[thaumasiotes]

> Some of these problems seems like the cause is because its hard to complain in person.

I was recently in an airport in Japan looking to use the meal voucher I'd been given due to a delayed flight.

What was available locally was a coffee shop with a very long line (well, not a long line, maybe ten feet, but keep reading), which operated like this:

- The person at the head of the line would advance and speak to the cashier, who would take their coffee order.

- The cashier would then leave the cash register and busy herself making the order.

- There were two other people on staff, who stayed away from the register. I'm not sure what they were supposed to be doing. They didn't take or prepare orders.

As you might imagine, this made for a very slow-moving line.

I wanted to use my voucher to buy some sodas from a refrigerated display in front of the counter. I had no trouble picking the sodas up myself and learning that the shop accepted meal vouchers. The voucher was exact change for the four sodas I was holding, so I hoped that that would be the end of things.

Instead, on learning that I wanted to use the voucher I was asking about, to pay for the sodas I was already holding, the cashier asked me to please line up with everybody else. Since that would have taken at least 40 minutes, I went to see whether a separate wing of the airport might have something.

That didn't work out, but I did run into my family (taking a separate flight), and after some socializing I went back to try and get sodas for everybody, since the competing store we'd found didn't take meal vouchers.

This time, after several minutes standing in line, I realized that there was no possibility of reaching the head of the line before I had to board my flight. So I hailed one of the idle behind-the-counter staff, specifically avoiding the cashier, and asked about my meal voucher. They were still happy to take it.

When I tried to make the purchase, the cashier butted in and asked me to please line up behind everybody else. And I shouted in frustration, "That takes so long!"

At which point, they took my voucher and let me walk off with the sodas. The voucher was still exact change.

I'm not sure what the solution was supposed to be. I find it hard to believe that you're supposed to handle deeply dysfunctional shop staff by yelling at them. But I have to note that this 'solution' saved me a huge chunk of time - and made it possible for me to make a purchase, and the shop to make a sale, that otherwise couldn't have happened at all - while not costing anyone else anything, except perhaps for wounding the cashier's heartfelt sense of propriety.

One lesson seems to be that in some cases, complying with the rules serves no purpose other than to enable actively harmful rules to remain in place.

[bell-cot]

Might that situation (very long wait for service, seemingly-idle employees) be partly explained (or at least rationalized) as a sort of social ritual, to make the establishment seem high-class, or the patrons wealthy leisure-seekers?

I've seen similar situations in a number of American coffee shops and fancy sandwich shops. Workers can easily outnumber the waiting customers. The spare ones usually appear busy - with tasks that don't seem to related to getting anyone's order filled. Actually filling an order seems to be an intentionally-inefficient ritual performance. The (presumed) regulars don't seem to care.

[thaumasiotes]

> Might that situation (very long wait for service, seemingly-idle employees) be partly explained (or at least rationalized) as a sort of social ritual, to make the establishment seem high-class, or the patrons wealthy leisure-seekers?

Well, it's a kiosk with no seating inside an airport. Presumably, there are no regulars either.

[renewiltord]

That’s hilarious but entirely in line with my experience that most of these places are inefficiently run. The ones that become huge are just run decently and get all this stuff done. The staff are trained on what to prioritize and they have post its reminding how to work.

When doing work, many of us need simple flowcharts and a good operator knows how to make his staff into automatons in places like this.

[imp0cat]

I bet that " in Japan " (not the slashdot meme!) played a big part in this.

They really take their queues and queue order (FIFO) seriously.

[nox101]

they let you do it to get rid of the asshole foreigner who doesn't know the local customs.

waiting your turn, period, is part of Japanese culture.

I get it can be frustrating. especially if your from the USA where increasingly no one waits their turn. Every day I see cars driving down the center lane to pass a few cars and then cutting back in.

[s1artibartfast]

I think the interesting thing about this post is the sense of entitlement.

Why does a businesses operating in a way you dislike entitle you to yell at them and break their rules?

Maybe the cause is conflating not getting your way with active harm. Refusing to serve you would be neutral, stealing from you would be harm.

[thaumasiotes]

Refusing to serve me is harmful to the shop in the most straightforward way you can possibly imagine. They make less money for the same amount of work.

Their entire operation is harmful (to them, and to everyone who buys from them) in the same way; they could easily double the number of customers they process by having one of the idle employees making the drinks instead of the cashier.

[s1artibartfast]

Yeah, I just think that is a strange standard for "harm". I dont think anyone would be harmed if they refused to serve anyone and every employee was idle. What if they dont want to double the number of customers and care more about something else.

I think it is best to approach interactions without entitlement. They dont owe you service, and can choose on which terms they will engage.

Your concept of harm reminds me of how some people think they are "harmed" if someone doesn't want to date them, becoming angry and aggressive.

[thaumasiotes]

> I dont think anyone would be harmed if they refused to serve anyone and every employee was idle.

The owner might have a different opinion.

> Your concept of harm reminds me of how some people think they are "harmed" if someone doesn't want to date them

...and? That's a pretty commonly recognized harm. For example, it's the basis of the tort "alienation of affections".

[s1artibartfast]

Alienation of affection is not when someone chooses not to date you. It is when a third party interferes maliciously, and even then it is recognized and very few jurisdictions. If you try to sue a random woman on the street for the harm done by not wanting to date you, you will be in for a rude awakening.

[thaumasiotes]

It's not a different harm when someone else interferes maliciously. The difference in whether you can sue is a difference in to what degree the other person was entitled to act as they did, not a difference in the harm you suffer.