Oldest known version of this page was edited on 2005-03-03 23:44:59 by RichardBerg []
(originally posted here∞)

I work in retail and encounter this situation every day, yet I strongly vote not rude. He has no obligation to any clerk other than to answer mindless questions without wasting their time. If you're offended that people would rather spend their limited time and social graces on their friends than their cashiers, you need way thicker skin.

It would be one thing if he walked into my store and asked me to recommend a TV capture card, then zoned out while I explained the technical and practical differences that would help him make an informed decision. That's quite a bit removed from the situation above, however. And even then, it's the "zoning out" that's offensive -- whether he yapped on a phone, stared at a wall, or flirted with a girlfriend is irrelevant.

---

Ok, other 80% of Ars: what is so hard about dealing with someone on a phone, and what makes it different from the even larger number of people who shop while bullshitting with their friends, etc. etc.? If they give you the info you need, you make a sale and go about your business (with much more efficiency than, say, customers who try to talk your ear off with sob stories or name dropping or similar). If you fall out of their attention span, you ignore them back, allowing you to get work done while they talk (just as you would if they wanted to browse aimlessly, or convince their wife that an SLI mobo fits in the budget, or whatever). What's the big fucking deal?

---

I still don't think we're even speaking the same language. "Respect" to me doesn't mean "follow arbitrary societal guidelines for human interaction," it means "do unto others as you'd have them do to you." It causes me absolutely 0 grief when someone is on a cellphone in my store -- and I give far far more effort, knowledge, and courtesy to my clientele than a gas station -- so I don't consider the reverse role to be disrespectful.

(edit) frankly, not even !'s post below offends me

---

---

Not if she's being paid to provide customer service to the best of her ability. Customers, OTOH, are not drawing wages, so all that can be expected is adequacy. (If they are on the clock, by chance, it's to a different employer who has precisely the analogous claim to their time, further amplifying the point.)

In practice, a retail employee can't be talking to her friends on the phone because even when her interactions with Customer 1 contain ample downtime, she needs to start the checkout + social process with Customer 2 in order to be optimally efficient. Meanwhile, she has to monitor inventory levels, answer the [store] phone, be receptive to requests from coworkers, reply to product and pricing questions intelligently, keep an eye on loss prevention, assist customers with disabilities, and rebut cellphone-haters in a well-hidden Ars window.

If you disagree that the fundamental transactional nature of retail trumps societal conventions, then I ask in return: when a cashier is engaged in pleasant conversation with a customer in front of you, do you have a right to be annoyed?

---

I take it you've never said "hello" to 100+ strangers every day for a year. I doubt it carries the same meaning you think it does.

Moreover, as brodie said, if there is an ambiguity within the laws of courtesy it makes perfect sense to give a friend the favorable side of the coin flip. It should be obvious by now that I'm not easily offended, but I would consider it rude if I were holding an important phone conversation and my colleague hung up on me just so he could exchange a proto-social facade for smokable bits of tar.

---

So let's see. In the 4 pages since I went to sleep:

• nobody has rebutted my general argument that respect should be more concerned with the golden rule than with societal norms of courtesy. I see two immediate warrants, in case anyone asks: (1) we the members of the rational class of society are called to continually question norms in order that they evolve with logic and consistency (2) even if we could all agree on general principles, it's impossible to apply them objectively to every situation
• of the many vitriolic posts addressing the specific issue that talking on a cell phone is/isn't rude, I can only see one argument offered -- linking to a document that purports to list existing norms, i.e. a tautology
• none of us who work/worked retail have defended rabidly anti-cell viewpoints. hanser expressed an opinion on the rudeness itself, but his retail position is unique and his contributions ended when things got nasty on page 3

And I'm saying that there's zero chance your "hello" carries the same meaning to retail workers (who exchange ritualized greetings with 100s of people a day) that you think it does.

---

The famous one, you know, "be excellent to each other" (BT 1:8∞). In particular, treat the sales clerk the way he wants to be treated. The collective experience of Ars Retail Monkeys seems to agree pretty well:
- don't slow down the transaction
- don't move shit around on the shelves, get fingerprints on the monitors, etc.
- don't add an extra minute of meaningless convo to your coming & going just because your mom said to
- don't completely ignore us if we ask "can we help you". "no" or a nod or any response at all is 100% ok
- do ask good questions
- stupid questions are ok too unless you're close-minded
- don't tell us sob stories or brag stories or your hopeful dreams unless you're really, truly funny (and we're not busy)

If you really want to be an A+ customer, do these:
- smile :)
- catch on to new concepts quickly and with an open mind
- come back often and buy stuff
- be a cute female

---

With statements like its [never holding more than 1 conversation at once] just common courtesy, you are claiming:

(1) it is possible for a universal code of "respectful" behavior to exist
(2) you know what that code is better than the people who disagree with you
(3) refusing to accept your version of the code is unethical

Despite dozens of posts, you've offered very little evidence for these very big claims (while ignoring counterclaims that have been kindly offered even though the burden of proof doesn't rest on them).

---

Back to CollectedWritings