how-to block ads
|
|
view: topics flat text |
|
Comments on news posted 2005-08-18 10:23:31: As we mentioned yesterday, a Comcast user found her billing name changed to "bitch dog" after she had to complain repeatedly about poor service. ..
|
  oliphantI Have 8 BoobiesPremium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
3 edits | Of course... AFTER media heat. How about doing it because it's the right thing to do Comcrap? Suddenly in a day they go from "If this woman is not named Bitch Dog" to firings. Wow, I'm impressed. This should have been done the moment they found out about it...not waiting to find out if it is going to further tarnish their already horrid reputation for abusing customers.
As for support reps, who cares. They wouldn't be getting flak if they would just fix the problem right the first time instead of stringing along customers, blaming the customers or outright lying to the customers. | |
| |  newviewEx .. Ex .. ExactlyPremium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
kudos:1 | Re: Of course... Comcast - the Master of the Media Spin Machine | |
| | | | I smell *snort* *snort*. Lawsuits | |
| |
approval from:
dadkins 
| Some people will bitch no matter what.
Next day isn't quite fast enough for you? They did have to track down who it was through login ID's and the such. It seems to me, they did take action as soon as they found out who it was.
Some people are just never happy. | |
| | |  JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD | Re: Of course... said by LeftofSanity:
Next day isn't quite fast enough for you? "Next day" by who's account? Govan reported the incident over a week ago! | |
| | |  ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3
 ·DSL EXTREME
| said by LeftofSanity:
Next day isn't quite fast enough for you? They did have to track down who it was through login ID's and the such. It seems to me, they did take action as soon as they found out who it was.
I think the problem lied in the fact that Comcast appeared to just be giving it a "meh" effort, when they should have reported that they are investigating the problem. Yesterday, it just seemed like they were saying, "Oops. Guess your name isn't b*tch dog. Here's 2 free months." | |
| | | |  Sr TechPremium
join:2003-01-19
New Fairfield, CT | Re: Of course... 2 free months, she should push for free for life. Comcrap could afford it. | |
| | | | | | | Re: Of course... "Comcrap" isn't responsible for this, the employees that were terminated were. They could of simply apologized and that should of been enough. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Of course... said by Skippy25:"Comcrap" isn't responsible for this, the employees that were terminated were. They could of simply apologized and that should of been enough. Comcast IS responsible for the actions of its employees, The same way you are responsible for people you let into your home or car or property.The employees represent Comacst's professionalism.Going public with this did not help Comcast's PR machine or image.
Had Comcast not responded the way they did, the fire would have been harder to put out, if nothing was done.IMO it would look as is, they lack professionalism.In addition to the percieved negative press-would have painted a picture.-the fox is in charge of the hen house.Not what any company would welcome as status quo.
--
Honk if you've never seen an uzi fired from a car window | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Of course... No Comcast is not responsible for the actions of their employees. All they can do is draw up the policies and enforce them. They can't control what every person they hire is going to do or say.
Unfortunately you are correct in saying they represent Comcast, just as you or I represent our families. If a person is out of line it is going to reflect poorly on them. But that does not make them responsible for their actions any more then you or I being responsible because a brother/sister/son/daughter/spouse robbed a bank or joined the klan.
Problem is every one wants to put blame on others. Usually it is the lawyers trying to pin blame on the ones with the bigger pockets. Any and every employee is fully responsible for their actions just as every person in the world is fully responsible for their actions. We can give all the reasons we want as to why someone else is to blame, but in the end it comes down to us deciding to do what we did. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Of course... Just asking the question....if a bartender serves drinks to someone and they get in a car and kill someone because they had too much to drink, can that family of the deceased hold the bar liable in a lawsuit?
--
It's muni-licious! »www.tricitybroadband.com | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Of course... hell no, its the person who took that drink, no one else.. what if that too much to drink was 2 drinks. How on earth would the bartender know that? But you guys are right only in a messsed up society would anyone try to hold anyone liable besides the person who did the wrong. He could have always taken a cab. The final choice was his/hers | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Of course... said by hskrfan23:hell no, its the person who took that drink, no one else.. what if that too much to drink was 2 drinks. How on earth would the bartender know that? But you guys are right only in a messsed up society would anyone try to hold anyone liable besides the person who did the wrong. He could have always taken a cab. The final choice was his/hers Guess again.
»www.newsobserver.com/news/story/···63c.html | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Of course... i'm not saying thats how it is. I know its not how it is hence my statement "Only in a messed up society [like ours] would anyone try to hold anyone liable besides the person who did the wrong". | |
|
| | | | | | |  JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | Yes. Comcast is responsible for the actions of its employees. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Of course... Thanks....just checking!  | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Of course... And there is the problem with our legal system and our frame of mind.
Yes, a bar can be held responsible as they have been in several court cases. But should they be? No, it was not the bar owner that served that drink (unless they were the bartender). It was the bartender that should been held responsible, but even before that it is the person doing the drinking responsibility.
I would gaurantee if the bartender was the one with the big pockets, then that is the one they would go after. However, since the bar is the one with the big pocket (through profit or insurance) they are the one the lawyers go after.
I do find it quite interesting that you give an example that not only passes the blame one level but two. You pass the blame from the moron in the accident around the bartender who made the decision to give him/her another drink right into the hands of the bar owner who had absolutely nothing at all to do with the entire incident, probably wasnt even in the establishment at the time, and probably has a policy conerning cutting off patrons which the bartender violated.
I guess by your guys way of thinking if I go do something wrong my employer should be held responsible for it as well. Regardless of whether or not it was while I was "working". They employ me and my actions reflect upon them, so they should be responsible for my actions 24 hours a day 7 days a week. So in your example the bar shouldnt be the ones responsible, it should be the guy's employer!! | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Of course... Skippy-
You had stated that the employers (Comcast) were not responsible for the actions of their employees (irresponsible CSR's). I didn't say this pertained to employees on their downtime away from work. I didn't agree with your statement, so I provided an example where the business owners can, and often are, held responsible for the actions of their employees.
