The first guy claimed he was wanting to make sure that extending his contract would not remove his existing terms. With Sprint, this is important. My wife and I did this. Well, after we got burned by NOT doing precisely that.

We have free mobile to mobile( "in network"). Most of our calls are that way. We had been out of contract for two years. Bought new phones, got into the standard 2Y deal. First bill was huge. Why? Even after confirming in the original deal that we still had this, Sprint dropped it.

Eventually they took care of it. But the point is that you can not assume that your existing plan will be what you have when you "Extend or renew" your contract. Ensuring that is not being an asshole, it should be common practice.

If Sprint is not making money on this guy, it is their fault, not his. Most likely they are making money, but not as much as they want to. There is a big difference there. I want more money in my paycheck, but I'm not losing money because of it.

As I read the article, the OP did not say he was uninstalling what he called bloatware (though it may be implied - for all we know it was a demo he didn't want or have interest in). The point is the "level 2" tech saying that removing "bloatware" is dangerous. From what I can tell the OP is claiming the tech himself originated the bloatware term in the conversation.

I suspect the tech was just trying to get off of the phone and bamboozle the OP with a phrase John Q Public may not be familiar with.

@KingPsyz:
"1,300.00 off a $17,220. car."

7.5%

That's pretty damned good considering average margin on sold consumer products in the US is under 6%, with the majority under 4%.

@zouxou
It is in the transcript. It's subtle.

Not up to code. What did it mean. I'll tell you what I think it means. They tell you right there in the "letter".

They were unintelligent in how they "designed" their store layout. They tell us that most stores, the bathrooms are an afterthought, out in "hard to reach" places.

That is the first failure of customer service. What the CEO has told us is that they made sure the cash registers were readily available because they make sales, but customer convenience or decency is an afterthought.

I maintain that any place of business that people are in for more than a couple minutes on average is failing customer service 101 without proper facilities. Further, any business that fails to provide customer quality facilities to employees is telling their employees that they are an afterthought. A failure of leadership 101.

That the assistant manager did not feel empowered to do what she knew to be the right thing indicates a failure of leadership in the store and possibly corporate management chains. To the customer, the people they interface with ARE the company. they are the first line of defense of your reputation and bottom line. If your people can not be trusted to do the right thing, you hired wrong or failed to train well.

Is there any evidence/proof this employee did this a matter of corporate policy, or is it just as likely it was a personal decision?

And no, something a corporation did 30 years ago regarding dress is not appropriate to any alleged dress code today. People change over the course of 30 years. Corporations are almost always run by entirely different management after 30 years. Southwest certainly is.

If 30 years ago your parents were Democrat, and you, today are a Republican, is it right to say that you are a hypocrite because your parents were Democrat? (reverse parties or pick two opposing ones as you deem fit)? No.

OK. got a question for all you "she argued therefore she had time" posers.

How slow do you speak? Seriously:
"Excuse me, I'm having a diarrhea attack may I use the bathroom?"
"No."
"Look, I am crapping as we speak. Please?"
"Lemme ask my manager."
Manager: Nope not up to code, can't let you back there."
"Look, no, smell that? That's crap coming down my legs, and will soon be on your floor"
"I don't care, go next door".

It takes you ten minutes or more to have that discussion, you have no sense of urgency. That isn't a ten minute discussion/argument even without the sense of urgency.

To all those who whine about cleaning up a toilet. Get a different job. Cleaning facilities is a matter of sanitation, customer or not.

All businesses are a form of customer service organization. This was atrocious customer service, period.

As far as the whole law suit crap, (yeah I said it, but it wasn't intentional), no you don't decrease your risk of a lawsuit be refusing this woman the public facilities the place had. Quite the contrary, the principle of least risk applies. "Normal" human feces is a biohazard. Having it on your floors is a lawsuit waiting to happen - a justified one. The diseases that can be carried in otherwise normal human feces can lead to death, not just the more common diarrhea.

By definition sudden onset diarrhea is an increased biohazard due to something upsetting the natural balance of the intestinal system. Therefore, if you are told that she has a sudden attack of it, and you refuse, and she craps on your floor, you are now directly liable for the effects of customers tracking it. Particularly true for a store with many mothers bringing young children in.

There is something about acknowledging a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. If you can be sued/lose your job for letting her use the can, that is no longer a factor. You are now free to do the right thing.

For all you self-righteous "I work in retail so I know better than you" posters: read "Do The Right Thing:How Dedicated Employees Create Loyal Customers " and learn about doing the right thing. Customer service is crap because people like you think the customer is there to serve you, or is an annoyance, and you act accordingly. If you feel that giving quality customer service is beneath you: prove it: find a different job. Find a line of work where you have no impact on customer service. Good luck.