David Horne wrote:
> Miguel Cruz wrote:
>
> > David Horne wrote:
> > > Miguel Cruz wrote:
> > >> Threats are another matter entirely.
> > >
> > > You and mxsmanic are missing the point, which surprises me, because
it's
> > > hardly a nuanced one. You can feel threatened, quite legitimately,
without
> > > _being_ directly threatened. Being called "a .ing bastard" in
context
> > > can seem perfectly harmless, if unpleasant, and in other contexts it
can
> > > seem very threatening.
> >
> > I don't know that I'm really missing the point so much as making a
different
> > one.
> >
> > Sure, any number of things can seem threatening to someone who's
prepared to
> > take them that way.
>
> Well, I think you _are_ missing the point then, because your "seem"
> suggests that the threat is purely in the imagination of the person
> being abused, and I take issue with that. It all depends on the context
> IMO.
>
> > I just think that it's better overall to spend the energy on preparing
> > people to deal with verbal abuse, because then they can effectively deal
> > with these people rather than criminalizing them. Train the staff.
>
> You're assuming, incorrectly, that staff are not trained to deal with
> people who swear at them. They often are. Some better than others, no
> doubt, but this still doesn't mean that you can't have some kind of
> standard whereby staff can have a reasonable expection that they won't
> be abused verbally. It's just a generally _good_ thing for the work
> environment. I certainly don't swear at people or call them names when I
> get frustrated, and lord knows, I'm stuck enough on trains and
> frustrated by other things to give sufficient cause. I think it's
> incredibly boorish behaviour, and I don't think you infringe someone's
> freedom by saying they don't have an automatic right to verbally abuse
> anyone they want.
Yep...
> And, if there was a clear understanding on the part of the customer that
> they would get nowhere by abusing the staff, then a lot of them might
> think twice before shooting off. It doesn't necessarily require
> criminalisation.
>
> Just having a sign in a place stating that verbal abuse won't be
> tolerated can have an effect on everyone- in a positive way.
>
The worst thing about being an employee on the receiving end of verbal use.
is when your company will *not* do anything about verbally abusive
customers. That's why I am not in "customer service" (the hotel bizness)
anymore :-)
> > I have
> > worked in customer service jobs in the past and I have been called any
> > number of things by people frustrated with the organization. With a
little
> > patience it was possible to calm every one of these people down.
>
> Just because it worked for you, in whatever kind of jobs they were,
> doesn't mean it would work for everyone, and for other jobs. There's
> certainly a place for patience in trying to resolve someone's problems,
> and assuage their irritation, but by the same token some people are just
> malevolent arseholes, and I've got zero problems with protecting the
> workplace against their threatening, abusive language.
Well said. Some people are just natural bullies.
--
Best
Greg
|