Brainwashed employees...

[Skiddlydiddly]

If I honestly thought my actions would cause harm to someone in any way, I wouldn't have proceeded. When she told me she couldn't, I politely told her I would ask the manager.

The whole situation was just blown way out of proportion.

Then perhaps you shouldn't have used the word 'argument'. That made it sound like you were, you know, argumentative.

But expecting common sense to override policy at Walmart is just silly.

 

[Pa Jayhawk]

It's not about living by rules of some faceless company, it's about realizing that the world has gone to shit because of liability. It's not bad here in Canada, but in the US, it's nuts.
R35

That's all I'm saying.

Ummm, actually that is almost exactly what I said in my initial post as an explanation for disagreeing with you, for which you disputed my intent. Go back and read if you question that comment. The problem seemed that I indicated I felt you were wrong and used that analogy as my example and your comment was something to the result of "this isn't a Rolex" and didn't like being told that we were in disagreement.

You then treated it like no ones job was in jeopardy and you had all the answers. So tell me, since you now agree with what that philosophy, what do you think Walmart would do to the employee that went against policy, and in Rock's comment caused a $300,000 settlement? Or for that matter, even a $300 dollar settlement.

Sorry, not going to let you just get away with using what you previously disputed in your defense now.

 

[sandwedge]

What happened to defending the poor employees that would not be able to eat if they lost their jobs, you hypocritical prick? Now you poke fun at those they don't have a lot. Poetic irony.

That is right, I did defend the poor employees that are just following the rules of their company. I am not poking fun at those that don't have a lot. I am poking fun at an idiot who obviously has an attitude that will not take him very far in life.

To call us lame because we don't agree with you and "we're doing whatever we are told our whole lives" just shows your ignorance.

And if my supervisor asked me to do something f&cking stupid, I wouldn't do it.

A prime example of your poor attitude and stupidity. In the grown up world if there is something we are asked to do that we find, as you so elequently put, "f&cking stupid" we would find the reason we are asked to do it or suggest a better way. Simply not doing it will just lead you from one dead end job to another as I suspect will happen to you if it hasn't already.

 

[Pa Jayhawk]

Could you rephrase this? I haven't the slightest clue what your asking.

I think it was pretty clear

I really don't get where this entrusting their job stuff comes in. And I thought that I plainly stated that I received the battery.

Read the response in the post just prior

What are you even talking about? Read my character in my deception? What deception?

... again, it was quite clear, you are criticizing them for doing what you requested

I hardly expect to be treated like a king. I do expect a reasonable amount of customer service. Please don't accuse me of being an elitist. I am of a very modest upbringing and this argument has nothing to do with the amount of income of the employees. My point is not that I should have been treated differently, it's that everyone should receive better service than we all currently settle for while spending our hard earned cash. That and we should use our brains when "following policy" or what other people instruct us to do in general. You ever hear this story:
ABC News: Late Shift Leads to Strip Search

Are you now saying they strip searched you or the employee you now seem confused as to whether it is the fault of the employee, or that of the company. Initially you made it sound like poor customer service now it seems to be about the ill will of the company. You can't have it both ways. I can't believe you continue to shop somewhere that in you opinion has policy in place to promote poor customer service.

I'm not getting anyone to try and back me. I could care less if some faceless jerk on the other end of a computer likes my opinions. And this "risking their job" crap is just over the top and ridiculous. That's the point of bringing up the $10 watch. Why create such a fuss opening the back of it in the first place? Anyways, I've had enough. You guys win. I'm satan.

At least I know I got my point across. Thanks for conceding

----

Again, this started when you told me I didn't know what I was talking about, but after it came out of enough mouths, you now are trying to use what I said to your defense. To me that is not only deception, but poor character in not being willing or able to admit your mistake.

Besides, if I have to do all this broken quote BS, I felt I should return the favor.

 

[SilverUberXeno]

Frivolous lawsuits are rampant. It sucks that Jeweler X can't change the battery in a watch sold by Jeweler Y without being in danger of being served. I read a list of ridiculous lawsuits once... Not entirely sure they're actually true, but I have no trouble believing them.

Person abandons steering wheel of a Winnebago while it is on "Cruise control." Winnebago crashes; injured "driver" sues for large sum of money and wins, because he was not told that "cruise control" still required the driver to steer.

Burglar enters home through a skylight, falls into the kitchen and hurts himself on a knife that was left out. Sues the homeowners; wins settlement from homeowner's insurance.

It's absolutely f*cking ridiculous, and it really makes me hate society. Like Rock said, nobody will even wipe their own ass in this country. Of course Canada is even worse about it in some respects, as they're much more entangled in socialism. What better way to care for the incompetent and moronic than by saying "You don't need to succeed. We'll take care of you."

