[Zircom]

>As a Canadian cousin over here, if you can't tell the difference between a smile/a polite "Hi, how can I help you?"/a "have a nice day", and an actual conversation involving smalltalk, then you clearly don't know about what you're criticising.

That's literally his point, the whole friendly-service-with-a-smile thing is forced on them by their managers/corporate, it's not from a sincere desire to have an actual conversation with customers. And people will literally complain and get them in trouble if they don't do it.

Talk about irony, sitting here talking about a superiority complex while defending requiring that kind of stuff of "lowly" service industry workers.

[BaseballPhysics]

> That's literally his point, the whole friendly-service-with-a-smile thing is forced on them by their managers/corporate,

Courtesy with customers is forced on them? My god!

The next thing you'll tell me they're expected not to curse at their co-workers, too! What kind of world is this?!

> it's not from a sincere desire to have an actual conversation with customers.

Once again, and as I already said in the very text you quoted, no one is expecting a "conversation". Maybe you just misunderstood my point? I admit I was being a bit circuitous, there.

> Talk about irony, sitting here talking about a superiority complex while defending requiring that kind of stuff of "lowly" service industry workers.

I never mentioned anything about their being "lowly", and I'd appreciate you not insinuating such things about me. It's a veiled insult and it's unwarranted and unnecessary.

See, courtesy. It's a thing, both in the real world and online.

[altairprime]

“Unsmiling” is not “unprofessional”.

Smiling isn’t about courtesy, respect, or professionalism. It’s a US cultural habit that is not universal in the rest of the world, ingrained into service industries, in service of demands that workers subsume all emotion in favor of providing “service with a smile”. Covid masking protocols were looked upon fondly by service industry workers specifically because they didn’t have to fake-smile anymore.

Don’t hold your breath for the return of fake-smiles, and don’t confuse the absence of a smile with the presence of negativity, discourtesy, disrespect, or unprofessionalism. It’s just a neutral face, delivering a neutral package to a neutral stranger.

[BaseballPhysics]

> “Unsmiling” is not “unprofessional".

And now we're back to cultural norms and expectations, and there's no point in arguing about something so very subjective.

The original complaint was about "weird" Americans and my entire point was that it's not that weird, it's just different.

And now we're just around and back where we started.

I've offered my perspective and there's little point in repeating it again. If you want to know how I'd respond, just go read my first comment on this thread.

[altairprime]

Please don’t frame your personal disinterest in discussing subjective viewpoints that contradict your own, as though everyone at HN becomes disinterested in discussing subjective viewpoints once disagreement occurs.

HN users regularly discuss conflicting subjective cultural norms and expectations: when discussing Linux window managers, emacs, tabs versus spaces, the expectations of junior engineers in a startup, how much oncall is too much, the exact bytes of the new SVG logo when it first launched, and your own subjective viewpoint expressed above: whether smiles are a necessary part of courtesy at all.

[BaseballPhysics]

> as though everyone at HN becomes disinterested in discussing subjective viewpoints once disagreement occurs.

Except you didn't present your viewpoint as subjective, did you?

No, like many of the other folks participating in this thread, you delivered it as objective truth:

> “Unsmiling” is not “unprofessional”.

> Smiling isn’t about courtesy, respect, or professionalism

Now in fairness, I'm not sure you even realize that's just an opinion.

Unfortunately, if you can't see that difference, then conversation devolves into an argument about those supposed "truths" and that's a conversation that cannot go anywhere since they aren't truths at all.

A meaningful conversation about differing cultural norms, how they might've come to be that way, how they work today, etc?

Yeah, that's interesting!

But if the goal is to just sling insults at folks and call people "weird" for having different subjective values? Yeah, I'll pass.

[altairprime]

> I’m not sure you even realize it’s an opinion.

All descriptions of cultural norms are opinion by definition. Cultural ‘norms’ are, themselves, vastly more complex and interesting than any single statement can declare. Editorial word choice is necessary to express and discuss those perceived norms, and care must be taken to not overstate a viewpoint. I appreciate your concern, however. Thank you for taking the time to express it.

