It’s very difficult to overstate how terribly front line service workers are treated on a daily basis, and while I doubt the efficacy of the punishment (which I’ll get into in a second).
In my 12 years working in a similar role for minimum wage, I described it as, 90% of people are pretty benign, 8% are mildly annoying, and that last 1-2% is filled with a broad spectrum of assholes that ruin it for everyone else.
The area I worked was very wealthy and the only way I can describe it is these types of people, for one reason or another, are having a bad day and you’re the last thing they’re dealing with. They don’t seem to see workers as human beings, so they use that as an outlet for whatever they’re dealing with.
The reason this punishment isn’t effective is you’re just going to shame them, not teach them empathy. She’s going to work with a bunch of people she sees as “beneath” her. She’s not trying to support herself with a minimum wage job and all the extra stress that comes with, and she’s not working 70 hours a week (like the manager in the article was). You can even hear in this woman’s interview that she’s only barely ashamed of what happened, and seems to see the action as somewhat justified/heroic.
60 hours of mandated therapy would likely be more effective, but I admire the goal here.
According to the article: A "frictionless economy" was emerging with promises to make our lives easier in part by removing the biggest friction in our lives: other people.
I know what you mean, but I'm not sure I see the irony. "Rough area" and suburbs don't have exact meanings, but in my experience, for what I think is being described as rough areas, interacting with other people, including new people, is seen as good, important, even necessary, and not as "friction". In nicer suburbs, interactions with new people may be rarer & more transactional.
How you treat someone you don't regularly interact with is an extension of this.
> The area I worked was very wealthy and the only way I can describe it is these types of people, for one reason or another, are having a bad day and you’re the last thing they’re dealing with. They don’t seem to see workers as human beings, so they use that as an outlet for whatever they’re dealing with.
I know people who treat their family members kind of like that, so I don't think it's so much a case of not seeing the workers (specifically) as human beings. I think the behavior is probably more about thinking of some person as being "safe" to take anger out on: that could be a low status stranger or someone close who won't/can't dump them.
> You can even hear in this woman’s interview that she’s only barely ashamed of what happened, and seems to see the action as somewhat justified/heroic.
> 60 hours of mandated therapy would likely be more effective, but I admire the goal here.
Doesn't therapy only work if the client wants to change? So that probably wouldn't be effective either, at least not by itself.
So maybe jail time with good-faith engagement with the therapy as a condition of release? The jail's there to make the person hit rock bottom, disabuse them any thoughts of superiority, and hopefully put them in a position to want to fix themselves. Then the therapy is there to give them the tools to do that.
> I know people who treat their family members kind of like that, so I don't think it's so much a case of not seeing the workers (specifically) as human beings. I think the behavior is probably more about thinking of some person as being "safe" to take anger out on: that could be a low status stranger or someone close who won't/can't dump them.
I thought about this and think you're right and getting at what I was trying to say - they're in a position of power over the worker, and they know it, so in a sense that means they're "beneath" the abuser - and you're absolutely right, the fact that the worker cannot fight back at all is a factor in these types of cowardly attacks.
One of the worst things I wish I could stop doing is any time I see abusive behavior out in the wild towards a low wage service worker, I flip my shit on the abusive person, because it is so infuriating to me as someone who has been in the worker's shoes that they cannot do a single effing thing about it or get fired. The reaction is typically shock from the person being abusive, but I hate the fact I'm unable to control myself because eventually I'll get stabbed over it or something stupid, and it's not worth it.
The emotional toll working a front line customer service job takes is unreal.
Sure I've had low moments in my career as a programmer, but I don't really feel harmed by those experiences.
I worked less than half a year in retail in a very wealthy town, and I still find myself thinking about some of the ridiculously entitled people I had to interact with. I feel like it permanently changed me.
> Hayne was already one of them, having worked at a McDonald’s as well as a Burger King in the 2000s. She knew how unpleasant the work could be. “You don’t get paid shit, and people are so rude,” Hayne said.
What makes you doubt it? To engage in this behavior in the first place strongly suggests so. Read the article and her description of the situation, she thinks she is the victim here (a common theme). Watch the video and how abusive she is being to the worker involved.
You’re making the same flawed assumption the judge did, that working one of these jobs at one point in your life gives you some kind of magical empathy. It clearly does not.