I don't care if people want to say these guys were rogue CSR's. Fine, so be it. But ultimately Comcast the company has to take responsibility for these two yahoos.
Here is another example. When a plane crashes it could be pilot error. Who can also be sued and often is held responsible? The airline. Same thing here with Comcast.
I am not saying it is right, I am not saying it is fair, I am saying that is the way of the world these days.
Just my own opinion...take it or leave it. And I'm guessing it may be 50/50 both ways.
--
It's muni-licious! »www.tricitybroadband.com | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | said by Skippy25: But should they be? No, it was not the bar owner that served that drink (unless they were the bartender). It was the bartender that should been held responsible, but even before that it is the person doing the drinking responsibility. The owner of the drinking establishment, Holds the liquor license.The LCB deals with the liscense holder, not the employees directly.When undercover LCB agents pose in some bars as patrons, after recieving complaints about a bar.
If underage drinking was discovered, the bartender will be fined along with the liscense holder.The liscense holder will have said liscense suspended,either for a few months or it may be permantly.Due to employee actions.
said by Skippy25:I would gaurantee if the bartender was the one with the big pockets, then that is the one they would go after. However, since the bar is the one with the big pocket (through profit or insurance) they are the one the lawyers go after. I gaurantee both bar owner and employee will face both criminal charges and civil suits for serving alcohol in a example like this.The bartender should have quit serving this person and called a cab.Bartenders know the law especially if the have been a bartender for a while.They know what signs to look for, when one reaches the cut-off point.Would this also includes his/her best friend for not preventing this person from driving.Maybe friends put pressue on them to drink.
said by Skippy25:I do find it quite interesting that you give an example that not only passes the blame one level but two. The bar owner is responsible not only for his employees, but for his patrons, alcohol is being served from someone to a patron, regardless of who served the alcohol.
said by Skippy25: You pass the blame from the moron in the accident Suppose this moron was your son or daughter out with friends.Spring break, college hazing whatever,Who would you blame in this case.?
said by Skippy25:around the bartender who made the decision to give him/her another drink right into the hands of the bar owner who had absolutely nothing at all to do with the entire incident, The bar owner had everything to do with it, The liquor liscense is in his/her name, which enabled the bartender to serve alcohol, whether the owner was present or not.This patron under the influence may not know when they had enough.Most usually don't realize they're drunk.
said by Skippy25: probably wasnt even in the establishment at the time, and probably has a policy conerning cutting off patrons which the bartender violated. Your right the owner does not have to be present. I wouldn't say a policy, It's the law.Now suppose a group of friends got a table in the back room and bought beer by the pitcher, for the evening.
Maybe there was live entertainment, and through peer pressure the "moron" sitting at the table said,I had enough to drink, only to be encouraged by friends to,come on one more drink,be a man.
By your logic the person who may have bought his friend a drink,Is the one responsible.? It does not work that way, using your logic.The Establishment itself is responsible, no matter who served the alcohol putting this "moron" over the legal limit.
said by Skippy25:I guess by your guys way of thinking if I go do something wrong my employer should be held responsible for it as well. Now you got the idea, You are on company time,like it or not they are responsible for your actions.
said by Skippy25: Regardless of whether or not it was while I was "working". They employ me and my actions reflect upon them, so they should be responsible for my actions 24 hours a day 7 days a week. So in your example the bar shouldnt be the ones responsible, it should be the guy's employer!! While at work, yes your actions do reflect upon the company.Where do you get the 24/7 from.?What you do off the clock on your own time is,your own responsibility and business,you must answer for yourself then.
--
Honk if you've never seen an uzi fired from a car window | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Of course... Bar owners might or might not be liable for the drunkenness of their patrons, depending on the *state* in which the bar is licensed.
At common law, a supplier of alcohol could not be held liable for the injuries or death of a person to whom alcohol was furnished. While the enactment of so-called "dram shop acts" in some jurisdictions rendered commercial sellers of alcohol subject to statutory liability in a variety of situations, these acts were generally interpreted as being inapplicable to persons who served alcohol in informal, social settings with no motive for pecuniary gain.
In recent years, however, the growing concern about underage drinking and drunk-driving tragedies has prompted the courts in a number of jurisdictions to impose civil liability upon social hosts for injuries sustained by persons to whom alcohol was provided, particularly where the consumer is a minor. Nevertheless, in the leading case of Charles v. Seigfried (1995) 165 Ill.2d 482, 651 NE.2d 154, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that social hosts could *not* be held liable for serving alcoholic beverages to minors who were subsequently injured as a result of their intoxication. The court reasoned that the Illinois judiciary had steadfastly adhered to the historic common-law rule that there is no legal liability for injuries arising out of the sale or gift of alcoholic beverages and explained that although the Illinois legislature did create a limited exception to this rule when it enacted the Dramshop Act, the act simply did not apply to social hosts.
Of course, the arguments everyone has been batting back and forth here are very good, and were probably the very same arguments raised in the state legislatures when these types of laws were being considered. The bottom line, though, is to go look up the law in the state where you live, or consult a licensed attorney for the correct answer in your jurisdiction, | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Of course... Beezoster
In my state, after a little checking around, I found some info, with url's included.
Q: Who can be held liable under administrative liability?
A: The licensees (owners) and their employees can be held liable under the Pennsylvania Liquor Code.
Q: Does the Dram Shop Law pertain to the service of alcohol to a minor?
A: Yes, the licensee, server, and manager can be held liable for any death, injury or property damage caused by a person or minor who was served alcohol.
Q: May a server serve an alcoholic beverage to a visibly intoxicated person?
A: No, the server would be breaking the law and can be held liable both criminally and civilly.
Q: What is Dram Shop?
A: Dram Shop is third party liability. Dram Shop Laws make it possible for a 2nd and 3rd party to sue any person for any death, injury, or property damage caused by the service of alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person or minor.
Q: Who is the first party?
A: The first party is the owner of the liquor licensed establishment and possibly the manager who was on duty.
Q: Who are the second and third parties?
A: The second party is the visibly intoxicated person. The third party is the victim(s) of the incident.
Q: Why can individual servers and managers be held liable in these cases?