[Zircom]

So would you expect that kind of attitude from your doctor and complain if you don't get it? Your lawyer? A police officer pulling you over? A judge? Your boss? Don't think so. So yes, with that (which is admittedly an assumption) in mind I don't think it's any kind of jump to say you think service industry workers are beneath you.

Verbal abuse and general surliness isn't the only alternative to the false sincerity and you immediately jumping to the opposite end of the spectrum is frankly just arguing in bad faith. It can just be a neutral interaction, you can require your employees to have have common courtesy and be polite without being completely servile and obsequious.

"That'll be 10.97, cash or card?" "Cash, here you go" "2.18 is your change" "Thanks" "No problem"

[alvarezbjm-hn]

"Courtesy with customers is forced on them? My god!"

I worked in a call center for two years, for three different companies. Yes, (fake) courtesy is forced. The customers of one site were so difficult that courtesy was scripted (there were scripted interactions for frustrated and for rude customers)

[BaseballPhysics]

Well you have clearly missed the point of my comment.

Yes, it's "forced" on them, in the same way that many many other behavioural expectations are "forced" on a worker. They're "forced" not to abuse their co-workers. They're "forced" to treat their workplace with respect. They're "forced" to dress in a certain way.

That's called "having a job", and it's all stuff I've had to do, too, in every job I've ever had.

[petsfed]

Is it "having a job" to be required to say "I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm dedicated to meeting your needs. Let's see what we can do to help you!" in cheery tones after the customer says "you stupid [racial slur], your mother should've aborted you, why can't you get it through your [explicitive] [racial slur] head that I want [thing that was never mentioned, and is, in fact, illegal]"

THAT is the forced courtesy we're talking about.

[alvarezbjm-hn]

No, no. It seems I was not clear enough.

By forced courtesy I mean there was a metric for that. Those with the worst metrics were let go and we were reminded of that weekly.

On the other hand, I suppose people except sociopaths treat others well, anywhere, most of the time, not out of an obligation.

[appletrotter]

Here’s a counter anecdote.

> Another issue was the smiling. Walmart requires its checkout people to flash smiles at customers after bagging their purchases. Plastic bags, plastic junk, plastic smiles. But because the German people don’t usually smile at total strangers, the spectacle of Walmart employees grinning like jackasses not only didn’t impress consumers, it unnerved them.

https://medium.com/the-global-millennial/why-walmart-failed-...

[BaseballPhysics]

Yes, because this is about relative cultural norms. At what point did I claim otherwise?

Unlike everyone disagreeing with me, I'm not the one claiming my values and expectations are in some way universal or superior (though I can see how I might be read that way giving I'm defending our shared culture in this area, which can appear that I'm in some way advocating for its superiority, something I assure you I'm not intending to do).

It was the original commenter, complaining about "weird" Americans, who seems to think their values are the "normal" ones, when as you've just illustrated, normal is meaningless when talking about social and cultural conventions.

Do Germans have different expectations? Of course. And Russians have theirs. And the Australians have theirs. And the Canadians have theirs. None are right or wrong or "weird", they just are.

[appletrotter]

I think pointing to an opposite case here was meant to highlight the arbitrary nature of the norm.

I would even say It seems absurd when you realize it’s not universal.

Just because it is, doesn’t mean it should be.

[mcpackieh]

Businesses have policies that you're supposed to do this for the same reason that businesses have policies that you're not supposed to spit on people; basic human decency needs to be encoded because some minority of people won't go for it otherwise.

Being pleasant to strangers even when you're having a bad day is basic human decency, and of course it's supposed to go both ways. If I'm a customer at a burger shop and I'm having a bad day, I still smile and say thank you when a stranger hands me a burger or holds a door for me in public, not because any boss is forcing me to do it but because this is simply the decent thing to do. Just because I'm having a bad day doesn't mean that I should make that somebody else's problem. Spreading misery around doesn't help me one iota, and only makes things worse for everybody. Having a surly attitude with strangers is basically social vandalism.

