Simple, right? Then again, if everyone followed this “Golden Rule” all of the time, we would have no reality TV, few viral videos and so much less to talk about.
So imagine this – You were just going to have a normal day at work, when in walks a phone-wielding consumer. John Q. Public is ready for you, Customer Service Rep, to give him the pleasure of treating him poorly so he can take advantage of you for his 15 minutes of fame. If his appearance with his camera on you isn’t rude enough, don’t worry. He’ll egg you on; he’ll put you in position to make a mistake. After all, what’s more important, basic common courtesies and civil exchanges – in which Johnny could speak courteously, but firmly, if his transaction with a Customer Service Rep is going poorly – or Johnny’s opportunity to go viral?
These past few weeks, fueled by the egregious United passenger-dragging situation, it has become difficult to avoid stories involving bystander cell phone coverage of Flight Attendants and Gate Agents Gone Wild. I know, I know. Footage like this helps affect change. Passenger rights evolve, and are made clear, all thanks to Johnny QP and his iPhone 7. But, in the end, are we really driving positive change? Or are we creating a new set of problems? I can’t be the only person to see these videos and wonder if Johnny QP would mind having a cell phone camera placed inches from his face while he was attempting to do his job? Would it make him angry? Would the situation worsen, or would his customer service improve right there on the spot?
While cutting my teeth in customer service jobs as a teen, I remember a Waldbaum’s customer who returned a half pound of dog food, left at the bottom of the 20-pound bag. She didn’t need it anymore, and wanted a refund, because her dog had died. There was nothing wrong with the product and it was mostly consumed. But she threw a big enough fit and grew abusive enough that my manager instructed me to issue the refund. I still remember my pesky, less-than-pleasant demeanor as I handed over the money to the woman. Mean, irate customers and dead dogs bring out the worst in me.
How might that transaction have gone, today, with this woman likely yelling about how Waldbaums hates dogs, her phone just a few inches from my face? How idiotic or hot-tempered would I have seemed? Would I swat her camera out of my face and, if so, would the Internet buzz about the violent customer service rep and how out-of-control supermarkets are becoming?
Interestingly, it turns out that an airline employee cannot require a customer to stop recording, so long as both the attendant and the employer are in a public place. So says a Bay Area aviation analyst this week after a United attendant canceled a passenger’s flight for recording her. The customer has the right to record as much as he or she wants to.
eforeut here’s my takeaway from this type of incident. I share this observation as an employer, a consumer and a former customer-service-rep – but, most important, as a human: Before recording customer service reps doing their jobs (however poorly they might be doing in a given moment), can we apply a common-sense litmus test? Thinks of it as a grace period, during which Johnny QP first asks for a manager’s assistance, tries a new approach or compromises before recording and distributing a truly out-of-control situation. If Johnny QP thinks first, argues constructively, and treats the customer service rep the way he would want to be treated before taking extreme measures, then his actions might make him a true beacon of change. If Johnny QP wouldn’t want a camera in his face at his place of work, he should put his back in his pocket.
Alternatively, maybe Johnny QP is just having a bad day. But if using a customer service rep as an easy outlet for his anger makes him feel better, then let’s judge Johnny QP as closely as we’re judging the star of his recording.
