The firm probably already reimbursed the pants when they bought them.
Your firm reimburses your pants???
1. All the people are commuting on Metro-North and LIRR so they will be wealthier than people selected at random and wear more expensive clothing. 2. I would expect people submitting a claim to exaggerate the value of the item damaged. God knows I have done this in other contexts. 3. Who the fuck bills the MTA for torn clothing?
It's a commuter train -- men in suits. Aren't men's suits really expensive, in that valuing the pants at $150 isn't all that unlikely?
I'm of two minds about this story. On the one hand, for every person who bothered to submit a claim, there are probably 5-10 people who didn't. And of course you'd be more likely to submit a claim if the clothing that was ruined was something nice. From the article, it sounds as though the armrests were poorly designed.
On the other hand, well, the complaints are coming from people who ride the LIRR.
Pants are expensive. But it would have never occurred to me to bill someone for tearing them. Why would you even think the MTA has some way to deal with that?
The article does support JM's point about under-reporting. The guys on the Penn Station platform who had problems but never filed.
Unrelated: I just accidently signed (and sent) a work email "Brock Landers". Big oops.
9: Just explain to the recipient that it is an internet handle that you use on a popular blog called Unfogged. You'd be surprised what people are willing to believe.
10. That could be better than explaining Boogie Nights.
But it would have never occurred to me to bill someone for tearing them.
You spend a lot of money per month to take a train to work in your nicest clothes. The train is designed and marketed for the purpose of taking people to work in their nicest clothes. But then, for no perceptible reason, the trains are equipped with razor wire around the doorways. If I were you, I'd look into ways of sufficiently punishing the train company into changing their pro-razor wire policy.
If you think I don't notice that 12 is an analogy, JM...
But then, for no perceptible reason, the trains are equipped with razor wire around the doorways.
How is 12 an analogy?
14.--No. It was an analogy.
15.--Poorly designed pocket-destroying armrests : , sorta, razor wire around the doorways. A hyperbolic analogy, certainly.
14: All part of the great War on Terror, OFE. The lobby of my office building is mined. Only employees get the map.
Hey JM -- if you check your e-mail, you will find therein a question from me.
17: Thanks. I'll see you in the bar across the road.
Or is it that there is a correlation between the type of person who wears $130 pants to work and a feeling that they are entitled to a reimbursement?
My brother says that he has a certain number of wealthy customers (M or F) who don't like getting change because of what it does to their nice pants, so (instead of putting their change into the tip jar labelled "Tips") they dig into the tip jar to get however much they are short.
It's wrong to assume that they are Libertarians.
Does he tell them that's not what it's for?
I mean maybe they're intergalactic tourists, unfamiliar with earthly customs -- it's an easy mistake to make, and only a gentle nudge should be necessary to get time up to speed.
He doesn't want to talk to them. The amounts of money are small. He's pretty sure that they know what they're doing and are daring him to say anything.
What line of work is this? Food service?
9/10/11: the recipient was familiar with the movie and good-naturedly thought I was trying to make some sort of joke (the precise humour of which I am unable to decipher, though he seemed to "get it" so all's well). Thank goodness.
18.--Answered! (To the best of my ability, that is.)
JM, if you diss the LIRR, we will fight.
No no no, I was dissing Long Island. The LIRR is great.
My brother has been in the restaurant biz for decades.
7: I find it highly implausible that you couldn't find a decent pair of pants for less than $300.
Charitable explanation: The armrests were repeat offenders for a lot of the people interviewed. When people get their grudge on, they want retribution for this sort of thing.
Uncharitable explanation: Long Island commuters are cheap and/or petty.
Also: $1.5-2 million to replace the armrests? Think how many desks and textbooks that would buy...
I was going to get angry and defensive about Strong Island but then I realized, well, she's got a point.
Well, obviously it's not worth anyone's time to complain about a tear in a $50 pair of pants - even at $100 it's marginal. I'd be pissed as hell, but, even if it occurred to me that I could get the $$ back, it would be hard to see how it could happen in less time than it would take to earn $100.
Of course, presumably that cut-off point for men-in-suits is higher than mine. But then, at a certain price level, only the ultra-rich are willing to disregard the loss. In other words, unless you grew up with ungodly money, a tear in a $250 pair of pants would rankle, even if you bill at $300/hour.
As for mechanism, isn't it simple?: Goddamit, I can't believe that these stupid armrests tore ANOTHER pair of pants. I'm gonna give someone hell.... "Sir, I can't help you, but if you contact the main office...."
Like a free entree for an aggrieved diner, good customer service leads inexorably down the path of offering to pay for the pants - a combination of actual liability and a desire not to piss off a customer.