From what principal do you derive the right to buy cell phone service despite being a pain in the ass? The same principal that allows revocation and issuance of a business license. I don't think a "pain in the ass" customer should be tolerated,but rather government bodies overseen by publicly elected officials get to set a standard of what a "pain in the ass" customer constitutes not the company. You can see how a legitimate complaint can be construed as "pain in the ass" because fixing the problem or assisting the customer was a cost too high for the company.

michaelmrose 7y ago
How does a company "cross the line" insofar as opting not to do business with someone? If they wronged you then THAT case is either worth persuing on its own merits or its not. If the company didn't by any means legally wrong you why can't they for no reason at all decide not to do business with you? Every company has finite resources and must, in order to survive, decide where to allocate them. I'd rather spend my finite resources serving Bob is a valid answer to why did you opt not to serve Sam. I didn't like Sam's face is ALSO a valid answer. If you never had a right to do business with a particular store how is it possible to describe the situation as unfair treatment? How does fair even enter into it? Regulation is legal if no legal theories exist under which it would fall if challenged. Regulation is reasonable if on net its effect on the world is positive, reasonable to implement, and worth the cost of implementing. You haven't asked or considered if your suggestion was legal. It's probably a violation of the business owners freedom of association. I am completely baffled that you imagine that requiring them to substitute a bureaucrats policy for their own judgment insofar as whom to do business with doesn't violate their rights. We have as a society agreed that forcing people to treat protected classes fairly is more important than the business owners freedom of association but it doesn't mean that right is nonexistent just that its less important than the rights of disabled people or minorities. It's hard to imagine how you believe that you believe that this same argument applies to assholes wanting to do business with people whom they have offended. If you have pissed off Verizon get yourself over to Sprint and this time don't scream at people over the phone. You haven't even bothered to explain why you feel its reasonable to force people under penalty of law to do business with you. Your sole answer seems to be that because the government issues business licenses it could opt to revoke same. By this logic the fact that the government issues drivers licenses is sufficient justification for regulating what color you paint your car. This reasoning is entirely circular. Try again. Explain how the universe is a better place where people can make worse assholes of themselves than they already do and keep abusing the help whom can't ban the customer without risking fines. Please explain the injustices that will be avoided specifically by this expensive bureaucracy.
- badrabbit 7y ago
  I explained in a different reply to you as well so I won't give a detailed response here. > You haven't asked or considered if your suggestion was legal. It's probably a violation of the business owners freedom of association. > You haven't even bothered to explain why you feel its reasonable to force people under penalty of law to do business with you. Being able to provide services to the public is not your right. Much like being able to hire anyone you choose isn't your right. These are pivileges allowed to a business by the public. Private,peaceful and non-profit association is your right but the moment you open doors to the public your rights of where you can open a business,how you can advertise,the quality and conditions of the place of business,who you hire and don't hire,who you fire and many other things are subject to the public's approval and standards (by proxy of govermental orgs). You can refuse to do business in that city,state or country but if you choose to offer services to the public you have to play by the public's rules. This is a natural extenstion under the same authority the public has over public businesses, the public shouldn't force you to do business with someone but the public should also be able to review why you refuse to do business with someone and why after accepting business you then refused that business to a member of the public. This review is for the public tk review how you treat their fellow citizens and decide if you should continue to be allowed to offer services to them. In other words,it's a means by which the public kicks you out of public-access much like you kick out customers. A private business that does not offer or advertise services to the public and does not profit from the public should not be subject to this regulation.
  - michaelmrose 7y ago
    There is no stipulation in the constitution that only non profit association is protected. This is something you literally just invented on the spot. You have to comply with lots of regulations that we have decided on balance are in the public interest. The pre existing body of rules cannot by themselves serve as justification for the imposition of additional rules. The proper justification is the comparison of 2 hypothetical worlds. Example: I believe that businesses should have to have fire doors clear of locks or obstruction because prior misadventures have shown that fire spreads fast and people may not be able to leave via a main exit. Places that have more free fire doors have shown that more people survive fires. It's worth the additional steps during inspections which we already do by employees we already have to ensure this is correct. It's also worth the small additional expense during construction. Who are these people that are simultaneously being refused service and don't deserve such. I have NEVER been refused service at any business in my life. I have only very rarely seen people refused service outright and they were all extremely odious extremely hostile people. At risk of being discourteous is it you and under what circumstances?
Ozzie_osman 7y ago
I agree. Don't know why youre getting downvoted. If ShitCo can get away with poor customer service because of regulation or licensing protecting them from competition, then ShitCo shouldn't get to decide the line for "pain in the ass".
- badrabbit 7y ago
  It's probably because many current and potential enterpreneurs are on HN. Regulation is unpleasant and costly for any startup. But just because it is unpleasant does not mean it is not needed. In a utopia,regulations simply allow you to be transparent with the things you would be doing anyways. I am sure we all appreciate health code regulations on restaurants for example. I am sure it is costly and unpleasant to restauranteurs but it is a neccesity to safeguard the interests of the public.