A: The server can be held liable because they had control of the alcohol and served it directly to the visibly intoxicated person. The manager may be held liable because it happened during their watch.
Q: How can it be proven that a visibly intoxicated person was served?
A: It can be proven by eyewitness accounts.
Q: How long do people have to file a Dram Shop lawsuit?
A: They have 2 years from the date of the incident to file the lawsuit.
Q: Are the licensees and servers expected to remember the incident 2 years from the date?
A: Yes, they are expected to remember the incidents that occur in the establishments.
Q: How can they remember something that happened 2 years ago?
A: They can fill out an incident documentation form or keep their video surveillance tapes for 2 years.
»www.lcb.state.pa.us/webapp/edu/r···quiz.htm
»www.lcb.state.pa.us/webapp/edu/RAMP/Faqs.asp
»www.pacode.com/secure/data/040/040toc.html
»www.lcb.state.pa.us/edu/cwp/view···=|32370|
»www.lcb.state.pa.us/webapp/edu/RAMP/Faqs.asp
Q: What is administrative liability?
A: Administrative liability is a violation of the Pennsylvania Liquor Code
Q: Who can be held liable under administrative liability?
A: The licensees (owners) and their employees can be held liable under the Pennsylvania Liquor Code.
I thank you for responding, I do agree with your advice.
quote:
consult a licensed attorney for the correct answer in your jurisdiction
--
Honk if you've never seen an uzi fired from a car window | |
|
| | | | | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | All businesses are responsible for the actions of their employees. Employees are part of the company's services/products and of course, a company is responsible for these things.
Who would you sue if an auto worker made a faulty weld on your new car causing you to crash? The worker? I'm pretty sure it should be blamed on the company's quality control procedures and not a mistake made by a worker -- even if the mistake was deliberate.
A deliberate action (especially if it's illegal), could give rise to the possibility of the company litigating the worker to recover its damages. However, most employees don't have sufficient assets to make this meaningful.
In this case, however, I don't think the customer deserves a whole lot. Perhaps a civil suit where she's given a few thousand on emotional/mental/stress grounds. And of course her lawyer will get a good portion.
I would say that the media attention to this case has been far more damaging to the company than the damages the company has inflicted upon the customer. | |
| | | | | | | | Reviews:
 ·Comcast
·AT&T Yahoo
| I can vouch for how crappy a FEW employees are at Comcast, I used to work for them. I have seen employees order porn on customers accounts and "sweep" this information uner the rug, so I can say that Comcast lets these few bad apples ruin their rep... | |
| | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·Shaw
| Re: Of course... said by cooperaaaron:I can vouch for how crappy a FEW employees are at Comcast, I used to work for them. I have seen employees order porn on customers accounts and "sweep" this information uner the rug, so I can say that Comcast lets these few bad apples ruin their rep... Stop spreading FUD, this is impossible in the current setup of the billing system. And take your trolling elsewhere. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Of course... Not fud, I used to work out of the Wheaton and Oswego warehouses in the Western burbs of Chicago. And it is not impossible if you leave the boxes on a customer's account active....:o Easy to do in the warehouse.:o | |
|
| | | | |
2 edits | OT... *could have
*should have
pet peeve, there is clearly a verb used in this case, not a preposition.
This annoys me about as much as the misuse of the "there" trio of homonyms annoys others here.:D | |
|
| | | | | |  cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5
 ·Frontier FiOS
1 edit | Re: Of course... BullSh*T said by timeshadow: What gives anyone the right to say things like this? If you want to get technical, these 39 guys did when they signed the Constitution and penned the Bill of Rights. It's called free speech. You can't stop them from saying it. If you don't like it, find a different profession. No one is FORCING you to listen to it.
Just like they can call you names and swear in your ear, you are also free to swear back at them. You can't be arrested for saying anything back. However, your employer can fire you since businesses don't have to follow the same freedom of speech laws that the government does.
--
"What gives them the right to come in and do this?" she said. - Lady complaining that she was getting FIOS in her backyard. | |
| | | | Reviews:
·Shaw
1 edit | Re: Of course... BullSh*T said by cdru:said by timeshadow: What gives anyone the right to say things like this? If you want to get technical, these 39 guys did when they signed the Constitution and penned the Bill of Rights. It's called free speech. You can't stop them from saying it. If you don't like it, find a different profession. No one is FORCING you to listen to it. Just like they can call you names and swear in your ear, you are also free to swear back at them. You can't be arrested for saying anything back. However, your employer can fire you since businesses don't have to follow the same freedom of speech laws that the government does. Well those 39 people never said there wouldn't be consequences, and they certainly wouldn't have called abuse free speech. I suppose you call rape/molestation freee sexual expression. There is a such thing as abuse of your rights, I bet you would be the first one to go whining about your rights if I berrated you with the same garbage. We as REP's WILL HANG UP ON YOU, because it is OUR RIGHT to not have to tolerate abuse. | |
| | | | | cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Frontier FiOS
| Re: Of course... BullSh*T said by pkarlos_76:Well those 39 people never said there wouldn't be consequences, and they certainly wouldn't have called abuse free speech. Probably. But it doesn't matter what they would have called it. Many courts in more modern times have ruled that profanity can be and often is protected speech. There are limits on it, but just uttering the words does not automatically exclude it from being free speech.
I suppose you call rape/molestation freee sexual expression. It's insulting to the both of us that you would even bring up such an analogy. I never said that or anything like that. There also isn't any concept as "freee (sic) sexual expression". It's not exactly a constitutionally granted right.
I bet you would be the first one to go whining about your rights if I berrated you with the same garbage. I have thick skin. You can swear up one side of me and down the other. It's not going to offend me. I'm actually fairly liberal. I may not like your message, but I support your right to present your message within the boundaries of the law.
We as REP's WILL HANG UP ON YOU, because it is OUR RIGHT to not have to tolerate abuse. And that's fine. I'd do the same thing and I've done the same thing. No one said that you had to put up with it. Now if it's your companies policy that you never hang up on a customer under any circumstance, then that is between you, your company, and your union (if applicable). If your company doesn't have a policy regarding what to do if a customer becomes by a customer, then it should get one.