The world is in the toilet. No doubt about that. If and when personal responsibility ever becomes paramount again, things can still change for the better.

But time is running out.

 

[eclark53520]

Burglar enters home through a skylight, falls into the kitchen and hurts himself on a knife that was left out. Sues the homeowners; wins settlement from homeowner's insurance.

This is absolutely absurd.

There would have been no lawsuit if that would have been my house and the knife wound would be the least of his worries when he hit the floor.:usflag:

 

[Pa Jayhawk]

I think the favorite that I have heard was on a Radio Stations show "To stupid to live", where a man tried to rob a bank in I believe Ithaca, NY. Ingenious method, he found there was a tunnel that ran underneath the safe and decided to dig up through the bottom of the safe to his treasure.

Unfortunately he miscalculated the distance to the vault and instead dug up through the bottom of a sewage treatment plant, being drowned by several tons of raw sewage.

The city awarded the wife of the deceased 6 million dollars in a lawsuit against the sewage plant for making it to accessible to the public.

 

[Eracer]

I sell a $5000 camcorder called the Canon XL-2.

Home Depot just started carrying the same camcorder (selling it $100 above cost, BTW - but that's another issue.)

When my customer comes into my store I put the thing together for him, show him some of the tricks of the trade that I've learned over the years, and he walks out happy. If the battery on another camcorder goes bad (even if he didn't buy it from me) I'll help him get it fixed.

Should he expect that same service from Home Depot. If you think so, then you're living in a fantasy world.

Same deal with Wal-Mart. Had tailStrike brought that watch into a "Mom & Pop" store, I'm 99% sure the person there would have installed a new battery for the cost of the battery. No questions, no worries.

Was tailStrike shopping for a battery at Wal-Mart because it was a dollar cheaper than at the M&P? No. He was shopping for a battery because he was already there.

Should he have expected the employer to help him? Only if the 4,000 page thick owner's manual said so. He chose to get a manager. The manager agreed to help him. I probably would have done the same.

But puh-leeze don't complain about how the Wal-Mart employee wouldn't do what you asked! Wal-Mart's goal is to have all customers tagged with RFID's that track your shopping habits throughout the automated store. They fully intend to replace human employees with kiosks, automated warehouses, self-checkout, and android security guards.

Every time anyone shops at Wal-Mart, they help bring them that much closer to their goal.

 

[tailStrike]

Ummm, actually that is almost exactly what I said in my initial post as an explanation for disagreeing with you, for which you disputed my intent. Go back and read if you question that comment. The problem seemed that I indicated I felt you were wrong and used that analogy as my example and your comment was something to the result of "this isn't a Rolex" and didn't like being told that we were in disagreement.

You then treated it like no ones job was in jeopardy and you had all the answers. So tell me, since you now agree with what that philosophy, what do you think Walmart would do to the employee that went against policy, and in Rock's comment caused a $300,000 settlement? Or for that matter, even a $300 dollar settlement.

Sorry, not going to let you just get away with using what you previously disputed in your defense now.

I'll admit that I didn't read your post thoroughly. I actually just happened to use the Rolex example without realizing you already had.

The settlement thing...yeah, I'm sure she'd be fired if there were some lawsuit like that as the result of disobeying policy. But that follows the assumption that the customer would pursue this course of action. Here in the "grown up world" we know that corporations are going to create policies like that to cover their own behinds and that in order for us not to pull our hair out, we have to bend these rules for each other every now and then in reasonable situations (the Rolex is right out).

This is the part of the post that I did read that lead to the prompt flaming of me:

Sorry to say it, but IMO I think you are wrong in this case. I think they are probably that way because they would likely be out of a job if they where to mess up your girlfriends watch, or allow you to mess up your girlfriends watch with their tools.

It was your post that implied that I was asking them to do something that would promptly lead to their termination. Not the case. Just reasoned that I did not care what happened to the watch, so go ahead, with 2 witnesses to the fact that I relinquished them of liability. Even if I turned out to be the 1 in a million person that would pursue some ridiculous lawsuit, I doubt I'd have any grounds to stand on.

So in the end, they did do what I asked, so there is some hope. I'm typically the type of person to just say "ok, thanks anyways" and go on, but this was just one of those instances where I wasn't in the mood to be jerked around. I've been in public service myself (worked fast food in HS) and understand how unreasonable people can be and see that perspective as well.

Once you get a little older, you just want people to cut through the BS and treat each other as individuals, not judge them by the worst possible example.

 

[Skiddlydiddly]

Of course. You want people to treat each other as individuals. And large corporations are known for this, so you visit the largest one on earth.

