Ultraman

原帖由 Littleprince 於 2008-4-5 19:59 發表
亞姐講野前後矛盾播﹕
“呢度無事頭婆架窩。。。”
“事頭婆問起 blah blah blah。。。”
前後不夠 30 秒。。。

各位會伸出援手嗎﹖她只是欠港幣 $13 而已 (加紙不夠 $2)。。。 ...

I think she meant "事頭婆" is not working on site in the restaurant, but a "事頭婆" does exist cuz she is the owner (or one of the owners) of the restaurant.
Anyways, if the lady customer intended to eat for free (or too suspicious for doing so), I won't help her lor. No matter it's HK$1 or HK$10+, it's not the money but the 風氣 should not be encouraged ar mah!

Ultraman

I can't hear the whole conversation well clearly. However, I have some thoughts as below:
1. Not sure if that customer was intended to eat free at the beginning or not (even she's very suspicious), or she found she has no money when the time she needed to pay.
2. If I were the 亞姐 (staff), I won't call the police cuz the money involved was only HK$10+, probably I'll get 罵 from the police for wasting police power.
3. Why the 亞姐 just keep 罵-ing the customer without a solution? Obviously she didn't want to call the police for assistance, neither she asked the customer to leave anything in order to trade back later, nor she asked the customer to call someone to pay for her.... . What's the point for keep 罵-ing? Just wanted to 發洩 or give her a lesson? But case won't be solved.
4. Instead,  the 亞姐 shouldn't just let the customer go, she could/should ask the customer to leave at least something valuable (even not sure what's inside the plastic bag she's holding) in order to make her come back to pay for the $10+.
5. Watching the customer walking away, the 亞姐 still keep preaching other staffs in a 罵 or 發洩 or 單打 tone. But actually how the hack those staffs knew that customer didn't get any money at all before ordering?!  
Case didn't well solved and just let the unpaid customer went away. Maybe that 亞姐 has been working too much under pressure la! Haha....

Ultraman

Not defending for that 亞婆 at all, which I do think she's not right anyways! (no matter she intended to eat free at the beginning, or not intended to pay later.)
However, if I were the 亞婆, I would think: "OK, then what do you want me to do?" I'm just being curious, 亞姐 just want to 罵 or vent or preach (in whatever tone) 亞婆 and planned to let her go at the end but not asking for money back? Then I think don't be silly la, would 亞婆 truly listen and not doing the same thing in the future if she used to do this trick?!
Another thought, even 亞姐 said that "if u knew u have no $ & asked if u can pay later, I would probably say yes & I wouldn't be angry..", I wonder is that true? Or just being 馬後砲? Seems like she just wanted to have more facts to point out 亞婆 was wrong. If that's really what she's thinking, then obviously she's 不爽 rather than concerning the money. Then why did she give 亞婆 any offer to get the case settled or at least get herself more 爽? For example, she can simply ask 亞婆 to apologize, or ask her to call any of her friend/relative to pay for her, or ask her to leave anything (even the plastic bag on hand, but definitely not her ID card, cuz it's illegal unless for police)...... Yet, she gave 亞婆 no way to go besides standing and listen to her words. Then at the end, watching 亞婆 to leave without a more constructive solution.

Maybe, HK people really live under stress and pressure, can't think and act rationally. Haha...