--
"What gives them the right to come in and do this?" she said. - Lady complaining that she was getting FIOS in her backyard. | |
|
| | | | "their" not there ) | |
| | | | |
| | | I would expect nothing less then this from COMCAST they are no0t living up to expectations and they cover it by naming customers as bad or not worthy of its service when you complain I was called by director of FRESNO SCOTT BARBY and told I wasnt wanted as a customer any more I allready had ordered DSL and it is better speed qulaity and thouroughput then comcast service | |
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Of course... said by bombcastsux:I would expect nothing less then this from COMCAST they are no0t living up to expectations and they cover it by naming customers as bad or not worthy of its service when you complain I was called by director of FRESNO SCOTT BARBY and told I wasnt wanted as a customer any more I allready had ordered DSL and it is better speed qulaity and thouroughput then comcast service First off, this wasn't comcast. COMCAST didn't tell the CSR to change the name, the CSRs did it on their own. There are bad apples in every situation. Comcast would have fired those people with or without public knowledge of this event. To think otherise you'd simply be blinded by your hatred for an entity having lost all sense of reality, and quite honestly, stupid.
I can say this about your situation. The situation where a director has to call a customer happens in ALL businesses at somet point. I have been in on these calls before when they happen and for your call to make it to their desk happens for a couple of reasons. 1) Your problem was so horrific, never got handled and you took proper channels to escalate it. 2) The same case only the local franchise authority felt it was bad enough to sent it to the director directory, or 3)you were such a jerk (being polite here) and you abused everyone in the line of esacalation such as the CSR, the supervisor, call center manager, and others in the line that it finally got passed to the Customer Service Director that he was fed up with your behaviour that he said something along the line of "your welcome to take your business elsewhere" or something like "I feel it's best that you find your services somewhere else."
It's with in the rights of ANY company to refuse service to anyone if they are causing unnecessary disruption to their employees. So you'd be right to say that you $100 or so dollars a month isn't worth it to them.
Just because one has service problems doesn't give them the right to abuse the person on the other end of the phone. Even if your problem is not getting resolved to your satisfaction, your total remedy is to not do business with them. along the way you can call the franchise authority to help you with your problem, you can work it out and yes, get frsutrated and even show it, but when you cross the line and become abusive well, this is where I agree with the director.
Again, I am assuming that this was your case as it's more likely that people become jerks when they arne't happy. I won't accept that the company asked you to leave unless you did some so bad like tore everyone a new one. In that case, you think they care? There is a right and a wrong way to handle everything. Even if comcast sucks, remember what mothers & fathers everywhere say.. "be the bigger man" or "don't stoop to their level"...
I don't think you miss them and I think they won't miss you so I guess the problem was solved right? | |
|
| | | I'm worried that I might get my name replaced with "scrotum bag" on my next bill from Time Warner Cable after all the phone calls and e-mails that have been going back and forth between TW and me.
Although, as one who has previously worked in a call center for a major computer manufacturer, I've seen firsthand the crap that CSRs and customers can go through.
For my own sanity, I got out of this line of work.
I've seen instances where my employer at the time has actually canceled and refunded the remainder of a support contract due to the abuse a CSR took. Phone call was recorded, customer was an attorney and had the phone agent in tears. Phone agent exercised enormous restraint though and didn't insult the customer at all.
I've also seen/heard CSRs abuse customers as well. It shouldn't be tolerated in either direction. It's one thing to express frustration and dissatisfaction. It's something else entirely when attacks get personal. Dissatisfaction can be expressed without resorting to personal attacks. This goes both ways.
Because of this, I'm patient and civil with the folks I deal with in the tech support staff.
But as a customer, even my patience has its limits. | |
| | |  jansm38Vn800-BPremium
join:2003-05-19
Blackwood, NJ | Re: Of course... Funny you should mention that!
quote:
In another case, Peoples Energy customer Jefferoy Barnes started getting letters addressed to "Jeffery Scrotum Bag Barnes." »www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co···752.html
said by inzomniaq:I'm worried that I might get my name replaced with "scrotum bag" on my next bill from Time Warner Cable after all the phone calls and e-mails that have been going back and forth between TW and me. Although, as one who has previously worked in a call center for a major computer manufacturer, I've seen firsthand the crap that CSRs and customers can go through. For my own sanity, I got out of this line of work. I've seen instances where my employer at the time has actually canceled and refunded the remainder of a support contract due to the abuse a CSR took. Phone call was recorded, customer was an attorney and had the phone agent in tears. Phone agent exercised enormous restraint though and didn't insult the customer at all. I've also seen/heard CSRs abuse customers as well. It shouldn't be tolerated in either direction. It's one thing to express frustration and dissatisfaction. It's something else entirely when attacks get personal. Dissatisfaction can be expressed without resorting to personal attacks. This goes both ways. Because of this, I'm patient and civil with the folks I deal with in the tech support staff. But as a customer, even my patience has its limits. | |
| | | | JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Of course... I think it's important to note the difference in response between Peoples Energy and Comcast.
Peoples Energy had already investigated and taken care of the situation by the time the article went to print. Comcast had not.
said by the original Chicago Trib article:
"After a reporter inquired about the problem Tuesday, a company spokeswoman said the employee responsible was being fired.
"We have identified the representative who is responsible for this change, and this person is being fired immediately," Elizabeth Castro said.
"Additionally, we are now checking all records that this person had contact with to ensure that no other similar changes have been made. And finally, we have called the customer and have spoken with him directly to apologize for this. This is not how we treat our customers."
Barnes said he received an apologetic call Tuesday evening from a company executive.
But more than a week after receiving her bill, Govan has not heard back from Comcast, she said.
| |
|
| |
1 edit | I'm with you too. I've heard reps get death threats, being told they would be shot at it, and telling the female reps they were going to get raped.
All instances were recorded and the supervisor tagged the customer so they could never get service from us ever again and notified authorities.