:thumbs up:

 

[Eracer]

Person abandons steering wheel of a Winnebago while it is on "Cruise control." Winnebago crashes; injured "driver" sues for large sum of money and wins, because he was not told that "cruise control" still required the driver to steer.

Burglar enters home through a skylight, falls into the kitchen and hurts himself on a knife that was left out. Sues the homeowners; wins settlement from homeowner's insurance.

These are two of the all-time most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Absolutely terrifying that a lawyer could convince anyone to rule in their client's favor in either case.

Another fave is the guy who jaywalked, ignoring a police officer's order to return to the crosswalk, and got hit by a city bus. Sued the city for $35 million and won, claiming that the city didn't do enough to prevent him from walking into the path of the bus. WTF!

 

[tailStrike]

Of course. You want people to treat each other as individuals. And large corporations are known for this, so you visit the largest one on earth.

:thumbs up:

touche .

 

[Pa Jayhawk]

But that follows the assumption that the customer would pursue this course of action. Here in the "grown up world" we know that corporations are going to create policies like that to cover their own behinds and that in order for us not to pull our hair out, we have to bend these rules for each other every now and then in reasonable situations (the Rolex is right out).

Unfortunately, and as previously mentioned, there are alot of vultures out there that would likely even take a cheaper or already broken watch in for the sole sense of cashing in. It would also even likely be more prevalent with big companies such as Walmart in wanting to bury the incidents, simply because they have deep pockets. Kinda like the whole McDonalds coffee incident. I doubt any jury would have awarded 5 million dollars to a lady because "Joe's coffee shack" served coffee that burned them when they spilt it in their lap. But because McDonalds has deep pockets, it probably seemed O.K. to a jury at the time. So as a result, with the bigger corporations it may sometimes take a Manager or someone in charge to get a resolution to what is otherwise a simple issue. In the same sense, if the attorney for "Joe's Coffee Shack" said it was in their best interest to lower the temperature, Joe would likely be serving coffee that was not as hot in the future, even though that is his specialized field.

This is the part of the post that I did read that lead to the prompt flaming of me:

It was your post that implied that I was asking them to do something that would promptly lead to their termination.

Just an FYI, that was in no way flaming. I did, and still do think you were wrong for harboring a grudge towards the initial person in the said incident. Although I think the reason I stated for disagreeing was far from flaming, but simply an explanation for my opinion. Just having a difference of opinion is in no way a matter of flaming as long as it is supported with a reasonable response.

I don't even think that what you did would lead to their termination, because as you indicate, that basis would be a result of you actions should the watch have been rendered useless. Unfortunately from an employee standpoint, they again need to weigh the value of why there is a policy in place, and how it would effect their employment status should they choose to violate the policy. In which case they really don't have any incentive to put their neck on the line. For all we know, the person has already been written up for the same thing twice in the past, and was told the third time is a charm. That is why their managers are paid more money to make those decisions.

What Eracer said makes alot of sense, and probably sums up how I feel. If I went into my Jeweler and had the same thing happened, I would be PO'ed for the reason you mention in how much I have spent in there over the years in furthering their business. Charge me for the service, great, but refusing the service would be inexcusable and an admission to their lack of knowledge. But the difference is, I go to that jeweler because they have knowledgeable people that make good money putting their specialty to work, and if they had the same policy I would never go there again and change to one that had more knowledgeable staff. Although it is just not the nature of Walmart, nor would it likely allow for the saving they provide if they were to have an extremely knowledgeable employee in every department to assure that satisfaction.

In the same sense, I wouldn't go there to get fitted for a driver and expect their staff to provide what I need and hold them responsible for it being the right one for my golfing, nor is it likely they would have anyone to offer such advice. In the same case, I would not expect the person working at the jewelry counter to take responsible for any kind of watch, and ones they don't sell, they are just not likely that specialized. If they give a tool to some burden on society, or the lady who couldn't keep her coffee out of her lap, and she jabs herself in the wrist and starts screaming bloody murder, what are the repercussions? I doubt I would blame them for not wanting to take the responsibility in either case, without personally knowing of your character, nor is it likely they really care much about the future of the company and your business. Where their manager may.

 

[DaveE]

These are two of the all-time most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Absolutely terrifying that a lawyer could convince anyone to rule in their client's favor in either case.

Another fave is the guy who jaywalked, ignoring a police officer's order to return to the crosswalk, and got hit by a city bus. Sued the city for $35 million and won, claiming that the city didn't do enough to prevent him from walking into the path of the bus. WTF!

Not sure about the burglar story but the winnebago story is urban legend.

 

[Eracer]

Not sure about the burglar story but the winnebago story is urban legend.

Yes, but there a PLENTY of 'blue hairs' on the road here in Florida who would do just that.

"Honey, put the Winnie in cruise and get me some coffee."

"Yes dear..."