michaelmrose 7y ago

How does a company "cross the line" insofar as opting not to do business with someone? If they wronged you then THAT case is either worth persuing on its own merits or its not. If the company didn't by any means legally wrong you why can't they for no reason at all decide not to do business with you? Every company has finite resources and must, in order to survive, decide where to allocate them. I'd rather spend my finite resources serving Bob is a valid answer to why did you opt not to serve Sam. I didn't like Sam's face is ALSO a valid answer. If you never had a right to do business with a particular store how is it possible to describe the situation as unfair treatment? How does fair even enter into it? Regulation is legal if no legal theories exist under which it would fall if challenged. Regulation is reasonable if on net its effect on the world is positive, reasonable to implement, and worth the cost of implementing. You haven't asked or considered if your suggestion was legal. It's probably a violation of the business owners freedom of association. I am completely baffled that you imagine that requiring them to substitute a bureaucrats policy for their own judgment insofar as whom to do business with doesn't violate their rights. We have as a society agreed that forcing people to treat protected classes fairly is more important than the business owners freedom of association but it doesn't mean that right is nonexistent just that its less important than the rights of disabled people or minorities. It's hard to imagine how you believe that you believe that this same argument applies to assholes wanting to do business with people whom they have offended. If you have pissed off Verizon get yourself over to Sprint and this time don't scream at people over the phone. You haven't even bothered to explain why you feel its reasonable to force people under penalty of law to do business with you. Your sole answer seems to be that because the government issues business licenses it could opt to revoke same. By this logic the fact that the government issues drivers licenses is sufficient justification for regulating what color you paint your car. This reasoning is entirely circular. Try again. Explain how the universe is a better place where people can make worse assholes of themselves than they already do and keep abusing the help whom can't ban the customer without risking fines. Please explain the injustices that will be avoided specifically by this expensive bureaucracy.

badrabbit 7y ago
I explained in a different reply to you as well so I won't give a detailed response here. > You haven't asked or considered if your suggestion was legal. It's probably a violation of the business owners freedom of association. > You haven't even bothered to explain why you feel its reasonable to force people under penalty of law to do business with you. Being able to provide services to the public is not your right. Much like being able to hire anyone you choose isn't your right. These are pivileges allowed to a business by the public. Private,peaceful and non-profit association is your right but the moment you open doors to the public your rights of where you can open a business,how you can advertise,the quality and conditions of the place of business,who you hire and don't hire,who you fire and many other things are subject to the public's approval and standards (by proxy of govermental orgs). You can refuse to do business in that city,state or country but if you choose to offer services to the public you have to play by the public's rules. This is a natural extenstion under the same authority the public has over public businesses, the public shouldn't force you to do business with someone but the public should also be able to review why you refuse to do business with someone and why after accepting business you then refused that business to a member of the public. This review is for the public tk review how you treat their fellow citizens and decide if you should continue to be allowed to offer services to them. In other words,it's a means by which the public kicks you out of public-access much like you kick out customers. A private business that does not offer or advertise services to the public and does not profit from the public should not be subject to this regulation.
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  There is no stipulation in the constitution that only non profit association is protected. This is something you literally just invented on the spot. You have to comply with lots of regulations that we have decided on balance are in the public interest. The pre existing body of rules cannot by themselves serve as justification for the imposition of additional rules. The proper justification is the comparison of 2 hypothetical worlds. Example: I believe that businesses should have to have fire doors clear of locks or obstruction because prior misadventures have shown that fire spreads fast and people may not be able to leave via a main exit. Places that have more free fire doors have shown that more people survive fires. It's worth the additional steps during inspections which we already do by employees we already have to ensure this is correct. It's also worth the small additional expense during construction. Who are these people that are simultaneously being refused service and don't deserve such. I have NEVER been refused service at any business in my life. I have only very rarely seen people refused service outright and they were all extremely odious extremely hostile people. At risk of being discourteous is it you and under what circumstances?

Ozzie_osman 7y ago

I agree. Don't know why youre getting downvoted. If ShitCo can get away with poor customer service because of regulation or licensing protecting them from competition, then ShitCo shouldn't get to decide the line for "pain in the ass".

badrabbit 7y ago
It's probably because many current and potential enterpreneurs are on HN. Regulation is unpleasant and costly for any startup. But just because it is unpleasant does not mean it is not needed. In a utopia,regulations simply allow you to be transparent with the things you would be doing anyways. I am sure we all appreciate health code regulations on restaurants for example. I am sure it is costly and unpleasant to restauranteurs but it is a neccesity to safeguard the interests of the public.