Making threats like this in this day and age is not smart. | |
| | | | Reviews:
·Shaw
| Re: Of course... said by MartyParty:I'm with you too. I've heard reps get death threats, being told they would be shot at it, and telling the female reps they were going to get raped. All instances were recorded and the supervisor tagged the customer so they could never get service from us ever again and notified authorities. Making threats like this in this day and age is not smart. Not only that they are reported to police immediately and will face charges. Also remember calling in anonymous won't help you with call block, there is a feature called call trace. We get your number everytime if the customer misbehaves to the point where a crime is committed. In today's world u are not untraceable, it takesa good deal of money and much knowledge to be truly untraceable. | |
|
| | | I am a Senior Manager of a Service Delivery organizations with multiple global help desk representatives or CSR's as you may call them. I just told my Comcast horry story to one of our group managers and he sent me this link... LOL
I fully understand the pressure of being a CSR and I think it takes a special breed of person to be one (and we screen for that during the hiring process). That having been said, it is also any employees job responsibility to work for organizations that foster good quality customer service. If you work for an organization that enforces strict policies of mis-representing facts to the customer you should probably go work somewhere else. That having been said here is my comcast experience..
About 2 1/2 weeks ago I called comcast to cancel my existing service and begin a new service at my new residence. I was very politely told by the CSR that it would take over 2 weeks to schedule the new service because their contract vendor just quit. She (CSR) also explained that the entire company of subcontract installers just up and left qualifying it with "we were having trouble with them anyway".
So ok, I wait for the 18th (wow that is today) for my scheduled 8am - 11am installation appointment. My daughter (20) was home and was going to be my representative in my absence but I decided to stay home from work to await the arrival of the tech. At 10:10am I get a call telling me the computers were down and the days service orders did not print and that the installers still had to go get equipment from the warehouse so my installation would be delayed by over 2 1/2 hours. I explain to the CSR that if the tech comes between 2:45 and 3pm to wait as my daughter will be picking up her sister at school. The CSR says she noted that on the record. I wake up my daughter and let her know the tech will be at the house after 1pm cst. I head to the office. When I get off the elevator I notice a voice mail on my cell phone and immediately retrieve it not knowing why it went to voice mail since I have very good signal on my cell unless in the elevator. To my surprise the call was from comcast telling me "the tech went to my house at 10:45am and no one answered the door so they left" and that I could call back and "reschedule for later this afternoon or another time". So I call the number, battle my way through automated hell to finally get to a human. I politely explain to the CSR that I don't know why my daughter didn's answer the door but that I had waited at the house for the tech until I got the call that he would NOT be there until after 1pm. He said he was sorry but that the tech got there 15 minutes before the end of the scheduled period and that he could not get a revisit scheduled for today. Ok I understood that until he told me that it would be sometime in "September" for the next window of opportunity. Keep in mind that I already waited over two weeks to accomodate their other problem with the contractor quiting. I confess,,, I LOST IT BUT IN A VERY PROFESSIONAL WAY LOL.
I kinda loudly (I talk a little loud by nature) told him that September was unacceptable! I also explained in detail all of the above highlighting the fact that I already missed 1/2 a day of work. He politely asked me to hold a few times while he tried to get with the install group to see if the tech could come back sometime today. While I was on hold I called my daughter and gave her an ear full. When the CSR got back on the phone he told me that he was unable to reschedule for today and that September was the best he could do. I again told him that was not acceptable and asked to speak to a supervisor or manager (keeping in mind I am well aware of the policies and limitations of the front line CSR).
He then made the mistake of telling me "there were no supervisors or managers around" and that if anyone could help me it was him. To which I quickly responded "well you better go and find me a manager and that I would hold till he did". After about 3-5 minutes of listening to comcast commercials someone identifying himself as "the manager" got on the phone, seemed to be aware of parts of the conversation I had with the previous CSR and also tried to explain to me that the tech showed up and no one answered so they left. He also made it a point to tell me that the tech showed up during the time that was originally scheduled. I snapped back with "not really" I was told my new schedule was after 1pm. I asked him to call the tech and get him to come back my daughter was at the house waiting (and after talking to her while I was on hold I could picture her standing in front of the house holding a sign saying "comcast please come back before dad gets home"). I knew they could talk to the tech because he was able to call them and report no one answered the door so quickly to them, a fact I pointed out to the manager when he challenged it.
Well after a few rounds of discussion (loud and frustrated but no name calling) he told me there was a person he could talk to that may be able to get the tech to come back out between 5pm and 8pm today but that he would be calling in a "favor" in order to make it happen. I said that I appreciated that but was still very frustrated with the situation (some of my clients rubbing off on me). He then tried to offer me a $20 discount for the month. LOL. I told him that wasn't going to cut it for the time I waited (extended install period because of their internal problems) and the fact that I missed a half day of work (I have a boss too)and the fact that comcast called me to reschedule after 1pm again because of their internal problems. I have to pay my clients penalty payments (substantial) if any of my internal help desk problems impact their business. He said that the $20 was a gift and that most other business don't do that and started to give me examples roflmao at this point and getting even more frustrated with him. So I give him my contact number and he tells me that he will call me and let me know if they could get the tech to come back out today.
I called my daughter back just to tell her that not answering the door just cost us another 3 weeks of waiting and quickly slammed the phone down before I said something to her that I didn't want to LOL.
So I get another voice mail on my phone from comcast tell me that the tech will be at the house between 5pm and 8pm today. Good. I bet that would not have happen if I did not escalate and be forceful while doing so.
In summary,,, If I didn't do anything I would still be waiting till september for service from comcast. I will say that their attitude is kinda like they know they have you (DSL doesn't work in all areas and the disk isn't so great) and they know it. On the other hand I am paying double of what the alternatives cost and that means I should be getting a better service. The CSR's in this case should have offered to escalate on their own and should not have made me demand it. A good CSR would not have argued facts with me or told me "no managers are around" or they can't contact the tech or that they would be "calling in a favor" to give me the service I was lead to believe I would recieve.
WOW,,, I FEEL BETTER NOW. THANKS FOR LETTING ME VENT LOL.
