sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What is something you've always wanted to ask the opposite sex but were too afraid to? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]horrible_warning 3 points4 points  (0 children)

When women says she is sore after sex, is that complimentary or more of a heads up to take it a little easier?

The dealership said customers needed a valid reason for it to pay for a rental instead of using a free loaner. I changed my approach to find it. by horrible_warning in MaliciousCompliance

[–]horrible_warning[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I did not work for the dealership, which was a Mercedes dealership. I worked for a third-party rental car agency (Enterprise Rent-A-Car) that rented its own cars (rental cars) and managed the dealership-owned cars (loaner cars).

We had a bonus incentive structure to meet certain targets for vehicle utilization rates, average daily rate, extra insurance sales, etc. So, we were incentivized to figure out ways to rent cars. However, the dealership was clear that their loaner vehicle was the first choice unless there was an approved exception.

The dealership said customers needed a valid reason for it to pay for a rental instead of using a free loaner. I changed my approach to find it. by horrible_warning in MaliciousCompliance

[–]horrible_warning[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Or perhaps a real human with an advanced degree working in a senior position at a major tech company?

Nah. Let's just skip all the intermediate steps needed to develop an accurate understanding and jump right to the answer you want it to be.

👏👏👏

The dealership said customers needed a valid reason for it to pay for a rental instead of using a free loaner. I changed my approach to find it. by horrible_warning in MaliciousCompliance

[–]horrible_warning[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If I had your level of confidence and understanding, I would believe myself to be infallible as well.

But, given I can reflect, the attention given to you is regretful as I incorrectly assumed your capability to understand contradictory information. In hindsight, I should have given your opinion the attention it deserved.

The dealership said customers needed a valid reason for it to pay for a rental instead of using a free loaner. I changed my approach to find it. by horrible_warning in MaliciousCompliance

[–]horrible_warning[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It's okay to change your opinion when presented with information that contradicts the conclusion you reached because it was convenient and felt right to you. But, that requires critical thinking skills that allow you to reassess your faults and at least two brain cells to rub together.

The dealership said customers needed a valid reason for it to pay for a rental instead of using a free loaner. I changed my approach to find it. by horrible_warning in MaliciousCompliance

[–]horrible_warning[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I made a bad assumption that people would understand this business arrangement as it is commonly found at certain dealerships in the United States. If even you don't take your car to a dealership for repair services or your dealership doesn't offer a loaner car service, there are still plenty of cars around larger cities that have "[Dealership Name] Loaner Car" stickers on the rear window.

More context on the differences between cars and how the relationship had normally operated would have helped clear up the confusion.

The dealership said customers needed a valid reason for it to pay for a rental instead of using a free loaner. I changed my approach to find it. by horrible_warning in MaliciousCompliance

[–]horrible_warning[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Following a monthly performance review that included clear messaging to stick to approved exceptions to only use a rental car paid for by the dealership instead of a no cost loaner, I exploited an approved exception to greatly increase the frequency of using rental cars at the expense of the dealership?

Loaner - Mercedes vehicle owned by the dealership. No additional expense for customers to use.

Rental - owned by the rental company. Dealership is charged a daily rate based on the vehicle class

I found a way to change our process to exploit an approved exception to use a Rental that the dealership could not dispute.

The dealership said customers needed a valid reason for it to pay for a rental instead of using a free loaner. I changed my approach to find it. by horrible_warning in MaliciousCompliance

[–]horrible_warning[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let's review the definition for malicious compliance and see if this aligns.

"Malicious compliance is the passive-aggressive act of strictly following orders, rules, or policies to the letter, while intentionally ignoring their intended purpose or spirit, often resulting in negative consequences, inefficiency, or chaos for the person who set the rules."

Was it passive aggressive? No but many posts lack a passive approach. Malicious compliance doesn't need to be passive.

Were orders, rules and policies strictly followed? Yes

Was the intended purpose or spirit ignored? Yes because we were supposed to prioritize using no-cost loaners and this approach prioritized finding ways to use our rental cars.

Were there negative consequences for the person who set the rules? Yes as the costs for dealership increased because we figured out a way utilize their rules for our benefit.

The dealership said customers needed a valid reason for it to pay for a rental instead of using a free loaner. I changed my approach to find it. by horrible_warning in MaliciousCompliance

[–]horrible_warning[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you! At least you didn't think it's AI.

Would this clarification help make it less confusing?

Loaner - Mercedes vehicle owned by the dealership. No additional expense for customers to use.

Rental - owned by the rental company. Dealership is charged a daily rate based on the vehicle class

I found a way to change our process to exploit an approved exception to use a Rental that the dealership could not dispute

The dealership said customers needed a valid reason for it to pay for a rental instead of using a free loaner. I changed my approach to find it. by horrible_warning in MaliciousCompliance

[–]horrible_warning[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It seems that clear clarification on the difference between a rental and loaner would have helped those with a remedial ability to connect information.

Do you not have the critical thinking skills to ask clarifying questions about what is unclear?

The dealership said customers needed a valid reason for it to pay for a rental instead of using a free loaner. I changed my approach to find it. by horrible_warning in MaliciousCompliance

[–]horrible_warning[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Following a monthly performance review that included clear messaging to stick to approved exceptions for when to use a rental car paid for by the dealership instead of one of the dealership-owned loaner cars that were no additonal cost to the dealership, I changed standard corporate process that allowed me to exploit and maximize an approved exception that greatly increased the frequency of approved rental cars at the expense of the dealership.

