• Doomsider@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 hours ago

    This is a dumb take. Their frontline workers should take the brunt of what the public feels. That is the point as you can’t get to anyone higher up. Maybe people won’t want to work there anymore and they will have to pay much higher wages to attract people.

    Sounds like a win to me. Company goes under because no one wants to work for them knowing the public hates them or they will get paid enough they don’t care.

    In your world we can’t show hate because someone isn’t paid enough and it isn’t there decision. It’s not their fault. But then you can’t access the person who is at fault so there is nothing you can do. This is fundamentally broken concept and is akin to resignation.

    • pixelscript@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      38 minutes ago

      Charging at them directly where they want you to charge, their designated fall guys, sounds like a superbly inefficient strategy. You are pinching a huge amount of bystanders caught in the middle to for a proportionally negligible effect.

      Yes, if someone who is desperately asking for a proverbial (maybe literal?) bullet in their head puts a hostage between you and them, can you still plow right through the hostage and get them that way? Exhaust everyone they can possibly field to eventually break through to them? Sure, in principle. That can balloon to an absurdly high casualty count, though. Is it really all worth it?

      It’s a lot more efficient to, wherever possible, sidestep around the hostage, get behind them and strike directly at the problem. That’s exactly what Luigi Mangione did, and its effectiveness is exactly what’s being applauded.

      If your rebuttal is that what Luigi did is far more of a risky path to take, you don’t wish to take a risk like that, and you’d rather faff about kicking low level grunts instead because that’s an easier, lower-consequence option for you that theoretically makes progress, okay, I guess. I personally think you’re just wasting your time and energy pissing off only the wrong people. Only big stunts are gonna move the needle, in my opinion.

    • lady_maria@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Their frontline workers should take the brunt of what the public feels.

      Yes. That is the job. But the fact that they already take the brunt doesn’t justify anyone screaming/abusing/threatening/ect the CSR.

      Sounds like a win to me. Company goes under because no one wants to work for them knowing the public hates them or they will get paid enough they don’t care.

      A win for whom? What exactly do you get out of it? Satisfaction? Is it just some kind of flaccid moral victory or something?

      If this were actually the case, quite a lot of businesses would’ve gone under a long time ago. Most of them still pay shit wages.

      In the meantime, real people are negatively affected by the assholery of customers every single day.

      This is not a win for the workers. It’s hard enough being forced to spend most of your life working to make just enough money to scrape by, let alone being screamed at, insulted, condescended to, ect.

      But then you can’t access the person who is at fault so there is nothing you can do.

      except to berate the CSR, apparently. There’s definitely nooo way to voice one’s concerns while speaking like a respectful, emotionally competant human being.

      Wait, what does flipping out on them accomplish again?