This is true outside of commercial contexts, and still true within commercial contexts. You're complaining about the power dynamics of the commercial context, which fine, fair enough, but the basic principle of treating people decently instead of making your problems into their problems applies in all public contexts, including the customer side of those commercial interactions and also when no money is being exchanged at all. And of course some minority of the public won't reciprocate, there are some people who treat service workers like trash and unload their problems on those workers... they're wrong for doing it. Those kind of people existing are the reason businesses have to encode common decency into their rules and policies.

Edit for Stefan's remark: "It's the least the servant class can do - fake joyfulness to avoid saddening their betters, right?"

"Servant class"? What I said is that everybody should be decent to other people. Read my comment again if you didn't catch this the first time. It's supposed to go both ways. It isn't a matter of class at all.

[bbwbsb]

Reading what you wrote, I'm concerned that you may be suggesting that all disclosures of negative emotions to strangers are verboten.

I worry, because my spouse had a rough upbringing and it's taken a lot for her to feel comfortable expressing how she feels in a candid way. I strongly desire that people feel comfortable expressing how they feel without judging themselves as burdensome, inappropriate, needy, selfish, or out of control. This includes in my view, expressing themselves in public.

To be clear, if someone tells a child "Stop glaring, people will think we are bad parents" or "Smile or I'll show you what an actual rough time is like", I consider that to be emotional abuse. It teaches the child to deny their emotions and instead present the emotion the parent wants.

I don't see it as any less abusive when an employer (who holds power) tells an employee "Stop glaring, people won't buy our stuff" or "You need to smile more when talking to customers".

But further from that, and closer to your point, I see it as a problem when society tells people the same. This is a different matter than refraining from violence, yelling, overt aggression, etc. in public (which I would agree is preferable).

Perhaps this is because I believe that most problems originate in society. If a kid is beaten every day, and then blows up and hurts someone, and their neighbors knew, and teachers that knew, etc. Then they've really been failed. But more than that, if teachers in general create a culture where it is hard not to fail individuals, then teachers have failed. And if we've voted in and/or encouraged systems that permit or encourage that culture, than we've all failed. And of course this stuff will always happen with some probability.

But if people are in mass overworked, tired, and frustrated. Then I see that as societies problem, not just their problem. So if they are at the store and they are just standing there staring at the aisle and someone asks if they are okay, and has a short talk about it, that's what society handling it's problem looks like. Because the person that was overworked and the person that asked them if they were okay were both part of the problem. So for me, everyone's problems are everyone's responsibility (up to a point). Like even if it is intensely personal. Let's say someone is pushy in their relationships, and the other person is giving ultimatums. Maybe they are old, maybe they are kids, but society taught them how to manage their relationships. If alcohol is involved then it's society that gave them that too. If binge drinking is a piece of it, then society romanticized it and sold it to them. Yeah, they have their own responsibility, but they didn't do it alone. Even when people get illnesses - society told them they'd live longer; it told them to think long term; it told them to forego gratification for a more promising future; etc.

So to me, the perspective that all of people's emotions are their problem and they should keep it to themselves is a way of society avoiding responsibility for the way it influences the emotions of the people who compose it, and ultimately the consequences of its collective decisions and characterizations.

With respect to boundaries around emotional disclosure, my view also isn't incompatible with people feeling free to tell others they don't want to hear how they feel or asking someone exhibiting aggressiveness to go elsewhere.

Perhaps this can be summarized by saying that I think if people are not happy, that's a symptom of society, and having them smile in public will only succeed in hiding a festering wound. And also that I don't believe being decent is incompatible with authenticity, honesty, or emotional disclosure.

[mcpackieh]

> Reading what you wrote, I'm concerned that you may be suggesting that all disclosures of negative emotions to strangers are verboten.

I'm glad to alleviate your concern then: No.

What should be considered verboten is using strangers as your punching bag because you're having a bad day for reasons unrelated to them.