Worst reasonable efforts: Difference between revisions

Worst reasonable efforts (view source)

Revision as of 16:10, 20 February 2022

1,042 bytes added , 20 February 2022

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

83,049

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{a|plainenglish|}}Few can dress up a nonsense in finery like we [[Legal eagle|goshawks of the law]]: to “[[endeavour]]” is to embark with laudable commitment on an action worthy of a memorialisation by covenant; to “try”, not so much. And to volunteer liability for [[gross negligence]] is, from the muzzle end of the barrel, no more than a commitment not to be outright [[reckless]] in the service of one’s customers.
+{{a|plainenglish|}}Few can dress up a nonsense in finery like we [[Legal eagle|goshawks of the law]]: to “[[endeavour]]” is to embark with laudable commitment on an action worthy of a memorialisation by [[covenant]]; to “try”, not so much. And a merchant who agrees to be held accountable for her [[gross negligence]] promises little more than refraining from outright [[recklessness]] in the service of her customers.
-And if we can commit to our [[best reasonable efforts]] — why not something less than that? How about our ''worst'' reasonable efforts? A [[cheapest-to-deliver]]; a high-jump clearance that leaves the bar a-wobble, but not quite on the crash mat; a leave outside off that clips the stump but does not dislodge the bail.
+And if we can commit to our [[best reasonable efforts]] — why not something ''less'' than that? How about our ''worst'' reasonable efforts? A sort of [[cheapest-to-deliver]]; a high-jump clearance that leaves the bar a-wobble, but not quite on the crash mat; a leave outside off that brushes the stump but does not dislodge the bail.
+It sounds like a satire; a gentle perversion of the basic premise of good faith commerce — all right, it ''is'' one of those — but still, it is the operating theory behind [[outsourcing]]. It is this precise villainy that the [[service level agreement]] addresses: the tacit knowledge that any  organisation which sub-contracts services at scale measures its internal return by how close to the naked minimum requirements of its contract it can swoop without regularly shipping complaint. The [[SLA]] recognises a service provider’s economic imperative to satisfy the literal, formal criteria of a contract and not a whisker more, and so sets out what these are, with deadlines, quantities and auditable standards, in grisly detail.
+This is how for-profit [[insurance|insurers]] work, too, come to think of it: yes, true, we have a [[Uberrimae fidei|fiduciary obligation]] and we will, if we really must, honour it — but not with any enthusiasm: we will do nothing in our power that we don’t absolutely have to, to discharge it: we will delay, ignore and quibble: we will lose your correspondence, misdirect our responses and at every turn raise spurious objections in the hope of so sapping your will to carry on that you won’t.
+We also see worst reasonable efforts from organisations who know their captivecustomers have little realistic choice — banks, governments, insurers — and those who suppose they’ll not see the same customer again anyway, at least until the exasperation has leeched away — mechanics — and especially, those which are a bit of both, kind low-cost airlines, car rental companies and ticket booking agencies.
+So we can giggle, but for much of our rubbish modern lives, ''worst'' reasonable efforts are what we can expect. It is they that will send you brusque emails from unmonitored accounts, whose recorded voice will assures your call is important and will be answered within the hour, that add booking fees for a performance you booked online, and explain your disc brakes were worn, again, and needed replacing when you took the car in to get the wipers fixed.
-It sounds like a satire; a gentle perversion of the basic premise of good faith commerce — all rigfht, it ''is'' one of those — but still, it is the operating theory behind outsourcing. It is this precise villainy that the [[service level agreement]] addresses: the tacit knowledge that business model of any business that sub-contracts services at scale ones is explicitly based on the delivering as close to the naked minimum requirement as one humanly can without shipping legitimate complaint: on a literal reading to satisfy the formal criteria, and not a whisker more, of the contract.
-This is how for-profit insurers work, too, come to think of it: yes, true, we have a [[Uberrimae fidei|fiduciary obligation]] and we will, if we really must, honour it — but not with any enthusiasm: we will do nothing in our power that we don’t absolutely have to, to discharge it: we will delay, ignore and quibble: we will lose your correspondence, misdirect our responses and at every turn raise spurious objections in the hope of so sapping your will to carry on that you won’t.
 {{sa}}