figmentPez
Staff member
The Kroger near me has more than mirrors, they have a Lane Hawk, an automated system that can detect products under the cart, and even attempt to recognize the packaging if it can't see the barcode.
Rant VIII: The Reckoning
- Thread starter Anonymous
- Start date
-
- Tags
- boat people
Look who's home from the vet! Shaved where the IVs were placed. They still don't know what might be wrong, but they're leaning towards acute pancreatitis. They gave him a pharmacy of meds to take for the next while.
He's still loopy, but he yelled at me the whole drive home, which is normal for him (he hates car rides), so that's a good sign he's feeling better. We've been cuddling while I watched old kaiju movies all day.
He's still loopy, but he yelled at me the whole drive home, which is normal for him (he hates car rides), so that's a good sign he's feeling better. We've been cuddling while I watched old kaiju movies all day.
Sorry, I know the Rant thread is largely for negative things, but I figured it better to post the update here with the other posts.
In completely unrelated news, I'm on the verge of quitting my job. The company I work for makes so many changes that are completely detrimental to customers- especially seniors - and I have to take the goddamn brunt of it and explain or defend these insipid decisions.Like recently, they're now forcing ALL customers to e-billing, saying they're doing it for the environment.
I'm, of course, a big advocate for the environment, but there are many customers who don't want e-bills, or don't have access to email or a computer. So they're screwed.
Another thing is they force many customers to do things through their own account on the company website. Add or change a credit card for preauthorized payments? You have to do that. Can't? Tough shit because agents like me LITERALLY can't do it for you with the system we use.
There are so many corporate decisions that not only frustrate customers but agents like me have to take the brunt of it. And I feel completely voiceless and powerless because no one at the company listens to my or anyone else's concerns.
Worse, if I quit, I have literally nothing. I'm 43 and I don't have any valuable skills or experience for any better job. The best I could hope for is another shit call center job at another corporation who doesn't give two shits about me, its workers, or its customers.
I'm, of course, a big advocate for the environment, but there are many customers who don't want e-bills, or don't have access to email or a computer. So they're screwed.
Another thing is they force many customers to do things through their own account on the company website. Add or change a credit card for preauthorized payments? You have to do that. Can't? Tough shit because agents like me LITERALLY can't do it for you with the system we use.
There are so many corporate decisions that not only frustrate customers but agents like me have to take the brunt of it. And I feel completely voiceless and powerless because no one at the company listens to my or anyone else's concerns.
Worse, if I quit, I have literally nothing. I'm 43 and I don't have any valuable skills or experience for any better job. The best I could hope for is another shit call center job at another corporation who doesn't give two shits about me, its workers, or its customers.
I can understand your concern. As you are a customer service person, I can believe the decision by your company affects your work a great deal.
I think one thing that you might want to take into account is that your company is probably not doing this just to annoy their customers. They likely have calculated that this move will lose them less revenue than it will generate in savings with opportunity costs taken into account, as the person putting the bills into the envelopes needs to be paid after all, plus postage. The same likely goes for most of the other decisions they've made; they're made for the greater financial sense in the company. Whether the decisions were right or wrong, the goal most likely was to the greater benefit of the whole.
Which, of course, I can believe does not help your work in the slightest. But as you know, a for-profit company does not exist in order to provide a service per se, they exist in order to increase shareholder value by a sufficient amount by doing it. They need to be efficient, or in general lose out to the competition. I believe for most companies that is the reality they are operating under.
I guess what I'm saying is that you might want to take another look and consider your course of action. I'm not saying you haven't already done so, what I am saying is that you might find it a challenge to find a company that's not likely into the same kind of mindset as the one you are currently working in. My personal principle has always been to stick with the job I have at the time until I find a better one, whether 'better' means better in terms of career, or a job that is more in line with whatever my personal views might suggest. It has served me reasonably well so far.
As my signature suggests, just my two cents after a couple of pints. Please take them for what they're worth.
Last edited:
GasBandit
Staff member
Speaking as someone who has seen it happen a hundred times in the last year, this decision was made because somebody made a report that showed it would have a net positive effect on the bottom line, and any inconvenience to customers or callworkers is completely disregarded because the report runners and decision makers are completely insulated from any inconvenience or accountability.
While I obviously agree having a job lined up before quitting is advisable, I also think sometimes it's just not possible.
Stuck in a mind-numbing soul-crushing empathy-burning, energy-draining corporate lackey job isn't the best headspace to be in when going on job interviews, and it can be near if not actually impossible to muster the energy and will to look for something different (let alone better!) while there.
While I don't hate my current job, I definitely could've done better. But I'm currently not at all in the mental space I need to be in to find something new and better.
Stuck in a mind-numbing soul-crushing empathy-burning, energy-draining corporate lackey job isn't the best headspace to be in when going on job interviews, and it can be near if not actually impossible to muster the energy and will to look for something different (let alone better!) while there.
While I don't hate my current job, I definitely could've done better. But I'm currently not at all in the mental space I need to be in to find something new and better.
Which would bring me right back to where I was 2+ years ago: overwhelming stress and depression because I'm completely useless and can't find a good job.
Was interviewing for a new job.
Interviewed with FOURTEEN people over the course of 2 weeks.
They let me know within 15 minutes of the last interview that I didn't get the job.
I feel like at some point in the process they could have told me sooner.
Interviewed with FOURTEEN people over the course of 2 weeks.
They let me know within 15 minutes of the last interview that I didn't get the job.
I feel like at some point in the process they could have told me sooner.
I can empathize. I'm sorry. The only other thing I can say is wish you luck, and hope that if you keep looking you will find the right place for you eventually.
I interviewed for a job right out of school 9 years ago they just sent me a rejection letter for last month. What?