I continue to be a comcast customer (unless they dont show today) and have always been satisfied with my cable tv and broadband service. However I can't wait for Verizon to put fiber in my area. | |
| | |
See 7 replies to this post | |
| | | its not like anyone has much choice, most people are not with comcast because they like it, we have really bad service systems here in the States, don't get me started on PENN | |
| |  Hayward K A R - 1 2 0 CPremium
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL
kudos:1
1 edit | said by oliphant:As for support reps, who cares. They wouldn't be getting flak if they would just fix the problem right the first time instead of stringing along customers, blaming the customers or outright lying to the customers. Like a CR tech fixes anything... no they are just glorified receptionists for the most part (but very basic account problems... little if anything technical), and just relay stuff to those who can. Now that happens of not is hardly their fault or glory.
--
»haywardm.com (Hayward's Key West)
| |
| | | Reviews:
·Shaw
| Re: Of course... said by Hayward:said by oliphant:As for support reps, who cares. They wouldn't be getting flak if they would just fix the problem right the first time instead of stringing along customers, blaming the customers or outright lying to the customers. Like a CR tech fixes anything... no they are just glorified receptionists for the most part (but very basic account problems... little if anything technical), and just relay stuff to those who can. Now that happens of not is hardly their fault or glory. They have the training to check status of equipment and assist the customer in troubleshooting the issue over the phone and correct any incorrect technical settings on the account, and correct some billing issues. 80% of issues a customer has in the technical area are due to an issue on the customers end, by troubleshooting on the phone the agent is able to correct the issue or track down the source of the issue and schedule a technician to come out, if the technician comes out needlessly thent he customer is liable as per service agreement for the cost of the wasted time of the technician and the technician can charge upto $49.95. | |
|
ebiebi
join:2003-08-13
Albuquerque, NM | CC did the right thing. Good. When I had comcast I usually had good CSR's to deal with. This is what I expected from Comcast. This is abnormal behaviour for any company and these fools sounded like they did not want their jobs. | |
| | | There is some validity to this.... ...BUT... It is the job of the CSR to handle this and take care of the problems. Isn't that why the Title if the position is CUSTOMER SERVICE REP? To Service the Customer. MAYBE if the company, whatever it may be, provided the service as subscribed, Billed the customer as subscribed, and repaired problems as subscribed... Customers wouldn't be so ready to fire off at the CSR. More often then not CSR's are beat up becasue they are scripted, uncaring, don;t take care of what the problem is, don;t take care of a problem that they say they will.. don't call back when they say they will, and do often get rude. It takes two to start an arguement... If the CSR, which is being paid by that customer on the line, diffused the issue and took care of the problem, what is left to argue about. I can tell you MANY times I have called and gotten some very good CSRs and I was ready to unleash but I couldn't because they were ready and stepped up to take care of the issue at hand.
Typically, if a customer is that irate, it is because of the hours and already spent on the problem, after numerous calls, and have gotten no where.. all for a service they are paying for!
Call SBC.. It is hilarious... They are scripted to all say the exact same thing... right off the bat.. "I'm sorry for the problems you are having, I can take care of that for you" I laugh.. becasue more often then not.. I'll be calling back for the exact same thing in a few days. | |
| |
See 12 replies to this post | |
 99664227Heavily MODeratedPremium
join:2002-11-21
USA |  Screw the Customer Service Reps
| |
| |
See 27 replies to this post | |
| | Hmmm... You don't realize what customer service rep goes through. On one side they have to do everything their employer says do, or trains them to do. On the other side they have to please the person on the phone. It's not easy, because my wife has been doing it for four years, and I get all the horror stories she is faced with when she comes home at night. Don't knock the customer service rep until you been one. I do admit that what those comcast employees did were wrong, but all customer service reps shouldn't get the evil eye.
My 2 cents. | |
| | 99664227Heavily MODeratedPremium
join:2002-11-21
USA | Re: Hmmm... said by Penny3000:You don't realize what customer service rep goes through. On one side they have to do everything their employer says do, or trains them to do. On the other side they have to please the person on the phone. It's not easy, because my wife has been doing it for four years, and I get all the horror stories she is faced with when she comes home at night. Don't knock the customer service rep until you been one. I do admit that what those comcast employees did were wrong, but all customer service reps shouldn't get the evil eye. My 2 cents. Did CSR work when I was in college. It's a job like any other job that entails dealing with the public via the phone. Like any other job you have requirements. Can't meet those requirements get another job, CSR work isn't for you. It wasn't for me.
In regards too the CSR at Comcast they are lucky they got fired. A good attorney can sue Comcast for millions on a defamation suit.
--
My hourly rates:$25 per hour.$35 per hour if you want to watch.$45 per hour if you want to help.$75 per hour if you tried to fix it, and failed.The biggest error is sitting in front of your keyboard. | |
| | | gh4456Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-07
Beverly Hills, CA | Re: Hmmm... Defamation?
Can she prove shes not a "bitch dog"? | |
|
 xdeadhead220, 221, Whatever It Takes.Premium
join:2000-11-08
Mechanicsburg, PA
·Verizon FiOS
·Comcast
| what goes around , comes around.... ya know what? even if your service is not functioning properly, treat the person in the call center with respect cause they are the ones who can actually get you to the right dept that can help you. no matter how pissed you might be, yelling and screaming does not accelerate your ticket to the proper place. most call centers now will terminate an abusive call. the name change on the account was a bit much though. those reps got what they deserved and im sure it took a thorough internal investigation to make it happen. funny, my grandma always said you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. still holds true today.
--
I am not Herbert. | |
|  pcdebbRIP dadkinsPremium
join:2000-12-03
Brandon, FL
kudos:4 | I've been there on the side of being the CSR (at an ISP). I can agree that they get the heat from customers, and I've given the heat when i've dialed a 800 number, but no matter what, it is totally unacceptable to do what those guys did. I dont care how mad you get at someone who's screaming at you for whatever reason, but to become a "bitch dog" is way out of line. and the guy who is sticking up for them? good for him, but I DO NOT feel guilty because they cant pay their bills or feed their children. they should have thought about that before they did what they did. consequences is what they overlooked
--
babbling | |
|  Jim_FPremium
join:2004-01-19
Caldwell, NJ | Never been an issue for me I've had my share of crappy service and problems, but for whatever reason, I've never been re-named a bitch dog or scrotum bag. Perhaps it's because I always treat the CSR I'm speaking to on the phone with respect, and try to be as nice as I can be.
