Friday, July 27, 2007

The Fine Art of Service Recovery

Got back in 5 and a half hours late this afternoon, thanks to a compounding series of delays starting in Jasper. The trip back was pretty good. One of my busier sessions, I also had to assuage some savage beast Americans who boarded in Jasper and for one reason or another felt hard done by. Within an hour, I had them eating out of the palm of my hand and praising me for salvaging what had promised to be a disastrous trip. Probably didn't hurt that I served the guy and his wife eleven drinks in a couple of hours. The Service Manager also made a point of thanking me for my good work. Nice to have one's efforts acknowledged; it doesn't always happen.

Speaking of which, I met with my boss when I got in. The investigation of my "insubordinate" act a few weeks back is complete and I've got off without so much as a slap on the wrist. I'll be paid for the trip back, as I felt I should've been, according to our contract, and I'll have a "coaching letter" on my file stating that my manager talked to me about the issue. So basically, no disciplinary action at all. Because I was in the right all the way. I'm glad I took a stand and glad I successfully made my point without a fight. I was also glad to see, in the highlights of our new tentative agreement, that the issue at hand has been properly addressed in the CBA. One for the little guys.

A request: I don't want to discourage anyone from posting comments on this blog, but I would appreciate it if folks would sign their comments. It lends them greater validity if they contain strong words--and it leaves the commenter open to criticism. If ya can't take it, ya really shouldn't dish it, eh. Moreover, it's a more respectful way of arguing. Gloves up.


Brenda Schmidt said...

Glad to hear the investigation is complete and that you'll be paid. That took long enough.

Anonymous said...

If you don't want people to post anonymously, perhaps you should remove that option.

Just a thought,


Zachariah Wells said...

That occurred to me, Henry, but struck me as a tad autocratic. For instance, I have no quarrel with your post above being signed only "Henry," tho that doesn't tell me who you are. I'm just saying that if people want to be critical, I welcome it, but they should have the spine to sign their statements.

Anonymous said...

What difference does it make if you know the identity of your correspondent? One of the virtues of the internet is that it offers a mechanism for the immediate and free exchange of opinions. I value the medium because it allows me to both encounter a wide variety of opinions and give my own, should I feel so moved. I am not interested in the self-promotion aspect of blogging, even if that seems to be the driving force behind most blogs. Frankly, I don't see what is so spineless about my previous two and a half line post!

Huffy Henry (still in hiding)

p.s. A brief review of this blog leads me to believe that being a tad autocratic is not really that much of a problem for you.

Zachariah Wells said...


I said the semi-anonymity/pseudonymity of your previous post didn't bother me at all. It does bother me when people say bold brave things without owning up to them personally, however. It makes me question that person's character and motivations and whether they'd be willing to say those things to me in person. If, however, I know the name of the person, it would probably explain much of the content of the comment. There are a lot of people out there who have rather strong biases against me and what I do and if they choose to comment critically here, their identity is indeed relevant to what they're saying. And after all, everything I've said about them I've signed my name to. This has nothing to do with "self-promotion." It has to do with transparency.

All of this is in reference to a comment posted on another blog entry here. I won't bother pointing out which one, because the comment strikes me as fatuous, and all the more so because it was posted anonymously and posted by someone who has made other dim observations on this blog--or at least by someone with an identical IP address to that person.

I have the ability to remove comments from this blog, but I only delete a comment if it's spam advertising. Espousing strong opinions ain't autocratic, Henry. Controlling how others choose to espouse theirs is.

Anonymous said...

Neither the glare of your knight's shining armour nor the glimmer of your nascent persecution complex will entice me to abandon my anonymous IP status. If you have difficulty respecting the privacy of readers who post anonymously to your blog, you should simply disable the mechanism that allows them exercise that option....a mechanism which you provided them with in the first place!