|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Are complaints turning into private prosecutions?
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I'm observing that people like to complain about all sorts of things these days, mainly about their 'rights' that have been violated in some way, though also about services received they didn't like, or about some policy or other.
It seems like decision making bodies, like tribunals for human rights, professional bodies and public services always try initially to mediate and settle the problems, but won't do that and turn to formal court or court-like proceedings if the complainant won't.
My question is whether the complaint should be driven by the complaining person's feelings or preferences or whether the complaint, like a criminal matter, becomes 'owned' by the police/court/prosecutor and the complaining person is a witness only.
Are you seeing this in your jurisdiction? What do you think is appropriate? I for one think that violation of some code of conduct or rule should determine if a complaint proceeds, that it should not be up to the complainant if things proceed.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gareth
Shipmate
# 2494
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I'm observing that people like to complain about all sorts of things these days, mainly about their 'rights' that have been violated in some way, though also about services received they didn't like, or about some policy or other.
My job these days is supporting people who are complaining because service providers have either failed in their statutory duty or withheld something through prejudice - and the complaint itself is just the first step.
The first thing to consider is what the intended outcome of the complaint is: if the complainant wants compensation, then I'm not interested - they can use a lawyer and the civil courts.
What's far more likely is that the complainant wants two things: 1, their entitlement; 2, service improvement. In the vast majority of these cases face-to-face arbitration is the best way to proceed.
This is because it almost always happens because the provider has either overlooked, or never understood in the first place, a part of its promise and/or duty to the client. Recent examples I have been involved in have included junior staff not living up to assumptions by senior staff, "rogue" frontline staff not giving a damn about legislation or even policy, and the simple, common occurence of a member of administrative staff coming up with a cost and time saving idea and nobody conducting an impact assessment before implementing it.
It is very rare to find an organisation that doesn't want to improve - far more common to find one that has one or more of the issues listed above. Dialogue always works more effectively, not just at keeping the complainant happy, but also in getting the desired result.
Having said that, when complaining about disability discrimination a nicely drafted letter with reference to half a dozen pieces of legislation and a mention of the UK's Equality and Human Rights Commission always gets a prompt response...
--------------------
"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope."
P. J. O'Rourke
Posts: 345 | From: Chaos | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
There is something about whether the complaint is made by someone who likes to complain or if the complaint has some "external" validity - that is, it is one that other people recognise. That is where the boards or commissions come in.
Then there is also the complaint made by someone who enjoyed some form of privilege that turned out to be undesirable from the greater society's POV: "poor white trash" who enjoyed racism, for instance. Do we have to put up with their whining about not being able to denigrate/attack/kill some other people, or do we say "Hell, no! Get a Life!"
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Many complainants also want - or solely want - an apology. In my industry that can be problematic unfortunately as an apology can been construed as an admission of liability, which we're not allowed to do without our indemnity insurer's approval. It's unfortunate that this conflation has developed; I blame the lawyers.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gareth
Shipmate
# 2494
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I blame the lawyers.
Shakespeare was right about them...
--------------------
"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope."
P. J. O'Rourke
Posts: 345 | From: Chaos | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ahleal V
Shipmate
# 8404
|
Posted
I remember when I was a teen, and in the manner of teens angry about some imagined slight or another.
I remember exclaiming I was going to write a letter of complaint over the brusque treatment I'd been given by a shop worker. My mum said something like, 'the lady might just have been having a bad day. Is your frustration worth the chance that she might lose her job, and therefore possibly her home, and putting her family in difficulty?' I've always remembered that.
AV
[ 04. June 2014, 15:37: Message edited by: Ahleal V ]
Posts: 499 | From: English Spires | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