I'm sure this lady had bad service, and that's not cool. And I'm sorry she got called a bitch dog. But chances are she deserved it for the way she spoke to the CSR. | |
| |  insomniacOh YeahPremium
join:2002-09-22
Naperville, IL
·Comcast
·AT&T Midwest
2 edits | Re: Never been an issue for me said by Jim_F:I've had my share of crappy service and problems, but for whatever reason, I've never been re-named a bitch dog or scrotum bag. Perhaps it's because I always treat the CSR I'm speaking to on the phone with respect, and try to be as nice as I can be. Exactly. I have never yelled, used profanity or made derogatory comments while speaking to a CSR, regardless of how frustrating the situation may be.
--
If everything seems to be going well, you've obviously overlooked something. | |
|
| | Keep it in perspective I am always entertained how people ream a company when their employees do wrong.
It's one thing if the company has a policy that allows such an action or even endorses it, but it is another when the employee's act outside the acceptable behavior of the company.
I doubt very seriously that when this was found out that the upper management of Comcast just brushed it off as if it is no big deal. On the outside it may appear that way, but I would imagine as soon as this was found out it was investigated with the direct intent of firing the person involved. The other person fired may have very well been the person making it hard and time consuming to find the actual person responsible. | |
| |  hobgoblinSortof AgoblinPremium
join:2001-11-25
Orchard Park, NY
kudos:4 | Re: Keep it in perspective Exactly Skippy.
It was an incident that could happen in any walk of life and does every day.
Yawn
Hob
--
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | |
| | Reviews:
·Shaw
| said by Skippy25:I am always entertained how people ream a company when their employees do wrong. It's one thing if the company has a policy that allows such an action or even endorses it, but it is another when the employee's act outside the acceptable behavior of the company. I doubt very seriously that when this was found out that the upper management of Comcast just brushed it off as if it is no big deal. On the outside it may appear that way, but I would imagine as soon as this was found out it was investigated with the direct intent of firing the person involved. The other person fired may have very well been the person making it hard and time consuming to find the actual person responsible. And I bet they are already taking the issue up with the labour board saying someone else did it which is easy to do with the lack of security in some aspects in the places with passwords and logins. | |
|
2 edits | Well DUH "We have never had this kind of thing happen," she said. "We do a large amount of transactions with customers in the market every day. So we really look at this as being an anomaly."
Um...are they like...paranoid or something? Having to point that out?
What a funny story anyway. I don't see it that Comcast is a Big Bad Meanie in this case. Come on! It was just some dumb punk. Not a big deal. I've been called much worse by much better people many times. I'd say most people have.
Edit: BITCH DOG w00f! LoL Actually that's a pretty hot name.  | |
|
4 edits | Seek first to understand before being understood And that sir is why call centers have the biggest amount of turnaround I have seen. People complain about scripts. They do it because it has been proven to work. These people are not phone actors, if they were and could say things more convincible, they would have been doing something else. Remember, people do not sit back and think of new and innovative ways to anger their customers. On the contrary, reps go through training and are thought to use key words that help diffuse situations and show empathy. Some reps just suck at it but they are trying to improve. The ones that are not good end up leaving or terminated.
I also deal with this all day. I have people who claim to be mistreated or victims of discrimination. When I listen to the recording, I find the person making the claim ended up being completely out of hand. They insult, berate, curse, scream, threaten and belittle reps and sometimes even make racists or sexist comments. They also have long winded theories that people are out to get them. Husbands calling in to check on wifes. They try to involve us in lover’s quarrels. They always want to speak to a supervisor, hang-up if they are on hold for more then 20 seconds. Tie up to or three lines to try to get people confused or get someone that may complete their request. They think the reps are too stupid to complete their “complicated” request. I understand this may occur because of experience with other call centers, but come-on, give people a chance.
Do not get me wrong, I am not talking about Comcast or any other company that is known for bad service. I am talking about my experiance. It is out commitment to provide excellent service and we know we do by the surveys we received. Out of a scale of 1-5 we are always 4.75 and above. We also do this none stop and at random. Changes and policies are changed based on comments on surveys. We also answer the majority of the calls within 20 seconds and the longest you would wait on a heavy day is about 2 minutes. Even with this, we get people who complain about everything. They become so bad that a call center of well over 100 reps becomes familiar with them. We do not make any types of notations about their attitude or abuse, but we do notate the various times they have called to have fees reversed and exceptions made. Even though we say it is a one-time deal, it ends up being 6-7 times before we say enough is enough.
I do not think the woman that was treated badly was a saint when she called. She must have been unreasonably difficult and that is why a stupid rep took it upon them to take vengeance. I feel bad because now the obvious ass is now a victim on the newspaper, but do not feels so much because the company in question is Comcast. | |
| | | 'Customers'.... Of course, let's fire the two employees. Never mind that the so-called 'customer' in question probably cursed at these reps, threatened their jobs/lives, and repeated the ever-popular mantra of "THE CUSTOMER IS ALWAYS RIGHT!" while asserting she had the right to rape the employees' children with a strap-on.
I'm sorry, but I've dealt with 'customers' for 15 years. There are a few that are decent to deal with; the overwhelming majority are entitlement-based, whiny, demanding, and possessed of an arrogant superiority that would have made Hitler proud. I cannot wait for the day when people realize that they have a 'right' to nothing in life but death and taxes - not to order people in any industry in a manner that decent people would not talk to a dog to.
You don't believe me? »www.livejournal.com/community/customers_suck Enjoy the stories of the morass that supposedly makes up humanity. | |
| |
See 8 replies to this post | |
Primis1
join:2005-06-13
Coldwater, MI | The Company and Callers: The Reason The CSR's Suck Do you want to know the #1 Reason why CSR's aren't helpful, can't give correct information, snap at callers, etc?
