61–70 of 493 posts
I went on a few dates with a girl who was a walker for Wag. She had just moved to the town I'm from, and she was between jobs. She had a background as veterinary assistant, was great with my dogs, and seemed over qualified for the work. One day she was upset and I asked her why. She said it was because Wag had terminated her employment and deleted her profile, with over 100 high reviews. (She had been very proud of t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wag are jerkoffs it seems, but it's still 'statistically likely to happen'. Accidents happen in all things, so I think it should boil down mostly to whatever the reality is there. ... though Wag has shown some bad form obviously.
Given it's statistically bound to happen, Wag should have been able to anticipate this in a way that was not , if not the worst approach, arguably pretty close.
Having just got a puppy less than two weeks ago, this is terrifying. I can’t imagine the feeling of helplessness and shock that they must have felt.
Incredibly stupid decision to respond this way by Wag. How bad to you have to be at PR to screw this up? It's not hard. Liability in the case of harmed pets is extremely limited, so you just pay it all and apologize profusely. There's no way the bad press will be worth saving a couple thousand maximum. Absolute idiots.
> a couple thousand maximum
Maximum? Many pups cost more than this and you'd be paying to replace at least. You might also be paying for any amount of vet bills if the animal isn't killed on the spot. If you hit a service or working dog, be ready to shell out tens of thousands for replacement due to the unique tasks performed (not all dogs can do them) and specialized training they receive.
In any case, Wag and its walker are probably not at fault. I'd be after the driver.
Of course, I don't like the idea of a stranger walking my dog anyway. Even a kennel isn't ideal, but at least then I can build trust with a particular business. Wag just puts my dog in the hands of random people I'll probably never see again, opening me up to liability and my dog up to risk.
This happened recently: Wag! dog walker charged with animal cruelty; customers concerned about industry background checks http://www.ktvu.com/news/wag-dog-walker-charged-with-animal-... EDIT: and the settlement letter sent from Wag: https://www.scribd.com/document/397139013/SNews-Copie1901081...
Some people mentioned that Wag should have offered more and demanded less -- absolutely!
But think about if Wag even said "sorry this happened, that's all we can say for your terrible loss" even without a compensation offer and without an insulting NDA. It probably wouldn't have pushed the owner to post this and for it to end up on HN -- and now the world knows.
I honestly believe Wag and Rover and other large companies that offer pet walking services should put up a very high liability bond for pet injury -- on the order of $10K or more. That way they have skin in the game to vet their walkers better. Most owners value their dogs above that, and that incentive is the only way to get these corporations to listen.
Incredibly stupid decision to respond this way by Wag. How bad to you have to be at PR to screw this up? It's not hard. Liability in the case of harmed pets is extremely limited, so you just pay it all and apologize profusely. There's no way the bad press will be worth saving a couple thousand maximum. Absolute idiots.
The thing Wag screwed up was its total lack of empathy in trying to buy silence. > a couple thousand maximum Maximum? Many pups cost more than this and you'd be paying to replace at least. You might also be paying for any amount of vet bills if the animal isn't killed on the spot. If you hit a service or working dog, be ready to shell out tens of thousands for replacement due to the unique tasks performed (not all do…
As it stands, it sounds like they have not provided enough details to identify the walker, let alone investigate the driver (if there even was one). So I’d say Wag is just as culpable as a maybe-existing-driver.
If he care the dog so much, the question is why is he trusting it to some stranger ?
If he care the dog so much, the question is why is he trusting it to some stranger ?
Your kids? Schools, daycares, after-school programs, schooltrips, babysitting; let them do anything on their own? All stranger interactions.
At most you get transitive trust. But that doesn’t amount to much.
No, the main reason we’re able to sustain this model is that we believe in two big functions:
1. Most people operate nuetrally, if not well.
2. We have a strong deterrent for the biggest misbehaviors/risks by strangers, through government reprecussion.
You want to not rely on trusting strangers at all? I’m not sure you can do that except by exiting any major population, and returning to reliance on small, close-knit communities, and strong family-oriented relationships (eg first, second and third generations of family living in the same small circle).
But thats a far more substantive change than I think you’re imagining.
Incredibly stupid decision to respond this way by Wag. How bad to you have to be at PR to screw this up? It's not hard. Liability in the case of harmed pets is extremely limited, so you just pay it all and apologize profusely. There's no way the bad press will be worth saving a couple thousand maximum. Absolute idiots.
To be fair, we don't know if this is the truth. Has Wag responded with their side of the story?