Hacker News Reader

Comment by zamadatix | Hacker News Reader

The person mandating the question doesn't care if you sound hostile to the person at the window, they just care how many start using the app.

View on HN

There are definitely some people who think that directing anger and unpleasantness at the person they talk to (who has no control over the situation other than choosing not to do their job) is a valid approach to providing "feedback".

Some sort of "trickle up" mechanism where if enough people are sufficiently nasty to frontline workers, it'll get back to decision makers who will then change course.

I think that's fantasy and/or rationalization for taking things out on others.

Many people here seem to think a customer clearly stating their preference is inherently angry and unpleasant to front line workers. It isn't.

Indeed. I think anything short of tossing your drink at McDonalds workers probably doesn't phase them. They deal with much worse shit from the public than somebody snarking at the premise of having an app.

I think that reaction stems more from the comment outright seeking to create a hostile atmosphere about it, not from being clear on preferences in itself.

It's the same thing with customers who make a big scene about a missing fries or something. 99% of the time it's not a problem and nobody cares - here's your fries, have a nice day. 1% of the time the person cares less about the fries and more about being hostile about it on principle/for fun/for respect/because they are in a bad mood/whatever, and those are the ones that suck to deal with when you're there but not in charge.

The context of the comment I was replying was "The person mandating the question doesn't care if you sound hostile to the person at the window".

So the premise is "the customer is hostile".

I was a customer facing employee for a company whose underhanded policies caused me to face a lot of (legitimate) hostility. I eventually quit for this reason, and I know at least one other employee who did. That company lost two otherwise good employees. It works, it's just a question of how much collateral damage you're ok with. If management want to use front facing employees to shelter them from customer grievance, what other target to people have?

Yes. But...

It is a bit off to attack the drones of a corporate, albethey the only available target?

Do you really need that burger? Better to boycot them entirety

(Easy for me to say, I dispise MacDonalds food)

The particular problem here is there's no feedback as to why you boycott them.

You see, the following headline has more effect on CEO's and decision makers

"McD's sales drop 10% after customers refuse the app and other forms of spying" --Forbes

If it's a silent boycott then you see stupid headlines like

"Are millennials killing McD?"

Remember the entire purpose isn't so that one company doesn't track you with an app, is so every company figures out tracking you with an app is a bad idea.

So write to the news. The problem is not lack of publicity avenue, it's too few people seem to care enough about apps selling their data to make the headlines in the first place. They'd rather just get the burger and not care.

Did things change after you left?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com