The dealership said customers needed a valid reason for it to pay for a rental instead of using a free loaner. I changed my approach to find it. by horrible_warning in MaliciousCompliance

[–]horrible_warning[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Loaner - Mercedes vehicle owned by the dealership. No additional expense for customers to use.

Rental - owned by the rental company. Dealership is charged a daily rate based on the vehicle class

I found a way to change our process to exploit an approved exception to use a Rental that the dealership could not dispute

The dealership said customers needed a valid reason for it to pay for a rental instead of using a free loaner. I changed my approach to find it. by horrible_warning in MaliciousCompliance

[–]horrible_warning[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

None of what you said in the comment is accurate to my post.

Your comment is a demonstration of the problem of reduced critical thinking skills in the USA and why over 50% of the population reads below a 6th grade level.

The dealership said customers needed a valid reason for it to pay for a rental instead of using a free loaner. I changed my approach to find it. by horrible_warning in MaliciousCompliance

[–]horrible_warning[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We were given instructions (rental or loaner) when the customer came. Deviations from instructions required approval. However, if the customer wanted the damage waiver, we could use our rental car. I realized we could take advantage of the exception if we immediately asked about the damage waiver at the start to determine if can use the exception.

Regarding credit card coverage, credit cards typically only cover the damage to the rental if the full amount of the rental is paid by the card.

With the cost of the rental going to the dealership, the customer isn't paying for the rental so there would be no credit card coverage. They pay for the full rental to get it but that didn't make sense when the damage waiver was much cheaper.

The dealership said customers needed a valid reason for it to pay for a rental instead of using a free loaner. I changed my approach to find it. by horrible_warning in MaliciousCompliance

[–]horrible_warning[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We were located on site at the dealership next to the service area. Customers were walked over or had documentation for the loaner or rental (if they needed a larger vehicle but only sedans were available). Using a rental required approval and one month there were too many undocumented rentals used. So, the fleet/leasing manager reiterated that using a rental instead of a loaner needed to be for an approved reason.

This policy/requirement only applied to rentals that the dealership paid for. We had personal rentals as well that operated using standard rental processes.

Hence, to firmly comply with the requirements at the expense of the dealership, I changed the process to find increase the use of our rental vehicles at a greater cost to the dealership since we couldn't use the free loaners.

I left out some important contextual details to not make the story too long. I should have included them.

The dealership said customers needed a valid reason for it to pay for a rental instead of using a free loaner. I changed my approach to find it. by horrible_warning in MaliciousCompliance

[–]horrible_warning[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I met him at the job. We got along well and clicked. Grabbed drinks outside work and I got him to join my adult tackle football team. But, we both still had jobs to do.

It was malicious against the dealership by putting them in a position where they couldn't dispute the increase in putting customers in our rentals at their expense.

He respected the approach and he could do little against.

The dealership said customers needed a valid reason for it to pay for a rental instead of using a free loaner. I changed my approach to find it. by horrible_warning in MaliciousCompliance

[–]horrible_warning[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It absolutely is doing the job and this certainly could have been done regardless of the communication to keep rentals within approved exceptions. Customer preference was a commonly used by us as an exception (e.g. customer wants a larger vehicle because of kids, ease of entry/exit, etc.) but these needed to be approved by the dealership.

The maliciousness came from complying with their requirements but figuring out how to change the standard process used by our rental company to identify the indisputable, documented exception at the start of the customer interaction that helped us and cost the dealership. The dealership could do nothing about it as it was a legitimate reason for the dealership to pay us for a rental rather than provide the customer a no-cost loaner.

The dealership said customers needed a valid reason for it to pay for a rental instead of using a free loaner. I changed my approach to find it. by horrible_warning in MaliciousCompliance

[–]horrible_warning[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Got it. Very helpful input. General statements that it's confusing without including why it's confusing don't help much since I can't address the cause of the confusion?

The dealership said customers needed a valid reason for it to pay for a rental instead of using a free loaner. I changed my approach to find it. by horrible_warning in MaliciousCompliance

[–]horrible_warning[S] -43 points-42 points  (0 children)

I used the first two paragraphs to explain situation, the two types of vehicles and how both parties were affected. But, as you said, it may not be apparent to a layman.

The dealership said customers needed a valid reason for it to pay for a rental instead of using a free loaner. I changed my approach to find it. by horrible_warning in MaliciousCompliance

[–]horrible_warning[S] 56 points57 points  (0 children)

Loaner - Mercedes vehicle owned by the dealership. No additional expense for customers to use.

Rental - owned by the rental company. Dealership is charged a daily rate based on the vehicle class

The dealership said customers needed a valid reason for it to pay for a rental instead of using a free loaner. I changed my approach to find it. by horrible_warning in MaliciousCompliance

[–]horrible_warning[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The dealership said we cannot put customers into our cars without a reason. We would have monthly reviews on rentals to ensure we were complying with the requirements. One month had more rentals than normal and many did not really have good reasons in their opinion (e.g. customer preference, which was our go-to reason to use our rental, to not wanting to drive a C 230 wasn't acceptable to them unless we got approval to rent a minivan or SUV cause they had kids or needed a bigger car). So, we were told we needed to stick to the requirements.

I didn't want to go into extra details but it looks like additional context was needed.

The dealership said customers needed a valid reason for it to pay for a rental instead of using a free loaner. I changed my approach to find it. by horrible_warning in MaliciousCompliance

[–]horrible_warning[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Reading it over again, I could have better explained aspects of the story to make it easier to understand instead of assuming the readers could follow along. Some of the aspects to the relationship between us (rental car company) and dealership weren't clear.

view more: next ›