Hacker News Reader

From what principal do you derive the right to buy cell phone service despite being a pain in the ass?

Asshole is not a protected class.

As someone who has worked in customer service let me tell you that people already make ridiculous demands.

People start with their nonsensical demands, proceed to threatening to explicitly or implicitly cease future business, move on to threatening to get the employee in trouble, move on to speaking to a manager, to threatening to go to the company about the manager that told them no.

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?

There is already maximal incentive to make any reasonable accommodations possible because any amount of hassle that costs less than losing the customers business is already a net gain.

If the cost of responding to for example a lawsuit because you declined to do business with someone is thousands of dollars then the equation changes substantially and not for the better.

This only makes sense from a social standpoint if the service you are denied is something one can't do without and then THAT becomes the issue rather than requiring every trivially replaceable company enumerate why they didn't do business with every asshole.

> 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.

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.

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.

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?

> There is no stipulation in the constitution that only non profit association is protected. This is something you literally just invented on the spot.

That would be relevant if association was what was being regulated. Your ability to engage in commerce is what is being regulated and the US constitution makes it very clear congress and state governments have the right to regulate commerce. You are still free to associate or not associate with whom you please but if you associate with or refuse to associate with someone for purposes of commerce the government can restrict your ability to engage in commerce. This is similar to free speech,you can say or not say what you want but for example the government can force speech out of you by way of product labels and disclaimers in advertisements and restrictions on false claims. You can still say or not say those things regardless of the government but that does not mean the government can't use your speech or lack of speech as a criteria for engaging in public commerce.

> 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?

Let's not get distracted here,the discussion and my initial response here is specific to Sprint's refusal to do business with some customers. I don't know what criteria they used and since they provide public services I feel like their process should be regulated so that I can have some assurance they're not being allowed to do business while mistreating customers for profit.

Your lack of experience being in that position is irrelevant. Every complex system with power dynamics between multiple subsystems needs checks and balances. To answer your question, I can't say I have been banned from any business,I have been mistreated and I have had to walk out of establishments. I have had bad customer service and fraudulent and scammy business practices have affected me in the past. I have also worked on the customer support end of this and have witnesssed first hand how looking down on and mistreating customers is rampant. There are far more mistreated customers than there are mistreated customer service reps. A lot of times people vent their anger or speak against the company and the support staff take it personally and become severly jaded against customers. That being said,there are a lot of terrible customers and banning many if them makes sense. If banning customers becomes acceptable I fear it will only be abused by bad employees or bad management at arbitrary companies. You can ban random customers and refuse transparency and regulation and the government can refuse to let you engange in public commerce.

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".

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.

How much of this supposed "ridiculous" behavior is a result of the fact that these companies have the inconvenient habit of selling things to their customers that they don't provide.

Ultimately, that's what it comes down to. Cable internet companies, for example, will advertise these amazing connection speeds and charge people hundreds of dollars a month for it, and then simply not provide it, for example, by having internet service that only works half the time. Or airlines that will advertise specific schedules at specific prices and then simply not provide them---for example, flights during the normal hours at much more expensive prices than red-eye flights, so you pay hundreds of extra dollars for the normal flight, and then, someone loses a fucking wrench or something and you end up on a red-eye anyway.

So much of modern corporate behavior is functionally indistinguishable from buying a lottery ticket, where maybe if you pay a huge amount of money you'll get something distantly resembling the thing you paid for. OF COURSE people scream at customer service reps!

People who get more than they paid for who can't get even more also scream at customer service reps.

Just yesterday one of my tier 1 chat agents received a death threat from a long time problem customer. I don’t tolerate threats from customers on my team, so we immediately terminated their service and contacted law enforcement.

That's a unique scenario that has no place in this discussion. Of course you fired them.

Having worked in a couple of TelCo call centers, I can say that it's common enough to be included in training.

The discussion was about terminating customers that are more trouble then they are worth, threats of violence are separate from that discussion.

Chances are it is in training because they have to demonstrate they have 'done something', so the problem is 'taken care off'

What's your point? That's a valid reason and any regulatory review will clear your right to refuse to do business with that customer.

Do you think that this review is free for the business or the citizens whose tax money is paying for this? Don't you think most cases will be a little more subjective. If the asshole in question hasn't made death threats yet do you have to wait until he assaults someone to stop serving him?

Again,you misunderstand what I said. Yes,tax payers foot the bill for the government body and just like a company can draft a policy telling employees what criteria to use when refusing business to a customer,the regulatory body can do the same.

Example: raising voice,using specific phrases,making personal comments about the support staff that's helping them,threatening they'll get them fired,refusing to follow official troubleshooting guides,etc...

For example,you can't do the reverse which is firing an employee for being an asshole to a customer when they were being polite and doing their job. If that is your readon and that reason is based on untrue facts then you are liable for a wrongful termination suit.

>There should be laws to prevent companies from refusing to do business with "high maintenance" customers without proper documentation and regulation.

Would requiring documentation significantly change what happened here? Suppose that in addition to the letter about termination of service, the Sprint customers also got a spreadsheet showing the times that they called customer service and how long those calls took. Would that help customers? I am somewhat skeptical of the value of this regulatory scheme.

Documentation serves two purposes: for the public to review them so that they know how they and their fellow citiznes might be treated. And also, for any regulatory body to review their practices.

So yes,if their reasons are purely based on customers complaining or seeking support for a service then they would ideally be fined or their business license revoked.

A lot of these customers are so abusive that they should be facing civil or even criminal action.

These are not customers who annoyingly ask for a discount or need a little hand-holding to get through some forms. These are customers who scream abuse, make threats of various kinds, insult people, and are generally just horrible.

I don't care. All I am asking for is due process,documentation and govermental review of their practices.

Why do you think you deserve your day in court at someone else's business? If you invite someone to your house for a party if they happen to get drunk do you think you need to ought to be required to consult a tribunal of your friends so people can decide if you had a right to kick them out?

Because unless a party at someones house,a business provides goods and services to the public and is subject to the public's approval to operate.

Forexample, a restaurant needs to meet public health standards but a private party's kitchen doesn't. You can discriminate based on age and race who enters yout private party but you can't refuse business based on that criteria if you offer services to the public.

If you think that's crazy then you'd be stoked to hear I think moderation in for profit sites that ban user generated content (twitter,reddit,news comments,youtube,facebook,etc...) Should also be subject to similar requirements.

Your ability to profit from doing business with the public is a privilege not a right. Your ability to peacefully assemble in private with no economic profit or with profit between prople you have an exisiting well established relationship with (without a public place of business or advertisent) is private activity and should not be subject to public approval.

Yes, and since these customers are hurting business (by causing higher turnover, more stress on employees, etc) they should also sue those customers and push for the police to lay criminal charges if possible.

If that truly is the case I have no problem with what you said. So long as transparency and due process are in place