Stupid of the host to act like that and inexcusable, got what she deserved etc, but....
This is one sided reporting. First of all Barker accepted the booking knowing who the guest would be, from her name, profile etc.
Then there were frequent polite comms where the booking was changed, renegotiated. Two extra guests were added. Then the guest asked to bring a small dog, and the host said no because they have a pitbull in the house. Guest persisted and eventually the hosts agreed to remove their own dog from the house to accommodate the dog.
Messages on the day of arrival have been withheld by the guest, but relationship broke down and became hostile, with the guest delaying arrival until 2AM-3AM. The host lost patience.
So I think the reason they cancelled is because the guest really did mess them about, but still really stupid to use those words in doing so.
Tami Barker had the opportunity to refuse the booking long before, and didn't, then went out of her way to accommodate the guests. Of course, nobody is interested in that.
All well and good, none of which is relevant to the story. What is relevant is that the host documented that she doesn’t want to rent to Asians. That’s why the host ended up paying $5K, not because the guest was a pain in the ass.
Yes, if she’d just said, “you’re a pain in the ass, I’m not renting to you”, all would be well. But some people just can’t help themselves, I guess (I’m picturing the host as some letters-to-the-editor crackpot).
Does making racist comments you don't believe make you a racist? Does giving compliments you don't believe make you a nice person?
I seriously don't know. I want to say yes, but maybe not?
I was thinking about this in another context today. When people piss you off, many people (including myself) want to say things to them that will illicit a negative reaction. Often, offensive words seem like a good choice to accomplish that goal. If telling someone "you're a responsible human being who loves his mother" caused someone to be offended, lots of people would say that when they are angry.
I'm totally on the judges sides in this case, once those words come out of your mouth there is no going back and you should be responsible for them.
I guess I just wonder if there is a relatively easy and sure-fire way to piss people off without being offensive? What's a better way for people to express their anger in a childish way ?
I guess I just wonder if there is a relatively easy and sure-fire way to piss people off without being offensive?
I'll assume we've gone beyond the topic at hand, as I wonder who would wonder how to piss people off as an AirBnB host? :-)
Frankly, I find racial insults to be cheap and unimaginative. Oh, so I'm a $RACIAL_EPITAPH? Well, can't help how I was born. Nice try, though. No points for effort, though. "Maybe you wouldn't have that problem if you'd grow up, learn to accept responsibility, and quit blaming your problems on the actions of others. That failed business? That's wasn't a market problem, an employee problem, that was a you problem."? Oooh, well, that kind of hits close to home.
Never go for the easy insult. Take a few extra moments, find that weak spot, and give that knife a good twist if you're genuinely intending to communicate insult.
> Does making racist comments you don't believe make you a racist?
I'm under the impression that part of you actually does believe it if you say it. I don't see the mind as one homogeneous thing that requires all thoughts be polarized in the same direction.
The host rented to the guest knowing she was Asian from the start. She didn't have a problem with her race at that point. Things only got nasty once they got nasty.
If you had a nasty fight with someone, and it ended with that person saying, "Well, it's because you're white (or Indian or whatever you are). That's why," would you immediately assume this person hated everyone of your race? Or would you assume you'd gotten under his skin enough that he reached down into his bag of dirty insults and pulled out anything he could find to hit you with?
It'd be one thing if this host never rented to Asians, or responded to an initial query with a message like, "I don't rent to Asians."
But in this case, it looks like a nasty fight between two women, one of whom picked the wrong (politically sensitive) angle to insult the other on, and the other who decided to play up the victim card and record video of herself crying and make a big sob story, and collect a nice little payday for the trouble.
I'd be very curious to know more about Miss Suh's background. In my experience with these sorts of cases, it is rarely the plaintiff's first rodeo.
But in this case, it looks like a nasty fight between two women
That's where I think my responders are missing my point. If this were just some fight between random women on the street, or two close friends, or neighbors, your description would be accurate. It would neither surprise me, nor give me reason to think much about it. This is not, however, just "between two women". It's a business relationship. That makes things a little different, including entire legal frameworks are built around business relationships. AFAIK, no laws exist that dictate my relationships with personal friends.
Suppose a similar conversation, with similar closing comments, took place at work? Still think it's a fight between two women? Would you get upset if someone got marched down to HR for a little re-education?
Look, I get what y'all are saying; I wouldn't rent to her, either, for the good reasons already outlined. But when we ask ourselves who opened this can of worms, the host is standing there with a dirty can opener. Had the host just cancelled, we probably wouldn't be reading about because nearly everyone would be on the side of the host. But the host just had to bring race into it in a fit of temper. Now all those good reasons go out the window. If you can't keep your temper, and keep your mouth under control, maybe being an AirBnb host isn't for you.
In your scenario, I would absolutely assume that they hated my race, and that they had merely hidden it. Overt racism is not tolerated in a lot of places, so racists usually learn to hide it. Sometimes it comes out under stress.
Non-racists don't suddenly start making racial comments they don't believe just because they're in a nasty fight.
Racial discrimination doesn't have to be absolute. Saying it can't be discrimination because she didn't reject this guest up-front is nonsensical. When someone shows you who they are, believe them.
Not wanting to rent to Asians isn't a fair housing violation. Not renting to Asians is. She did, in fact, come to a rental agreement with the Asian woman. The desire to not rent to Asians was not stated until after the agreement had been broken for a different (and valid) reason.
My understanding is that advertising or speaking about such is a violation. I'm pretty sure realtor.org[1] is a fair source of information and informed on the subject.
> Providing false information on the availability of a property for sale or rental based on a person's protected class status—even if that information is based on the owner’s desires.
> Don't say: “There’s no point in your showing the Smith’s house to that Hispanic couple; the Smiths will never sell to them.”
Out of curiosity, where did you get the transcripts that give you this information? Further down the thread, someone points to [1], but even that is incomplete (the final exchange is missing one side of the conversation; there's a Washington Post article that seems to have more there [2].
> Messages on the day of arrival have been withheld by the guest, but relationship broke down and became hostile, with the guest delaying arrival until 2AM-3AM. The host lost patience.
This is the part that I find most ambiguous -- notably one of the final exchanges in the video
> If you think 4 people and 2 dogs [and] getting a room [for] $50 a night on big bear mountain during the busiest weekend of the year ..... You are insanely high
It was pretty clear from the earlier messages that the extra two guests were an _additional_ $50/night -- was there an attempt to renegotiate to a total rate of $50/night?
Your first source is to a wiki site (albeit a large one with a known good reputation), but still a wiki site (it says at the top of that very page anyone can add any information to it). And your second source is the Washington Post so I don't know how unbiased either of these links truly are.
What's the other side here, that the guests are to blame for the cancellation? I would say Tami Barker's behavior makes it seem that the only thing her guests did wrong was show let their ethnicity show before they got the keys.
From reading the transcript, it seems like the decision was made to cancel the reservation for some undisclosed reason (omitted from the public transcripts), and the racial slur and Trump reference were parting shots and a reveal of an underlying prejudice rather than the direct motivation.
Assuming that the host inferred the ethnicity of the tenant from their name, that was accessible from the beginning of the interaction, and might have colored some of the reactions to the requests, but not in a directly racist way until the very end.
Hmm.. you are correct. The guest did add 2 people, then 1st dog and then 2nd dog as well. So 2 guests are now 4+2. Also, the guest kept asking if the hosts want extra payment in cash... And if the guests arrived at 2AM to collect keys (not sure what time was decided beforehand, but I have not seen so late check in times) then the hosts were well within their rights to cancel this booking...
Definitely poor behavior on guest's part but if only the host had not sent the last messages referring to "Asians"...
I agree with you. Barker got a bad deal. She made the mistake of using racial language that the media could latch onto.
Anyone who objectively looks at the situation would conclude that Suh was a spoiled entitled brat who exploited this situation. It's disgusting how she used her crocodile tears to exploit the media and the people.
> Suh was a spoiled entitled brat who exploited this situation
I really don't see how you conclude that. Barker approve the deal then reneged with racist language. What makes Suh entitled or spoiled? If Barker didn't like the deal she had plenty of time to cancel or just say no upfront.
Suh changed the deal and got confirmation that Barker accepted the changes. Suh asked, Barker said yes for an extra $50 and then Barker exploded on her when she got here. Barker is in no way the victim here. Sure maybe Suh was a high maintenance renter, but she didn't do anything wrong.
This is the third time I'm posting this excerpt:
"When Suh later asked if it was OK to bring two friends and two dogs along, Barker said it was fine but the group would need to pay an additional $50 a night, according to screenshots of their text messages." https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/13/airbnb-ca...
Interesting story, but who will put most popular item at the front of the store? It will be in the back of the store so customers will pass the other items in store and buy something compulsively
Not really. Our team spun off and my boss worked really hard to keep me. My good friend left last year to go to a startup and just rejoined there (working for You Tube) at the age of 53.
>the individual's expression of interest indicated that the individual possesses the basic qualification for the position [1]
The issue for this case will be proving whether or not the applicants actually met the basic qualifications. Interestingly, the language implies that someone must simply indicate that they possess the basic qualifications. It doesn't go into detail on verifying the actual possession of those qualifications.
I'd like to see what exactly is done to verify the applicants actually met the basic qualifications.
That's not so obvious; if a norm against disclosing lets employers pay better performers/ people they want/etc more, then the result of disclosing is a flatter pay grid, which benefits those that would be at the low end, but hurts those at the high end.
I don't know or have specific reason to think it's true, but it's one model that's not obviously wrong (if it is, I'm more than happy to hear why).
There's certainly not an unlimited amount to spend on salaries; as long as a company is not willing to spend 250k on everyone, but is willing to spend it on some, this could be true.
Ethical, sure. Wise? I don't think there's anything malicious here, but the idea that a potential employer would see me announcing their comp strategy in a public forum would be enough to make me wary about posting about it.
