Let's tell a story first, in order to give customers a better experience, the platform has modified the corresponding rules, resulting in a tighter delivery time for delivery staff. Therefore, we will see such a phenomenon, in the store, the delivery staff has a conflict with the merchant because the merchant sells food, and then insults each other. The delivery man complained about the merchant, and the merchant was deducted; The merchant will not sit still, so he backhanded the delivery man and scolded, and the complaint was also established, so the rider was also deducted. Both of them were not satisfied, so they appealed to customer service, but the rules were there, and the two couldn't change them, so they could only find fault with each other, and as a result, the appeal was not passed, and they began to angrily scold the customer service and abuse. The customer service was also very angry, so he replied a few words, but the customer service was also complained about and was also deducted.
We can see from the above situation that the final result is, of course, that the capital platform that formulates the rules wins, no matter which side wins, which side loses, he will benefit, and both sides lose, he will benefit more. In this story, it seems that the customer is not harmed, but in reality it is not. We know that once the merchant is dissatisfied, but can't change the rules, he will definitely start from the goods; The rider also can't change the rules, but he is aggrieved, and it is okay to meet customers with a good attitude, but when he encounters some customers with a bad attitude, he will retaliate against the customers in private. We have also seen some delivery people on the Internet, and the courier retaliates against customers in some ways, such as adding some special condiments to the customer's food, etc. After encountering such a situation, many customers will also complain about the rider or merchant, and the result is that the rider and the merchant are also deducted at the same time, and the platform will ultimately benefit.
Therefore, we see that no, if everything is normal, there is no conflict between the rider and the merchant, the two will not complain to each other, and they will not be deducted by the platform; If there is no contradiction between the rider and the merchant and the customer service, or if there is no contradiction between the customer and the rider and the merchant, or if there is no contradiction between the customer and the customer service, everyone will coexist peacefully and will not be deducted by the platform. So the question is, since the capital platform can get more benefits by creating contradictions, why not do it? Since the platform knows that this will increase social contradictions, but it can bring a lot of benefits to itself, it will of course deliberately create some contradictions. In fact, we can see that the key to the problem is not the slow speed of the merchant to deliver the meal, nor the slow speed of the rider to deliver the meal, but because there is a problem with the rules of the platform, once some uncertain situations occur, it is easy to have contradictions.
But the question is, since there is a problem with the rules, why don't merchants and riders find a platform theory and complain about the platform? This is a question of strong theory and weak theory. For most people, it is in the nature of many people to put pressure on the weak, and no one will take the initiative to fight the strong unless absolutely necessary. For riders, merchants, customer service and customers, the capital platform is an absolute powerhouse, that is, they know that the rules are unreasonable, but in order to survive better, they do not dare to confront the platform, and can only choose the other party they think is equal or more weak, because in everyone's hands, the platform has given them a weapon, that is, the "right to complain". In the eyes of many weak people, they take it for granted that this weapon is a tool to defend themselves, but in fact, to put it bluntly, on the contrary, this is just a tool for capital to fight with each other, and it will never be them who will benefit in the end, but the platform itself.
If this is really a tool to protect one's rights, then after complaining to the other party, the corresponding deduction should be given to the reasonable party, that is, the party who has been treated unfairly, rather than being taken away by the platform. For example, if the delivery person is deducted because the merchant is slow to deliver the meal, and he exercises the right to complain, after getting the affirmation of the platform, the platform should first return his deduction, and then make up for his mental loss, and transfer the money deducted by the merchant to the rider. If the customer successfully complains about the rider, the rider should also return the money deducted from the rider to the customer to make up for the customer's loss. But from reality, we can see that even if you successfully complain and punish the object of your complaint, your own interests have been damaged, except for some spiritual comfort, and you have not obtained the corresponding benefits, which is the means of some capital.
From the above situation, we can see that the platform, as an intermediary, is understandable to charge a certain amount of operation and management fees, but it should uphold the principle of fairness and impartiality to deal with complaints and deductions. It is their responsibility to ensure that the deduction goes where it goes and that it is truly compensated to the party who suffered the loss. However, in reality, there are often situations where platforms ignore the rights and interests of consumers for their own benefit, and because of this, in order to prevent the emergence of such undesirable social phenomena, the state needs to establish various supervision mechanisms. Through a strong supervision mechanism, we must ensure the active and healthy operation of the platform while also protecting the interests of the general public. In the same fruit of further standardizing the operation of the platform, alleviate social contradictions, and maintain a positive, healthy and harmonious social order.
In order to change this undesirable phenomenon, the relevant authorities need to strengthen the supervision and regulation of platforms, formulate clear rules, and require platforms to be fair and transparent when handling complaints and deductions, so as to protect the legitimate rights and interests of all parties. At the same time, consumers should also enhance their awareness of self-protection, understand their rights and ways to protect their rights, and not easily compromise. In addition, it is necessary to establish a strong social monitoring mechanism to further promote platforms to pay attention to the voice of consumers and improve their own operations through extensive social supervision. Only through joint efforts can we build a fairer and more just consumer environment, so that the tools for protecting rights can really play a role and protect the interests of consumers from being violated.
#头条创作挑战赛#