we dont need to have a legislative response but that would also be pretty funny. I was struck by how evil that mcdonalds worker hosing down the homeless guy was but couldnt put my finger on the correct punishment. Obviously the worst offences deserve lifetime ‘never again will I’ but as time passes… I once swore to never eat burger king after they sacked me over something really stupid, but these days I happily spend money there and enthusiastically went for the plant based whopper for a few months before it got really boring. Likewise facebook, I will never. But it does seem to be popular despite how shit it is.

so in degrees of severity for any business:

a PR blunder like a stupid tweet or dumb error: a week. food poisoning: 6 months serious PR error: 1 year hosing down/assaulting the public: 3 years amazon plotting to destroy everyone: until next christmas when you need to sort shit out

whats the strongest boycott length but not a fundamental falling out/never again?

  • snacksOPEnglish
    21·
    11 months ago

    blimey thats an answer!

    So, if mcdonalds apologised, that means its over? Im not sure thats right, that means theres no consequences.

    • JoBoEnglish
      6·
      11 months ago

      Forgiveness does not automatically follow from an apology, no.

      • snacksOPEnglish
        13·
        11 months ago

        right so it dosnt end when they apologise and change behaviour. I agree! I think you can have a rule of thumb which says 2 years for hosing down a homeless person. Its more for the transgessor than the person getting the hosing, so there is a basic decent contract which says they wont be seeing a chunk of people for two whole years.

        • Chaotic EntropyEnglish
          3·
          11 months ago

          What are you even talking about at this point… people don’t “boycott” entire companies for these single employee actions that you keep referring to.

    • apis@beehaw.orgEnglish
      4·
      11 months ago

      Only if one interprets an apology as a meaningful change of behaviour.

      Depending on context, one might, I’d think that would be reserved for matters of simple human error, and even then I think one would still wish to see measures to prevent similar in future.

      Hosing down a homeless person doesn’t fall into that category, being intentionally awful, and likely emerging from abusive or highly neglectful management practices. For things like this, one would be seeking changes which go to addressing the core of the offence.

      In reality it is hard to assess whether reforms have been implemented, especially with huge multinationals that can deploy heavy PR campaigns, but I don’t know that anyone is going to cry if a boycott persists somewhat longer than is necessary.