Church of the Customer Blog
« The tyranny of one | Main | Happy Holidays, y'all »
December 17, 2007
The tyranny of one
Here's what the guy behind the counter at my local shipping-and-receiving store, which was filled with people sending Christmas packages, said to a startled customer the other day:
Sir, we can't allow you to tape your package in the store. A woman once cut her hand using a tape dispenser while taping her package in our store and sued us. So now we have to ask you to tape your package outside.
One customer's misfortune inspired an unnecessary rule at the expense of 10,000 others who aren't clumsy and litigious. Certainly, a lawsuit can be a drain on time and money. Therefore, our law-obsessed American society makes it easy to believe that creating yet another rule will limit exposure. But it's like putting on a full-body condom before swimming in the lake -- you might be a little safer from the leeches, but your flexibility is restricted and you look like a dork.
More rules are proportional to less convenience. More rules = fewer customers. You either let the tyranny of one customer influence your organization, or not.
When someone wants to add a new rule, how about eliminating an existing one instead?
Other blogs that reference The tyranny of one:
» Sorry, but we can't let you tape your package in our store from Overlawyered
What if you hurt yourself? "One customer's misfortune inspired an unnecessary rule at the expense of 10,000 others who aren't clumsy and litigious." (Ben McConnell, Church of the Customer blog, Dec. 17).... [Read More]
Ben, great post.. Glad someone feels the same way as I do, there are way too many examples just like this one, where ONE person or instance can change the lives of everyone.. THe first one that comes to mind right away is "The Shoe Bomber", just because ONE person decided to put C4 in his shoes, everyone in the world has to take theirs off.. Great post.
Also, eventually you might suffocate in a full body condom. Of course, then you wouldn't care that you looked like a dork. Incidentally, I think we've all experienced that lawsuit paranoid behavioral modification programs at stores. I was at Best Buy once and no one would help me get my intended purchase from the upper shelf, so I climbed one of those giant in-store free standing ladders. That drew an employee quickly enough. She came running towards me screaming "Sir! Sir! You can't do that!" It was quite a scene.At least it's one way to get a little help.
Great post - and your suggestion at the end is excellent. How about this, if you MUST institute a rule, you MUST eliminate two existing ones? :)
Keep up the great work.
Kevin Eikenberry
How about an alternative to blaming the situation on the store owner. Why don't we instead change the legal system so people who sue a business in such a situation can't get past first base, and, if they are unsuccessful, have to reimburse the defendant for the costs of defending such a ridiculous claim.
Ben Franklin said, "Those who are willing to sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither,"
Business that are willing to restrict their customers for their own legal security, deservce neither.
A great case in point.
Suggestion: How about a little sign/ disclaimer written with wit and good humour to warn people to tape at their own risk? Might do the trick and also allow the business to connect with customers by sharing a laugh at the ridiculous aspects of modern life.
I have mixed feelings on this. Obviously, the problem lies with the person, the lawyer, and the system that allows a business to be sued over something like this. I'm pretty sure that we can mostly all agree with this (except, maybe, for the "trial lawyers" who may be reading this).
But if we have allowed this sort of environment to be created, can we really fault a business for trying to protect itself?
If we allow things to continue, we'll sue every business and bit of infrastructure out of existence - then what will we have? Maybe then we can start suing the lawyers for creating such an environment.
I have extended family in Finland and I send them clothing several times a year, using the surface method. This takes six to eight weeks, but costs less than half of sending it by air. The post office has now eliminated this option. It turns out that profit is only part of the reason. The other is that people were complaining that surface took too long. The new rule guarantees delivery within 10 days from California to Finland, but it costs more for the shipping than for the items you are sending
Connie Ragan Green: It's true that USPS eliminated overseas surface mail (my guess is that not enough people were using it for them to keep up contracts with shipping companies etc), but they still have an international first class option that is a lot cheaper than their preferred Global Priority Mail.
Joe - I'm totally with ya on the theatrical experience that is airport security.
Cap'n -- Great story. I may try that to get store help next time.
Kevin -- I like your math. Why not two? Great idea.
Coyote -- Changing the legal system is like forcing a toddler to act like an adult. You can try, certainly, but it'll take forever.
Jim -- Absolutely love that quote from Ben Franklin. It says so much about American culture and society today, too.
Deranged -- It's societal, certainly. Pick a starting point, say, daytime TV. Who are the primary advertisers on local TV stations during the day? Lawyers promising to make you fast bucks by suing anyone who's looked at you funny in the last 1-2 years. So the law schools, which conveniently bypass ethics, and the TV station owners, which do the same, help foster our culture of monetary justice. Not justice, mind you, just getting paid.
Alan Weiss had a great little video on the Tyranny of the Minority. Some airlines don't serve peanuts because a few may be allergic...
Man, everyone gets that Franklin quote wrong.
The actual quote:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
There is a small, but meaningful difference between this statement and the one oft-quoted.
Totally! I think about this a lot. It makes me crazy when one person does one dumb thing (SHOE BOMB, anyone?) and then we ALL have to SUFFER for it. And how about the woman who put the hot McDonald's coffee between her legs and burned herself. Now they have to print WARNING labels on coffee cups?!?!! Oh, don't get me started...
If you've never been sued before you have no idea of the effect on the business. Without going into any personal details, we've been sued before for something we were able to prove was not our doing and despite showing the proof, our insurance settled and then cancelled us. Insurance naturally went up as it's more difficut and expensive after such a thing so of course prices go up as well. I blame both the idiot who sued the wrong person at the scene and the insurance company for not having balls but facts are facts.
I have to agree... you produced an excellent article!
I will pass this link to my own blog readers: http://www.hikids57.com/wordpress
I am always looking for effective examples for my training students. This is an excellent example of a great article production.
