3 ms·
I think there is an interesting identity problem here, where an employee of comcast changed this guys name to "asshole", but we say "Comcast" did it. While thi
by carsongross 12y ago
I think there is an interesting identity problem here, where an employee of comcast changed this guys name to "asshole", but we say "Comcast" did it.
While this may have been entirely unprovoked, it may just as plausibly been in response to the customer abusing an employee who had no hand in the problem, it could have been an employee venting due to the pressure applied from an overbearing boss, etc.
There is a deeply dehumanized and dehumanizing aspect to large institutional interactions like this, both public and private. As I get older, I am coming to think that many of the leaders at large institutions understand this fact, and, in fact, are self-selected to be people who take advantage of it.
- kjs3 12y agoThere's plenty enough corporations pawning off egregious malfeasance with "oh, it was some rouge employee...we can't be held accountable". One could even argue the other side of the coin of the limitation of liability incorporation confers is collective guilt when an individual employee does wrong.