I get it. The question is whether the customer understood that. IOW, I’m just saying that it might – might – have helped to say to the old guy, “Look, I can’t just turn the pump on, I have to ring it up as a sale. I can’t just stop helping people in line to help you, because then all of them will get mad at me. I’m sorry, but you’ll have to wait in line.” Maybe he’s still an asshole after that, who knows. But if he thought he was asking you to do something that would take you two seconds, and instead you just repeatedly send him to the end ofthe line, of course he’s going to be pissed. He thinks you’re just being a jerk for no reason.
For the upteenth time – do people just read what they want and ignore the rest? – it is by no means clear that the old guy knew that what he was asking for at that point was “to exchange money for goods and services” – i.e., a completed register transaction – as opposed to just flipping the goddamn pump on. I fail to see why taking five seconds to explain it to the guy, thereby hopefully cutting off his tantrum and storming out, would piss off the other customers. It’s not like the cashier is required to engage in a lengthy debate once the situation has been very briefly explained. “I can’t just turn the pump on; I have to ring it up as a sale, and so you’ll have to wait in line like everyone else.” What the hell is so hard about that? The assumption seems to be the old guy was just a jerk; I don’t see why we’d start with that assumption instead of considering whether there wasn’t just a miscommunication.
That’s just it, though. Unless he plans to completely ignore the customer’s exceedingly likely follow-up protestations, he pretty much IS going to be required to do just that, which was more or less what I meant by post #96.
No, it just would’ve in all probability started a conflict that would end up wasting everyone’s time. If you’ll scan the thread I linked in my earlier post, you’ll see that I’m far from the only one with customer service experience to have noted the average customer’s reaction to a reasonable explanation of policy. It seems like a good idea in the abstract, but in practice, it pretty much never ends well.
Who says I can’t manage simple math? You’re the one who is making that assumption. (And we all know what happens when you assume, don’t we? ) I never complained about my account being overdrawn. I keep my receipts, enter the transactions in my checkbook, and use Quicken to verify when they’ve posted. My account always reconciles right to the penny. In fact, I admitted with no small amount of pride that I haven’t bounced a check in years. So that blows your assumption that I can’t do simple math right out of the water.
I was merely pointing out that getting a credit card is harder for some people than it is for others and is not always a perfect solution for everyone.
If you’re going to assume an explanation would necessarily be fruitless, then just go ahead and assume the guy’s an asshole. One assumption is as defensible as the other.
Our mileage varies then. I believe the customer is entitled to a brief reasonable explanation of policy, if the policy does not on its face appear to make any sense. This forestalls (or should) what the customer would otherwise believe, which is that a cashier who is insisting on blind obedience to a seemingly ridiculous policy, is just being a jerk. I do not share your personal conviction as to the universal and automatic fruitlessness of such communications, such that I would excuse a cashier from even trying to offer an explanation to a customer who is confused as to policy and therefore incensed for the wrong reasons.
Some people are jerks, customers and clerks. But some aren’t. All we can do is try our best to briefly explain ourselves and then move on. I haven’t said the clerk owes the customer an argument; I have just said that a short explanation might have not have been amiss.
Bingo, I told him several times he needed to wait in line. He’s been told before he needs to wait in line. It’s not like I ignored him and stared into space or stocked tobacco, I was waiting on other people. He could see that I was waiting on other people. If he didn’t think he was asking for a transaction then why did he ask for a product and try to give me money for it? It’s not like he stood outside at the pump waving his arms and waiting for me to turn the pump on. He didn’t come inside and say “Turn the pump on I want to fill up”. He came inside and tried to give me money so I would give him gas. “You need to wait in line” is brief reasonable explanation of policy.
Okay, hold your damn horses, people. What we have here is a failure to follow a conversation thread.
It started here with The Tao’s Revenge:
Which Absolute replied to with:
cochrane answered this post as if it had been addressed to him, although he’s clearly engaging in some of that general audience stuff Poly was talking about:
Then SFG responded to cochrane, seemingly mistaking him for having posted Tao’s Revenge original post (which, given the tone, seems reasonable to me), and also probably engaging in the general audience thing:
Then cochrane took that personally and now people are sniping for no good reason. While I’m all for sniping, there should at least be a reason for it.
