Sorry about that. But this is business. I understand your frustrations. Whatever the business is, whatever the business model and etiquette, you don’t like it, you don’t go back and you move on.
Open Letter: Discrimination Has No Place in This Industry
- Thread starter Handi
- Start date
Interesting thread. The client has accused Euphoria of discrimination and James has provided non-discriminatory reasons for not servicing this client. As to the distance issue, it seems like this could be resolved financially with greater compensation, although outcall escort agencies, like pizzerias and other businesses specializing in delivery, typically set geographical limits. Sometimes it's by miles and sometimes by towns or cities.
I managed a pizza delivery business in Connecticut in my now distant youth. I would occasionally get calls from towns outside our limits and I was trained to tell the caller, "we don't deliver to [ ], but you are welcome to come in and pick up a pie". In other words pizza incall.
I realize incall probably isn't logistically possible for Handi - so it's a problem.
A more interesting issue I had was the housing project that WAS within my pizzeria's geographical set limits. This was the 1980s, and we didn't deliver there because of fear that our drivers would be robbed. A few were in fact robbed. I have no doubt that not every person who called from that housing project for pizza was a criminal. I used to feel bad telling those people they had to come in and pick up their pies, but the project was only around 2 miles from the pizzeria and none of the callers ever protested. Was it discrimination? I guess you could argue it was, in the sense that whether the housing project customer had criminal intentions or not, they had to come in and pick up their pies- pizza incall. But they would get their pizza.
Regarding the ladies not accepting the method of payment being offered by the client, that's a logistical problem on the other side for the agency, just like incall is a logistical issue for the client. The client has to be able to provide payment through the mechanisms specified by the agency. We live in the age of electronic payments and it shouldn't be difficult for any client to adapt if they have the financial means to participate in this business.
I managed a pizza delivery business in Connecticut in my now distant youth. I would occasionally get calls from towns outside our limits and I was trained to tell the caller, "we don't deliver to [ ], but you are welcome to come in and pick up a pie". In other words pizza incall.
I realize incall probably isn't logistically possible for Handi - so it's a problem.
A more interesting issue I had was the housing project that WAS within my pizzeria's geographical set limits. This was the 1980s, and we didn't deliver there because of fear that our drivers would be robbed. A few were in fact robbed. I have no doubt that not every person who called from that housing project for pizza was a criminal. I used to feel bad telling those people they had to come in and pick up their pies, but the project was only around 2 miles from the pizzeria and none of the callers ever protested. Was it discrimination? I guess you could argue it was, in the sense that whether the housing project customer had criminal intentions or not, they had to come in and pick up their pies- pizza incall. But they would get their pizza.
Regarding the ladies not accepting the method of payment being offered by the client, that's a logistical problem on the other side for the agency, just like incall is a logistical issue for the client. The client has to be able to provide payment through the mechanisms specified by the agency. We live in the age of electronic payments and it shouldn't be difficult for any client to adapt if they have the financial means to participate in this business.
Last edited:
Advocacy also requires rallying people to one’s cause… shaming and guilt-tripping has the opposite effect.
It is clearly conveyed that there is a « flat-out refusal » at (outcall) service for the disabled… but there is rather convenient omission to mention that service has been provided multiple times over the span of a decade… not exactly what I would call « transparency ».
And just wondering on what « data » these accusations were formulated… did you have a full insight into the agency and have access to their communications to arrive at such « systemic disabled exclusion » conclusion ?
I am for fairness and compassion… for all.
Edit: Lunaseraphim resumed it well: no one is entitled to the services of SW. Their game, their rules.
Last edited:
This has turned into a "he said, she said" situation. It has gone beyond a philosophical discussion of right or wrong to the actual facts of the case. Each side has a diametrically opposite version of the facts i.e. how far away is his location, how he pays, what happens when he calls, etc.,etc. Whom are we to believe???
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky
- Poll
- Locked
- Sticky
- Poll
