When is a public apology needed?

[Bini]

Do you give one when damage control is needed, regardless, of who is right or wrong? Maybe you don't at all because you've done nothing wrong? Or, do you because you've been proven wrong and it's time to own it?

Here's a scenario: A woman is escorted out of a convention because security has determined her a risk to guests. She discloses on her blog that no specific reason was given for her ejection and was told she was banned from future conventions by the vendor. This goes viral, and as a result, the vendor responds. It's explained that vendor security does not survey crowds, and that security acted upon the instruction of one of the guest's head bodyguard. More speculation circulates.

Eventually, the bodyguard addresses the issue on social media. He says that he's trained to look for red flags, and this person was a concern, too much of a concern that removal was necessary. He then screenshots a blog entry posted just an hour before the convention, that reads like a threat towards the guests. The woman fires back and claims they are song lyrics. The public agrees that it was taken out of context. Scrolling through her blog, it becomes clear this woman references song lyrics frequently.

The woman is pleased to have her ban lifted and wants an apology but none is given. The bodyguard leaves one last response, saying he will not apologise for doing his job.

Should an apology have been given?

[Vort]

Depends on what is meant by "I'm sorry".

• If "I'm sorry" means "I acted badly and I regret it", then the answer is absolutely not. (Assuming the bodyguard is convinced he acted appropriately and in good faith.)
• If "I'm sorry" means "The situation was not what it appeared, and I regret that an innocent person was wrongly excluded", then maybe so. Hard to say, since that's an "apology" that rejects any actual responsibility.
• If "I'm sorry" means "My company is requiring me to do this as a condition for continued employment", then I suppose it depends how badly he wants his job.

[prisonchaplain]

Body guard should never have responded.  Vendor security should have given a generic, "We provide security based upon time-proven protocols.  Occasionally a party is excused from events, and it later becomes evident that the security concerns were unfounded.  Ms. ____, such was the case this time.  We apologize for any inconvenience, and rest assured, you are welcome to future events.

 

Also, if she paid any fees to attend, those should be reimbursed (though not incidental expenses, such as plane tickets).  My humble view, of course, based only on the OP.

[Guest]

I think a public incident requires a public apology, if they were actually in the wrong. 

[Bini]

This is a true story, though, I don't know exact details and am just relaying it as I recall.

 

My thinking is that the ban wouldn't have been lifted if a mistake hadn't been made. So, if indeed a mistake had been made, someone is responsible for issuing some sort of apology. That's probably my thought process in any situation where someone has been proven in the wrong.

[Palerider]

Body guard should never have responded.  Vendor security should have given a generic, "We provide security based upon time-proven protocols.  Occasionally a party is excused from events, and it later becomes evident that the security concerns were unfounded.  Ms. ____, such was the case this time.  We apologize for any inconvenience, and rest assured, you are welcome to future events.

 

Also, if she paid any fees to attend, those should be reimbursed (though not incidental expenses, such as plane tickets).  My humble view, of course, based only on the OP.

I agree with Prison Chap on this one.

[PolarVortex]

This is a true story, though, I don't know exact details and am just relaying it as I recall.

 

My thinking is that the ban wouldn't have been lifted if a mistake hadn't been made. So, if indeed a mistake had been made, someone is responsible for issuing some sort of apology. That's probably my thought process in any situation where someone has been proven in the wrong.

 

Well... hmmm... gee.

 

When I lived in Houston, I had an dingy little apartment.  I got home from work one day and found it cleaned from floor to ceiling.  The windows sparkled, the carpet was sucked clean, everything was dusted or scrubbed or polished to perfection.  I picked up the phone to call the police, but as I was dialing I realized they'd laugh out loud at my complaint ("Yes, someone broke into my apartment and cleaned it").  I hung up and called the apartment leasing office instead.  They checked and discovered that they had transposed two digits in their records and had accidentally sent a cleaning crew to the wrong unit.  Clearly a mistake, and clearly someone was in the wrong, but I never asked for an apology, and they never offered one.  (And they never repeated that mistake, tragically.)

 

I think prisonchaplain nailed it.  

[Bini]

PolarVortex, that is comical. I wouldn't have made a complaint on that. But if party A is mistreated and party B does everything but apologise, I think that's too bad, an apology is always nice.

[Guest]

I sure wish someone would screw up and send a cleaning crew to my house. For the 5 minutes that it stayed clean, I would sure enjoy it.

[prisonchaplain]

PolarVortex, that is comical. I wouldn't have made a complaint on that. But if party A is mistreated and party B does everything but apologise, I think that's too bad, an apology is always nice.

 

The end result was that the patron was not a security threat.  However, based on accepted protocols, with limited time and information available, the head security officer made a judgment call.  Very likely it is what the courts call, "a reasonable officer's response."  So, he did nothing wrong.  He was doing his job.

 

So, my suggestion was to offer a general apology for the inconvenience caused, a willingness to pay for only the actual cost of entry to the event, and total protection for the security employee's reputation and privacy.  He should not have had to get involved in the aftermath--certainly not on social media.

