The luggage of returned overseas students diagnosed with hospitalization was destroyed by the hotel: Why is this not just a "compensation issue"?

A returnee said that during his "confirmed hospitalization", a hotel in Shanghai handled his personal belongings (including passport, visa, graduate enrollment certificate and professional documents) without authorization. It is understood that the student developed fever symptoms on March 23. Before going to the hospital for examination, he only brought his mobile phone and left his luggage in the hotel for safekeeping. However, when he contacted the hotel to retrieve his luggage after recovering on April 3, he was told that the luggage had been destroyed.

In fact, in the content of the "complaint", the international student mainly emphasized the importance of his "personal qualifications" and "professional information". However, the hotel chose not to pay compensation because it could not assess the value of the money. Therefore, the international student could only "complain and defend his rights" on social media.

In a sense, this not only reflects the poor service awareness of some institutions during the "special period", but also reflects to a large extent a certain lack of understanding when facing "confirmed patients". "Plague Prejudice". Because, to a certain extent, the wording "luggage destruction" indicates that the hotel considers the luggage to be dangerous.

Of course, the luggage of "confirmed patients" does need to be handled carefully, such as special disinfection, storage, etc. This is understandable to a certain extent. However, since the luggage of "confirmed patients" is also a source of infection, it is not suitable to be destroyed simply and crudely.

The most fundamental problem is that both parties were not informed. To be honest, if you were told in advance that "personal documents" and "professional information" could be kept properly, then only destroying clothes, etc., might not be so irreconcilable. Therefore, the hotel's behavior of destroying luggage is obviously not only a compensation issue, but also an issue of how to protect the interests of "diagnosed patients".

After all, the "special period" is not a fig leaf. Even, to a certain extent, the more "special period" we are in, the more we should maintain the basic bottom line of human nature. Only in this way can the "victim" feel the warmth of society. So, back to the luggage damage in the hotel, this may be a common problem during "special periods", but the degree is different.

If it is a specific period, why are there no problems with the luggage of undiagnosed people? You know, as a larger hotel, it shouldn't be difficult to have problems keeping luggage. Therefore, if you insist on taking an insincere response in a "special period", it can only mean that the hotel is "abnormal."

For hotels, if only destroying luggage can prevent the spread of the virus, what about the rooms and used toilets of "confirmed patients"? Therefore, whether it is a special period or a source of virus infection, , is a kind of excuse, not the attitude and method of truly solving the problem.

Even as a hotel, the more special the period, the more we must consider our guests. Only in this way can the "victim" face the disaster more positively. Unfortunately, there are always some people and institutions who do not stick to their original intentions when facing disasters, but instead test the bottom line of human nature in the most negative way. This leads, worse than disaster, to the heart rotting first.

At the same time, "Just because people are nice doesn't mean everything is fine." You know, in the details of communication between international students and hotels, the reaction of relevant personnel is such logic. In a sense, such "talk" is the logic of comfort rather than the logic of solving problems. Because, fundamentally, there is no necessary logical relationship between "keep your luggage" and "do you have anything to do?"

However, when major disasters occur, this logic often easily surfaces. However, we need to be careful about the context in which it is used. There's nothing wrong with letting things survive if, in "one way or the other" the situation is. However, in the above circumstances, the matter of "baggage destruction" obviously did not reach the necessary level.

Moreover, as a hotel, this aspect should be a major advantage. I did not expect that it would become a "stumbling block" to criticism. So it would be better for the hotel to handle the next matter more sincerely. Otherwise, the more tricks you play, the deeper you'll get. After all, the essence of the matter is certain. To turn things around, you have to take responsibility and solve the problem.

However, the hotel does not compensate for "professional information" and there are certain practical difficulties. Because clothing is a physical item, it is relatively easy to evaluate. However, when it comes to "professional materials," things get a little trickier. On the one hand, the data has been lost, and the specific losses are not easy to quantify. It is really difficult to evaluate only relying on the words of the parties; on the other hand, it is difficult to assess the impact of the lost data on the parties.

Therefore, the problem will be stuck in this "block". However, there are still some issues that need to be resolved. As for hotels, they must first actively cooperate with participating international students and try their best to complete the "personal documents". As for research materials and clothing, compensation can be compensated or not. It is still possible to provide certain compensation after finding a relevant evaluation agency to conduct a reasonable evaluation.

If you don’t want to do any of these, then the hotel will inevitably be criticized by the public. In this case, the damage may be greater. Because, when the issue is more than just "baggage damage," further escalation brings the issue of invalid compensation into the debate. Therefore, hotels should be more aware of this and not try to fool around.

Honestly, getting back to the heart of the matter, the biggest issue by far is the "disrespect" to continuity. "Baggage destruction" does not respect the "patient", the "customer" does not respect the right to know, and the "attitude towards the problem" does not respect the facts. In short, all the way down, it naturally caused a bigger storm. Because some things cannot be solved by escaping.

You know, international students "complain" on social media, which is actually a helpless choice. Because, on similar rights protection issues, if there are no special relevant regulations, there is often no way to complain. Therefore, “show review” through social media is also an exploration of rights protection. At the same time, it is also necessary to make it clear to the hotels involved that the problem must be solved completely instead of just prevaricating.

Of course, basic political knowledge must also avoid the cognitive bias of "hard work". In fact, it is precisely because of the existence of these courageous critics in order to protect the social order, which operates to the greatest extent based on human nature. So for the rights of international students, we really need support. At the same time, it may also be a wake-up call and correction for hotel industry management.