It is hard to exactly relay the
events that occurred through the last metaphor I used. So, I will try my best
but it might be a little weird. Basically, last time, the overall metaphor was
a catering company at an event that was already approved to come through and the
people at the event had to pay for grilled cheese despite being lactose intolerant.
The people asked if they could just have bread or toast, but their requests
were refused. They were also told that if they didn’t get a grilled cheese, no
one at the table was allowed to have one either.
To me, the big red flags were in
terms of just blatant disrespect. But, I still suspected she would order the
grilled cheese. And I was right. In doing so, everyone got a grilled
cheese, and let’s say, after everyone was able to order they symbolically
protested the grilled cheese at a lactose intolerant dominated lunch.
(Realizing now that it might have
been easier to make the metaphor with Vegans).
Now, in the end she basically
ordered the grilled cheese anyway because she was told that no one else could
order unless she ordered. So, taking a step back, if she was on a committee
over seeing an event, she is told they have to order grilled cheese. If she
doesn’t order it, no one gets any at her table or any other table. But, her
table is also the only table that gets a say, if they all order then the other
tables can order too. If she doesn’t order, no one gets anything. So she
orders, so that the other tables can order and when they find out that they can
only get grilled cheese, they are upset. Together, now that they’ve all been
asked to order, they tell the catering company that no, they will not eat the
grilled cheese and petition for a new catering company.
On the one hand, I think this
was a good turn of events. Because she ordered, it gave everyone else a chance
to order. If she had said no, no one would have gotten anything and they wouldn’t
have known why they weren’t getting anything other than that it was her fault
somehow. But this sort of assumes both that enough people will be lactose
intolerant or realize the inconvenience to those who are and that enough people
will stand up and say something.
It could have easily gone the
other way and they’d have been stuck with grilled cheese sandwiches and with
the authority they got from rolling over this time, maybe the catering company
would come back with a just a slice of cheese option.
I think she had to have a lot
of faith in the people at the other tables to put the decision up to them and
hope they’d make the call that they did. And the bigger issue is on the end of
the place that hires the catering company. What if they decide to ignore the
petition? All the wiggle room will be gone if the place hosting the event says they still have to
use that catering company anyway. And once they’ve been given that authority
regardless of the opinions of those on the committee or attending the event,
they likely won’t even bother to ask anything at all going forward.
Too many other people (those
who can eat cheese and, perhaps, don’t believe or support those who are lactose
intolerant) might like and support the catering company to make expensive
changes on behalf of the non-grilled cheese eaters.
Is it better then if they
still continue to serve grilled cheese? Does giving people a voice negate the
problems of accepting the disrespect, if the outcome doesn’t really change.
It is just such a hard
dilemma. I believe I said this last time as well, I’m glad it is not a decision
I had to make.
No comments:
Post a Comment