- #36
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,472
- 10,785
Well, those were direct impacts to the customer, so no imagination was required to extend them to broader impact*. So sure, it's reasonable to assume similar sloppiness elsewhere in the business, but someone (or a million separate someones) would have to think of a theoretically possible way a similar sloppiness could harm a customer. I think that's just too indirect.Vanadium 50 said:From the conclusion that if a company is sloppy with X it is sloppy with Y. Yes, it's not necessarily true, but it's a good place to make your bet.
Not every Chipolte has a contamination problem. Not every United passenger gets the snot beat out of him. But the companies still took a drubbing.
*And actually, for Chipoltle it is potentially even worse since depending on the cause of the food contamination (I'm not that familiar) it could be that a single failure affects a large number of locations if it happens in the supply chain and not at the restaurant(s).
Last edited: