Meituan, hungry, causing public anger, how does the official reply?

Speaking of the two giants of takeaway, everyone can figure out which ones are with their toes. Previously, because the delivery time of the takeaway system was too short and the rules were too harsh, the takeaway brother was suspected of being squeezed, which caused netizens to condemn, and then the two responded accordingly:

Hungry? Let's talk about the US Mission first. The reply of the US Mission is that it will leave 8 minutes of flexible time for the takeaway brother. If the order is automatically delayed due to special weather, the food delivery is not timely due to special circumstances. Will not be punished by the platform.

Hungry, the reply is to design a small button for the user's ordering page, and the copy says, "Can I have five more minutes?" It means that the function of this little button is that if you are not in a hurry, you can click it and let the takeaway brother have five more minutes to deliver food.

The viewpoint of the incident is not controversial, but what needs to be emphasized here is that as soon as the solution was issued, netizens all supported it at first, and they all expressed their understanding of the hard work of the takeaway brother and were willing to wait a few more minutes. However, the Consumer Protection Committee has different opinions on this. The Consumer Protection Committee believes that:

Shanghai Consumer Protection Committee reported the consumption evaluation of online fresh platform. Tang Jiansheng, deputy secretary-general of the Shanghai Consumer Protection Committee, analyzed that the statement of being hungry is actually logically problematic. It says that the relationship between take-away riders is the relationship with enterprises, and these rules related to take-away riders are also determined by enterprises, that is, the platform. Consumers place orders on the platform, and business behavior is also generated for the platform. ? Therefore, in this case, it is obviously against the basic logic for you to take the fault of the takeaway rider, his violation, his collision and his red light running and let the consumer bear it.

Obviously, the Consumer Protection Committee does not support the practice of being hungry. In this regard, the author also said that the practice of being hungry is too chicken thief. You should know that takeaway brother and hungry belong to the employment relationship, and customers are just consumers. Why should he take unnecessary responsibility for this?

Imagine if every time consumers order food, they have to face the question of whether they are willing to wait a few more minutes. Is it always a moral torture to consumers? If a takeaway brother is detained for not waiting for a few more minutes, or an accident occurs, do you still have to bear moral condemnation for consumers?

Therefore, consumers don't have to pay for the benefits of capital!

Finally, what do you think of this matter? Welcome to leave a message for discussion.