A few days ago, while swimming at my local gym, I reached one end of the pool, touched the wall, turned around and, as I always do, wiped my face with one hand before pushing off in the other direction. That”s when I heard a shout from the pool attendant. I stopped and looked up, wondering if I had done something wrong.
He walked over to me, leaned down and said in a low voice: “When you blow your nose, you should do it in the sink, not in the pool.” He believed I had polluted the water.
“But I did not,” I countered. He showed little interest in hearing my explanation and climbed back onto his tall chair.
At first I thought of shrugging off the incident. At my age, one should not be bothered over such trifles. But as I resumed my swimming, a feeling of indignation started building up inside me. I felt that I had been wrongly accused.
When I finished swimming, I went up to the attendant and told him that as a responsible staff member, he should be more careful before accusing someone of misconduct unless he had solid evidence because false accusations can be as offensive as genuine wrongdoing.
I was expecting an apology from him, but he did not offer one. “I saw you touching your nose,” he insisted before turning away, ending the conversation as abruptly as he had begun it.
After changing, I went to the front desk and asked for the manager. I explained what had happened and demanded an apology from both the attendant and the company unless they could prove that I had violated any rule.
The surveillance footage was reviewed, and proved exactly what I had said. I had merely wiped my face, something that most swimmers do when they emerge from the water.
The manager and the attendant offered a formal apology to me and sincerely asked for forgiveness. I accepted the apology. I could have demanded more, such as an extension of my membership as compensation for the embarrassment.
But I did not pursue the matter because if a company loses face and money, it often vents its anger on the person responsible. I didn’t want the attendant to be fined or, worse, lose his job. Life is already hard.
The episode reminded me how fortunate Chinese consumers are to have channels for defending their rights. When disputes arise with service or commodity providers, people can complain not only to the company but also to the 12315 hotline operated by the State Administration for Market Regulation.
Set up in 1999, the online and telephone hotline has become both a shield for disadvantaged groups to protect their rights and a sword hanging over dishonest businesses, whether they operate online or offline. Over the years, I have reached out to the hotline several times and found that it is very timely, fair and authoritative.
SAMR reports that it dealt with 43.86 million cases last year, of which 26.46 million were complaints from customers. During the year, the hotline helped customers recover 4.35 billion yuan ($642.08 million), which would have been an economic loss. SAMR’s efforts should be applauded.
Their value lies not only in the money returned to consumers, but also in the correction of malpractices and the promotion of a more regulated market in the country.
When the gym manager and the attendant apologized to me, it was probably not out of sincerity but because they were under pressure that I might dial 12315. During the discussion with the manager, I had mentioned the number only once, but the number carried weight.
Dealing with millions of complaints in a year is not an easy job. The hotline must have employed thousands of staff members to protect the rights of consumers.
While its headquarters are in Beijing, local branches in hundreds of cities across the country are responsible for investigating and resolving disputes in their respective jurisdictions.
That decentralized structure inevitably leads to differences in service quality. In most places, a SAMR employee calls back within hours of a complaint being filed and a solution can be reached within a few days.
But in some other places, complainants may wait much longer, receive no response at all, or encounter officials who seem more interested in defending the service provider. One cannot help but wonder if that is local protectionism.
Despite a few unsatisfactory experiences, I am convinced that the Chinese people are fortunate to have such an efficient mechanism that supports their rights as consumers.
The author is former deputy editor-in-chief of China Daily.
kangbing@chinadaily.com.cn