Ultraman

kaimui22:
Please excuse me to tell you that you have misinterpreted what I said.
I never think the 亞姐 (waitress) should let 亞婆 go without a price! But on the other hand, she shouldn't let her go that easily, just after listening the preaching! And that's what I said "the case is not well solved". You point is, which I think it's similar to case at court- A: show me your proof that I'm guilty. B: prove yourself that you're not guilty. That's always not one side's responsibility.
Back to this case, why there should only be the 亞婆 to find out options to get away, but not the 亞姐 to give options for 亞婆 to pick? It's like: "OK, I have no money to pay, please tell me what to do?" and "OK, since you have no money to pay, tell me what are you going to do?" Since the 亞婆 was suspected to eat free intentionally, I don't think she has any good idea to escape or solve the problem. But 亞姐 is working at the restaurant and seems like she is the one in charge besides the owner (no clue that if she is the owner but lied that she isn't), shouldn't her responsibility to solve problems? Moreover, how come she has the power to say: "if u knew u have no $ & asked if u can pay later, I would probably say yes & I wouldn't be angry.." If she has to report to her boss about this 亞婆 eat-and-run and may get scold from her boss, how dare she offer free meal to 亞婆 even 亞婆 ask her beforehand? Imply she won't report to her boss about offering free meals to customers or what? That sound ridiculous to me and that's why I commented her 馬後炮. (Note:   一般人指馬後炮就是「事後孔明」；也就是事前無能，事後才來吹毛求疵、吹牛吹噓、批評攻擊、幸災樂禍、說風涼話，甚至扯人後腿，這些都是放馬後炮的行為。  由「馬後炮」一詞，就延伸到社會上一些人常常不能洞察先機，不能在事先準備，不能做好安排，等到事後才來饒舌，才來怨您怪他，所以就被譏為「馬後炮」。-- from google search.)

And regarding for which side should bear (or bear more) the responsibility to solve the problem, I think it's the "控制權" is on the restaurant side but not the customer side. For example, the customer says: "May I leave my watch here and come back to pay you after?" The restaurant can say: "Nope, you have to pay right now!" Right? How can 亞婆 reads 亞姐's mind for what can please her and get the case solved? But it's simple and easy for 亞姐 to give out a fair option in order to solve the problem. For example, if she is the boss (that means she can do whatever she feels like) and what made her upset and angry is that 亞婆 didn't apologize officially, she can simply ask her for an apology (no money concern). Or if 亞姐 is not the boss and has to report to her boss about money loss, she should ask 亞婆 to pay back no matter what, or she's gonna to give out money from her own pocket. I think that's very easy to handle, but of course, whether 亞婆 has anything to leave down is another question.

Not being mean for the discussion though, just find the case interesting to share.

Ultraman

kaimui22:
I think we just have different pov, nothing personal.
Well, of course I agree customer's responsibility is to agree for the charge and make order and then pay for it; and the restaurant's duty is to carry out the corresponding service as well as the food in corresponding quality. This only based on "no accident happened". (but the world isn't that simple as always)
If to say customer should bear the responsibility to solve this kind of problem (no money to pay after food is eaten), how if that 亞婆 says "OK, let's call the police." Then the restaurant staff should follow her will and then really call up police just for the $13 eat-and-run case? Yes, she can do that, yet what will happen next? Police takes them all to police station and open a file, and then wait until the court date.... etc? I'm not laughing at anybody, but I doubt this is going to happen lor. Actually 亞婆 did offer a solution, she said she'll come back to pay. Yet she didn't say she will leave anything as "deposit" and trade it back when she come pays later. But to face this offer, should the restaurant staff accept? As your pov, the answer should be positive? Then 亞婆 really already did her part (give an offer to solve the problem), why the restaurant staff still feeling unfair and angry?

"You shouldn't need to be waiting for the other party (the受害者) to offer a solution." Well, not always fit into every situation. For example, a customer order a dish of pork and he doesn't eat beef at all. The plate comes out a dish of beef instead of pork, then the waitress apologizes and offer a 50% discount on the bill. If you were the customer (obviously the victim), would you take the offer and go for the beef? In this case, the customer can ask for a change to pork without any unnecessary discount instead of eating unwanted beef. Don't you consider it as a better and fairer deal?

Ultraman

"有時對錯無錯係好重要﹐但仁慈更為重要。。"
Well, I don't quite agree on this (not on all cases).
People open the door to do business, customers can't just take it for granted and abused the owner's mercy and then try to eat for free! Once they let one eat-and-run person go, everyone can come and do the same. If the owners have mercy & passion and set a day to 派米派飯 to those poor is a different story lor.