Omg, what!? They clearly did some serious deliberation there.
I had a similar conversation recently related to the covid app. It is assumed that everyone has a smart phone and/or a computer. Not everyone does. They may not want or be able to access one. So, how would such person see their bill, pay their bill or check for issues?
That is foolish and they aren’t the ones on the front line wearing it.
I definitely can empathize with @ThatNickGuy on the type of work he is doing. I worked a call center job for 8 years. We had changes to our workflow constantly and it all seemed to be geared towards making the jobs of the higher-ups more easy. For example, we had a system when entering workorders that was one program. I put info into a ticket, then went to another screen to put in the work order, and then saved it all. It got changed to where I entered info on one program, saved, went to another program and entered the same info again to do the work order, saved, and then went back to the first program to enter the work order number, and saved it again. Same ticket would take 2-3 more minutes to do. The reasoning for this was that they were unifying the ticketing process across the various teams in the company. Basically so some manager/executive somewhere could pull up a single page and at a glance be able to tell how productive each team was. Nevermind our productivity dropping because we all had to learn new programs and switching between them, etc. They could just use that drop to justify us not getting raises or bonuses.
When the company moved the call center to the next state over, they offered me a spot. It was one of the hardest, but ultimately best, decisions I ever made to turn them down. I did tech support though and so was able to directly transfer my skills to my current job working IT in the local school systems. Also, because the company was moving, I was eligible for unemployment while I was looking for new jobs.
Good customer service skills are tough to come by, though. Tech stuff, especially as the technician in the schools, is about 60-70% managing people's expectations. Tech skills can be taught. As can a lot of other things, I bet. So, maybe look into other jobs that might be of interest but outside what you would normally consider. Receptionist or billing services, something like that, I'm just spitballing here. I bet a lot of them will have a good bit of on-the-job training for what is expected and many will really want someone that has good people skills.
When the company moved the call center to the next state over, they offered me a spot. It was one of the hardest, but ultimately best, decisions I ever made to turn them down. I did tech support though and so was able to directly transfer my skills to my current job working IT in the local school systems. Also, because the company was moving, I was eligible for unemployment while I was looking for new jobs.
Good customer service skills are tough to come by, though. Tech stuff, especially as the technician in the schools, is about 60-70% managing people's expectations. Tech skills can be taught. As can a lot of other things, I bet. So, maybe look into other jobs that might be of interest but outside what you would normally consider. Receptionist or billing services, something like that, I'm just spitballing here. I bet a lot of them will have a good bit of on-the-job training for what is expected and many will really want someone that has good people skills.
I'm just quoting this to save it as "example A of everything wrong" later on.
I think we are in agreement over this issue, then. Your description sounds like corporate management made a decision which would further shareholder interest by increasing the short term profits, at least according to information available at the time. This is along the lines I am referring to by saying companies exist to increase shareholder value. Whether or not the decision ended up being the right one is a separate issue.
Well, an argument can and has been made that the overall responsibilities of a private enterprise extend beyond what falls under pure economic self-interest. I believe the jury is still out on that one.
Last edited:
I assumed by "everything wrong" he was referring more to how this idea of acceptable losses has permeated corporate thinking, and how they can't be happy with something that just works, it has to be studied and adjusted and tinkered with in order to ensure that they are maximizing every last scrap of profit they can reap. This is the sort of thinking that leads to 200+ different flavors of Kit Kat bars and unnecessary complication just because they start obsessing over gaining a mere 3% of additional market penetration/share.
--Patrick
They are actually fighting over 0.5%. A 3% swing would spell the death of one of their competitors.
I don't know where the equilibrium point would be (and I'm certain it varies by industry), but sooner or later there MUST be a point where diminishing returns kick in hard enough that the hassle of (ever-)accumulating complications starts dragging down any progress. Yes, you can get more done if you push your workforce to function at 95% productivity instead of 85%, but how fantastic is that extra 10% really going to be when a year later you discover it also meant the amount of RSIs and other stress-related physical/mental issues doubled, not to mention the increase in error rate and turnover?
--Patrick
I'm pretty sure "everything wrong" was the idea that human suffering is justifiable and acceptable as long as it leads to profits.
Saying that a corporation exists only to increase profits absolves the people running that corporation from their wrong doing. It allows them to hide their greed and short sightedness behind the nebulous idea that they are only automatons carrying out the will of capitalism and that it's not their fault how much they destroy the earth or harm people because hey we gotta appease those shareholders. It is giving breath to the myth of the so called invisible hand of the market and the flat out lie that it will self regulate because clearly it won't, and those people destroying the future for the payout in the present can rationalize their decisions with this cold ideology.
"I was just following orders."
I had to try real hard not to bring up nazis, but I wanted to bring up nazis.
While the Nuremburg trials are the most famous for shutting down this defense, it is a defense that has been argued (unsuccessfully) in both civilian and military U.S. courts in cases that had nothing to do with Nazis. So I would say that, while it certainly evokes Nazis, it is a much broader issue than that, and one that does not hold up in criminal cases. It shouldn't work for business practices either.
Don't worry, you're not a hot female. You're not going to be leaving the company.
As I understand, the board of directors of a company is appointed by shareholders, responsible for overseeing business according to their interests. As long as the actions of the management remain within the boundaries of what lawyers can successfully argue in court, then they are guilty of no crime, and the continuation of their management is up to the shareholders in the form of the BofD and their confidence in the actions of the management, to whom the management is responsible to. Certainly, if the employees or anyone else feels that they have been unlawfully harmed by the actions of the company, then they can bring the issue before a legal tribunal, which I believe is the proper method for dispute resolution in a civilised society.
Or have I misunderstood something?
Last edited:
Example B