I make no claims about her ability to feel empathy; anyone who is throwing food around is struggling on the empathy front.
But if she has previously worked in a service job it seems unlikely that she sees people working service jobs as beneath her in principle. If anything she probably sees them as near-peers and is acting out of a warped sense of social competition.
One thing I’ve noticed: some people lose all empathy for their former selves. Like all of it. It’s like there is no continuity between the two persons. Maybe they were fat and lost weight, or were a young adult and had to work in a fast food chain. Well immediately when they are out of that predicament they just roll their eyes at how unworthy/dumb their former selves are.
As a direct consequence they are rubbish at feeling sympathy for other people that are also in that situation. It’s like their own experience has been emotionally discarded.
I have a brother that is a successful bond trader. When he was a young buck, he griped that he and the other traders would bust their asses all year, and at the end of the year each division would be allocated some pot of money based on how well their division did at generating profit. It was entirely at the discretion of their boss not only how to split the pot among the traders, but how much to keep for himself. The unfairness!
35 years on my brother has been that top boss for awhile. And now, you see, the world is a meritocracy: both those who have everything and those who have nothing are getting what they deserve. What a great way to salve any remaining pangs of conscience over being on top and not needing to worry about those with nothing.
I don’t think that’s true. I have a boring office job but recently had to do a shift at a bar where one of my friends kid had a school party. Some guy got sick so I ended up doing it for 6 hours.
I was dead for two days and my respect for these people has risen tremendously. Most people were nice, but just a few were super nasty. It also took huge toll on my body, my pulse was up all the time.
So for me, it totally “worked” to see things from a different perspective.
I disagree. We need more shame in our society. Assholes need to be shamed by everyone around them, not ignored and allowed to think they're in the right.
Honestly, I think we need more shame. People feel so righteous doing these things to employees because their establishments bend over backwards to accommodate customers. We need more store bans and public shaming. People shouldn't think this is okay and should experience consequences for it.
Honestly, I agree. Bullies and assholes only continue because there are rarely any consequences for their actions, and because in some cases society will bend over backwards to help them to avoid the hassle. If companies are terrified to ban customers, and will even give them discounts/free products to get them out of their hair, what incentive do these customers have to act like decent people?
On the other hand, if the bans start coming and everyone enacts a zero tolerance setup for abusive customers, they'll realise their mistake soon enough when half the town doesn't let them shop there. Companies just need to put their workers first, and realise that assholes are not valuable customers.
Bullies and assholes often act that way because it's the only way they know how to soothe some kind of internal strife, and because they feel like they don't deserve acceptance as a person. Creating "consequences" of the kind you describe will make it easier for everyone else, and fair enough if that's all you care for. But the bully is only going to have their fears validated by the exclusion, and is just as likely to bed in rather than admit they were wrong. The more difficult but more permanent fix is to help them feel accepted as a person and that it's okay to open up about what's really going on with them. But definitely boundaries should be set, and abuse should not be tolerated in the meantime.
I mean yes, but I see that as only part of the issue. The modern corporate owned world is highly dehumanizing. So many jobs demand the employees treat their customers like a number that it's not surprising the behavior has become pathological.
It's notable that the article concentrates almost entirely on the two individuals, not on the corporate culture that created intense stress for both of them.
In my 12 years working in a similar role for minimum wage, I described it as, 90% of people are pretty benign, 8% are mildly annoying, and that last 1-2% is filled with a broad spectrum of assholes that ruin it for everyone else.
The area I worked was very wealthy and the only way I can describe it is these types of people, for one reason or another, are having a bad day and you’re the last thing they’re dealing with. They don’t seem to see workers as human beings, so they use that as an outlet for whatever they’re dealing with.
The reason this punishment isn’t effective is you’re just going to shame them, not teach them empathy. She’s going to work with a bunch of people she sees as “beneath” her. She’s not trying to support herself with a minimum wage job and all the extra stress that comes with, and she’s not working 70 hours a week (like the manager in the article was). You can even hear in this woman’s interview that she’s only barely ashamed of what happened, and seems to see the action as somewhat justified/heroic.
60 hours of mandated therapy would likely be more effective, but I admire the goal here.