1065
Woman jailed after using shooting suspect's catchphrase as insurance company denied claim.
(www.rawstory.com)
this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2024
1065 points (99.1% liked)
News
23655 readers
3520 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Regardless whether you support her general conduct, I think we can all rally around one tenet here:
Don't harass a shitty company's T1 support out of priciples against the company in general.They're in no better position to effect change in the system than you are. They exist only to be slightly more competent phone robots, turning your whiney noise into itemized actions, and filter those actions down to a restricted subset of system commands the company permits them to do.
If anything, they're on our level of the totem pole. Any outrage directed at them for actions of their broader company are a gross misdirection and wholly counterproductive.
I don't know who this lady was speaking to on the phone. But if it was some minimum wage phone bank slave who is just the ablative frontline of the customer support hotline, I don't support her threat in that context.
Maybe if her threat was directed towards the minimum wage worker, they'll let her go then.
Inb4 nuremburg
This is a dumb take. Their frontline workers should take the brunt of what the public feels. That is the point as you can't get to anyone higher up. Maybe people won't want to work there anymore and they will have to pay much higher wages to attract people.
Sounds like a win to me. Company goes under because no one wants to work for them knowing the public hates them or they will get paid enough they don't care.
In your world we can't show hate because someone isn't paid enough and it isn't their decision. It's not their fault. But then you can't access the person who is at fault so there is nothing you can do. This is fundamentally broken concept and is akin to resignation.
Charging at them directly where they want you to charge, their designated fall guys, sounds like a superbly inefficient strategy. You are pinching a huge amount of bystanders caught in the middle to for a proportionally negligible effect.
Yes, if someone who is desperately asking for a proverbial (maybe literal?) bullet in their head puts a hostage between you and them, can you still plow right through the hostage and get them that way? Exhaust everyone they can possibly field to eventually break through to them? Sure, in principle. That can balloon to an absurdly high casualty count, though. Is it really all worth it?
It's a lot more efficient to, wherever possible, sidestep around the hostage, get behind them and strike directly at the problem. That's exactly what Luigi Mangione did, and its effectiveness is exactly what's being applauded.
If your rebuttal is that what Luigi did is far more of a risky path to take, you don't wish to take a risk like that, and you'd rather faff about kicking low level grunts instead because that's an easier, lower-consequence option for you that theoretically makes progress, okay, I guess. I personally think you're just wasting your time and energy pissing off only the wrong people. Only big stunts are gonna move the needle, in my opinion.
Killing one CEO has changed nothing, so perhaps both strategies seem fruitless. Of course one involves taking someone's life and the other just making a logical statement considering the circumstances.
I am intrigued by your big stunts although I am not sure murder is the best way to go about it.
Yes. That is the job. But the fact that they already take the brunt doesn't justify anyone screaming/abusing/threatening/ect the CSR.
A win for whom? What exactly do you get out of it? Satisfaction? Is it just some kind of flaccid moral victory or something?
If this were actually the case, quite a lot of businesses would've gone under a long time ago. Most of them still pay shit wages.
In the meantime, real people are negatively affected by the assholery of customers every single day.
This is not a win for the workers. It's hard enough being forced to spend most of your life working to make just enough money to scrape by, let alone being screamed at, insulted, condescended to, ect.
except to berate the CSR, apparently. There's definitely nooo way to voice one's concerns while speaking like a respectful, emotionally competant human being.
Wait, what does flipping out on them accomplish again?
Good we agree it is their job. This was not really a threat and let's be honest because of the power difference this lady is facing actual jail time whereas the worker faces nothing.
As I explained, it is a win if CSR don't want to work for the company unless they are paid more. At this time in history there is a glut of jobs. No one is forcing these people to work for this shit company.
Making an obvious statement out of frustration is not berating. This lady did not even curse the CSR out. I mean you are really just siding with the corporation under the guise of protecting the CSR agent.
Having worked as a CSR for years I can definitely say this was no where near flipping out. Nice try though.
I haven't even made a single comment thus far about what she said, but I absolutely get why she said it. The fact that she's facing jail time is absurd.
What we say to others can and often does have an effect on their mental health. Being forced to sit and take abuse and harassment with no recourse isn't "nothing". bffr
That's not how the real world works, though. The majority of us are forced into our jobs because they need money to exist. Even if they wanted to leave, the job market fucking sucks. Not to mention, a lot of the jobs that exist are at other, equally shitty companies. Not much of a choice there.
Again, I neither said nor implied that it was. I made it pretty clear that I was responding to this specific statement:
The result of getting "the brunt of what the public feels" inherently includes being berated, insulted, ect. I'm sure you've experienced as a CSR; as have I. Countless times.
I'd love to hear you elaborate on this claim. It certainly is an interesting one.
My entire point is that I believe (most) people, CSRs in particular, simply deserve to be treated with respect... even when the conversation is about a problem that upsets you. It's not exactly a complicated argument; nor is it much to ask for.
Now that I think about it, not even one of my points was actually addressed in your response. Nice try, though!
It is clear your just spinning your wheels at this point unable to grasp anything I am saying. You think CSR agents deserve respect because reasons. I believe they are the front facing staff so they can and will deal with customers who get upset.
Furthermore this was a disproportionate response that only a bootlicker would defend. I would not of reported anything as this agent. It is much like calling the cops unnecessarily. Sure you can do it, and it may be within your rights, but is a dick move.
The CSR agent is not blameless here and I doubt their professionalism as I did endure a lot and always managed to turn the call around by empathizing with the client. It was not always possible but the only times I reported someone was for repeated harassment.
As I said considering the situation your insistence on supporting the CSR without taking into context what actually happened makes you out to be a corporate apologist. If not, perhaps you are just being disingenuous.
As I already stated there is a glut a jobs and if their company faced staffing shortages because people decided they did not want to work for them it would be a good thing. Shitty companies that do shitty things lose employees.
This would force them to raise their wages which would cut into their profits. This is about the only negative thing that can happen to a company. There have been many companies that have gone under because of scandalous behavior and people refusing to work for them.
Finally the whole blameless thing is pretty rich when you think about it. No one is forced to work there and they are the front line for the corporation.
They serve the system killing people through overpriced shitty healthcare. They don't make the decisions, but in this company they are there to stonewall people so they can't get help when their claims are denied.
Just like soldiers they are just following orders. Oh wait lady malaria says we can't blame them. No, this is really ridiculous when you think about it. I won't blame the people helping to kill me because they are low on the totem poll in the corporate world.
So to some it up. Yes, we should should respect all humans, no this was not right, and CSR are not blameless. Cheers!
Low wage phone workers HAVE been taking the brunt of this shit. It just never mattered to CEOs until now because they never thought theyd be the ones to get the bullet. They probably expected a mass shooting at one if their call centers or something. You know, nothing that hurts them directly.
The worst part is call centers often have policies that say they aren't allowed to hang up. So they have to sit there and take the abuse. I wonder what the depression and suicide rates are for call center workers....
The point is people are fucking desperate, told to be happy they have a job, and end up in the employment version of an abusive relationship. And like folks in abusive relationships, we should cheer for them to leave while also recognizing it can be quite difficult to do just that.
Found a Karen on Lemmy wow
Hey guys, I found the bootlicker!