 

Now, if he made a bad call, then the apology might include, "the negligent staff member has been appropriately reprimanded (or if serious enough 'is no longer associated with our company').

[Palerider]

I sure wish someone would screw up and send a cleaning crew to my house. For the 5 minutes that it stayed clean, I would sure enjoy it.

You should have asked Santa Claus...:)

[The Folk Prophet]

Also, if she paid any fees to attend, those should be reimbursed (though not incidental expenses, such as plane tickets).  My humble view, of course, based only on the OP.

 

So for being unfairly kicked out of something that she specifically traveled for (assuming, of course, she was unfairly kicked out) she gets the $20-$100 back for the event but the grand+ she dropped on plane and hotel -- go jump?

 

I dunno. I'm not a law suit advocate...but....

[prisonchaplain]

If the staff member made a truly bozo judgment call, and lost his job, then the company might have to do more.  However, yes, if this is one of those rare cases in which a patron fits several "red flag" categories, but later can show that every trigger had a reasonable explanation, then we get to read about it on blogsphere for a day or two, and life goes on.  The alternative is to so hamstring security personnel that they cannot do their job.

 

This case, based on the OP, sounded like the judgment made was reasonable, but turned out wrong.  When police do a search of a home (with warrant), but find nothing, do we expect them to come back and tidy the place up? 

[The Folk Prophet]

A mistake is a mistake. A justifiable mistake may put the company in a position to stand behind the mistake as an acceptable one, but it does not mean the mistake is rendered false. It is still a mistake. And we -- all -- should be accountable for our mistakes.

 

Darn tootin' they should make it up to the lady if it was a mistake.

Edited January 8, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest]

Meh... This "I demand an apology" thing is really becoming overrated.

 

I don't think the security dude needs to apologize.  He was doing his job.  The woman needs to realize that life does not always turn out great for everybody.  Having to apologize for doing your job to make a woman feel good... sure, it might make her feel good but that kind of public embarrassment on the security officer is going to make his job harder... if he didn't take the girl out and she ended up blowing the place up, who's going to apologize then?

 

Hate to say it but there are just too many whiny babies with touchy feelings around.

Edited January 8, 2015 by anatess

[omegaseamaster75]

The end result was that the patron was not a security threat.  However, based on accepted protocols, with limited time and information available, the head security officer made a judgment call.  Very likely it is what the courts call, "a reasonable officer's response."  So, he did nothing wrong.  He was doing his job.

 

So, my suggestion was to offer a general apology for the inconvenience caused, a willingness to pay for only the actual cost of entry to the event, and total protection for the security employee's reputation and privacy.  He should not have had to get involved in the aftermath--certainly not on social media.

 

Now, if he made a bad call, then the apology might include, "the negligent staff member has been appropriately reprimanded (or if serious enough 'is no longer associated with our company').

We don't know that the patron was not a security threat, she just claims that she was not. The citation of song lyrics on a blog are an easy way to say things that if they were stated in plain English or as a matter of normal discourse they would be considered threats. The "these are just song lyrics" is a cop out, and I call horse dooty.

 

No apology should be given. 

[prisonchaplain]

A mistake is a mistake. A justifiable mistake may put the company in a position to stand behind the mistake as an acceptable one, but it does not mean the mistake is rendered false. It is still a mistake. And we -- all -- should be accountable for our mistakes.

 

Darn tootin' they should make it up to the lady if it was a mistake.

 

We'll have to define "mistake" then.  As Omegaseamaster75 pointed out, can we prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the woman intended no harm?  Did the security officer divert significantly from established protocols?  This is not a matter of a messed up restaurant order, or giving a customer a defective item.  Security is asked to weed out potential threats before and during an event.  By too many measures the woman in question appears to have presented as dangerous.  If reparations are demanded, the standard needs to be gross incompetence.  Again, to simply say that anyone questioned, detained, or removed as a part of security, or law enforcement procedures should be compensated for inconvenience, unless proven guilty, would so hamstring our protectors, that we would be inviting trouble with open arms.

[The Folk Prophet]

We'll have to define "mistake" then.  As Omegaseamaster75 pointed out, can we prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the woman intended no harm?  Did the security officer divert significantly from established protocols?  This is not a matter of a messed up restaurant order, or giving a customer a defective item.  Security is asked to weed out potential threats before and during an event.  By too many measures the woman in question appears to have presented as dangerous.  If reparations are demanded, the standard needs to be gross incompetence.  Again, to simply say that anyone questioned, detained, or removed as a part of security, or law enforcement procedures should be compensated for inconvenience, unless proven guilty, would so hamstring our protectors, that we would be inviting trouble with open arms.

 

I pretty well agree. Certainly there needs to be some balance. But if I paid good money to attend a conference, saved hard for the flight costs, etc., and then was unceremoniously and unfairly removed, at the least I'd want compensation for the cost. But I do tend to agree with omega on this one. We've been agreeing lately. It's a new thing for us. I'm still not sure how I feel about it.