That all said, the phrase “lousy credit” makes it sound like you don’t want to have lousy credit, cochrane, so SFG gave you reasonable advice toward that. If you don’t want to improve your credit, then that’s your call, but it’s not unreasonable to presume otherwise. Plus if you have lousy credit, why should we take you at your word that you can manage simple math?
I think it’s becoming exceedingly clear that you’ve never had any experience working with customers in this kind of situation. Explanations of policy are, 9 times out of 10, entirely fruitless and result in either:
The customer asking more and more questions about the policy, thus holding up the line, or
The customer arguing with you, the lowly cashier, about the policy
Absolutely – you’ll just need to wait your turn in line to ask about it.
The customer can think whatever he wants, but no amount of questioning or discussion of the policy is going to change it right now, for him. I know this, as a frequent customer of many businesses. I know when to not take up the cashier’s time. Most people know this, to, and most people will oblige the cashier for directing them to the line full of other people wanting to conduct transactions.
The explanation was pretty clear – the line’s over here, this is the line for people wishing to exchange money for services or products.
That’s very common where I live and work. You hold up or announce the item, leave exact change on the counter and leave. The cashier rings it up between other sales or when the line is gone. No one who has exact change waits in line.
I was actually in my cousin’s car once when she did this (after paying, FWIW). Apparently it happens often enough that they have releases build right in, so the hose just breaks away cleanly instead of tearing off, causing a spill, bursting into flames, etc. The poor attendant came running after us. I laughed harder than I had in weeks.
1.) He was handing the cashier money to turn the pump on. If he didn’t understand that he was exchanging money for goods and services, he was a fucking retard.
2.) Taking five seconds to explain it to him almost certainly would not solve everything. All the explanation the man should have needed was “I need you to wait in line like everyone else.” A reasonable person would be able to infer from that that the reason they are being asked to wait in line like everyone else is that they are engaging in a transaction just like everyone else. YMMV if you’re particularly thick or self-centered.
My apologies–as **Bosstone **noted, I conflated your post with the one you were seemingly defending.
That’s just what her dad asked me. The old fellow who bought her asked if the little girl (11 years old) was any good, so I said that she could do trigonomitry in her head. He then asked if she was a hard worker, and I said yes. He pulled out the change in his pocket, looked at his wife, who nodded, and made the deal. The gas station owner shook the fellow’s hand then shook my hand, and somehow we all managed to keep a straight face throughout. The kid asked her mom if it was “for real”, to which her mom replied, “Looks like it, dear.” BTW, the dad was counsel for one of the major oil companies.
Oh, in case anyone’s wondering we don’t people make get a key to use our restroom. If someone asks we just point to where it is and ask them to knock if the door’s closed. Before I started worked here they tried having a key, but it was to much of a hassle. People would steal the key, leave it the the restroom, throw it in the trash, throw it in the toilet, etc.
You don’t have to. I don’t care. It was the stated assumption that ticked me off. As Felix Unger said (and I’m addressing this to a general audience and not to anyone in particular) “You should never assume.”
There are loads of hugely profitable things which are, unfortunately, unethical. I classify the above business practice in that category.
I’m a retired NCO*. My likely response (as a fellow customer) is: “Get in line like the rest of us, MOW-Ron!!” (Why yes, I can get testy. :evilgrin:)
I guess Britons are percieved by the gas companies as being less likely to “pump and jump,” (or “gas and go,” or “fill and flee” :D). Canadians, too. BTW, what’s the IOM?
*Non-Commissioned Officer, specifically, a Staff Sergeant of the USAF.
) I never complained about my account being overdrawn. I keep my receipts, enter the transactions in my checkbook, and use Quicken to verify when they’ve posted. My account always reconciles right to the penny. In fact, I admitted with no small amount of pride that I haven’t bounced a check in years. So that blows your assumption that I can’t do simple math right out of the water.