It's because the company itself can't disseminate the proper info to them, and isn't in touch with what they're doing on a daily basis. That's a huge part of frustration on the CSR's side. They're not kept in the loop, and yet they're the ones that have to deal with the ramifcations of it all, not the execs passing down the policy.
So you end up with CSR's that can't help (not won't or don't have personal capability to), aren't aware of the newest information (because the company released info to the media and has yet to actually let any underlings know about it because they "forget" to let them know), and the end result is that this combined with self-righteous customers WILL result in retaliation by some CSR's.
Also, at a certain point the prospect of getting fired no longer matters. They can stop caring altogether. And just like it's a roll of the dice for the CSR as to if they get the good caller or the bad caller, it's the same random fate if the caller gets someone who cares, or gets the guy that's decided the next person that messes with him will get screwed over all he can and then he'll walk out on the job.
I said it in yesterday's thread and I'll say it in today's: I feel no sympathy for callers when they think a CSR has wronged specifically them. The CSR's don't just sit there and randomly decide to mess with someone -- the caller incites it. They cuss the CSR out over .50. They make actual threats at the CSR. They insult them. And they do it because the caller feels they're invincible because they have the mistaken notion that every CSR they get is going to be scared of losing their job if the caller complains about them.
Well, some don't care anymore. And when you cuss them out, push them over the edge finally, you should expect what you get. I've seen far worse. I've seen a CSR snap and verbally undress and berate a caller over the phone and make them cry, and walk out (to applause from some other CSR's including even a supervisor who was familiar with the caller) never to come back. And upon review of the call, the caller definitely earned it all. The way the woman caller was speaking to the CSR would not be considered acceptable in any other walk of life. So what makes them think they can treat the CSR any differently? You being the customer does not give you immunity to being a decent human being.
No caller ever got messed with for no reason. They incited something and brought it on. CSR's dont' have the time or inclination to randomly mess with someone, the job is too draining to do so. They're not out to create even mor estress and problems. | |
| | | | Re: The Company and Callers: The Reason The CSR's I always liked being asked to lie to the customers. Could never do that.
--
4 More years and we won't have a country. | |
| | | | Re: The Company and Callers: The Reason The CSR's Suck "They make actual threats at the CSR. They insult them. And they do it because the caller feels they're invincible because they have the mistaken notion that every CSR they get is going to be scared of losing their job if the caller complains about them.."
Customer -- >
' Im a network administrator and I read on DSL reports my whole area is having this issue '...
That person just lost credibility with that CSR. They feel they already know the problem and their going to exploit it. Instead of trying to be reasonable, they already know what the problem is, cant tell them anything different.. Why did they waste their time calling then? They want the enjoyment of putting something in someones face or making someone else feel smaller then they are.
Odds are, your getting rebooted and sent on your way, only to call back again.. and again.. and again.. 3 weeks later when their issue is NOT resolved, they ask themselves ' why have I been down for 3 weeks! '.. " Your the customer, your always right you wanted to be part of whatever was broke, you said you knew this to be fact, I just agreed with you. Now can you reboot your modem please so we can really find out whats going on? "( said with a smile )
I remember when I worked for an ISP.. there was a ' mouth piece ' on the forums here.. Unfortunately for him, he posted with his first initials and last name. He was VERY Unkind to the CSR's that offer genuine help here.. he berated them.. ' phone monkies ' was one of the kinder terms he used.
He mentioned to me ' I read on dslr that!! blah blah blah.. ' and I read back to him his posts... ' Your the same guy that called so and so a phone monkey? Bashed this other rep for.. then made off color comments in regards too... And you EXPECT me to help you?'
He hung up for some reason.. I dunno why.. Maybe his sails lost their wind. If he wouldn't have mentioned this site, I wouldn't have had the ammo to shut him down. Didn't dawn on me at the time as to whom I was speaking with... he ' told me '.
Remember folks, what you post on here is a public domain. CSR's read these forums from their homes. Companies/Management cannot stop the free-flo of information nor for an individual to make a judgement for themselves. If you want to berate something, it might change the perspective of an instance when that 1 in a million event of speaking to those whom read your posts will actually help you, or do the bare minimum and push you along ( or change your billing name, sign you up for all the pr0n spam/mailing lists.. etc.. ). ' Thats unprofessional ' no shit? but you think it doesn't happen and that Corporate America will help you? This whole site is ( alleged by some ) proof positive ( for the majority ) about how evil Corporate America is and how bad companies are to their customers.
If someone on here posted a message saying ' ISP YYZ's agents are all a bunch of degenerates ' and then their bill came with a different slang term for a name.. *I* wouldn't bat an eye. I fully believe these incidents have been happening for quite a while, the media just decided to shed light on it for whatever reason.
If your service is THAT bad, why are you being an idiot and keeping it? Ditch it and go with something that works. | |
|
 N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | These reps were wrong..period I'm not gonna rip all customer service folks a new a hole. It's a shitty job, like working retail, or being a nurse in an old folks home. It's pretty much never EVER a fun job. Whenever I call for assistance, I am always polite, and if I have to, I simply ask for a supervisor, and talk to him/her. However, if a rep gets rude, insulting, or uses foul language with me first, ALL bets are off...
That said, I think the author of this story is a little of course. He states in his article.
"They didn't screw up your cable, or cash the bad check, or crash into the tree, or relieve themselves on your dumpsters, or melt your computer. It wasn't their fault. "
No, they didn't , but these reps did change this customer's name to "Bitch dog", and for that, the deserve to lose their jobs. If their kids starve, or whatever the author was crowing on about, it's the employee's fault, and not the company.
The bottom line? Actions have consequences. These reps took action that was inappropriate. The consequence? Unemployment.
Appropriate? In my opinion, absolutely.... | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
 TrueAudio192khzPremium
join:2002-02-24
Richmond, CA | Doesn't surprise me Customer service is going right down the shitter. And this is another fine example of it. Nobody gives a rats ass about anyone anymore. Its like every man fend for himself these days. Its probably due to low pay and overworked labor.
This type of incident would have never hit the streets 20 years ago. Never! I just don't understand whats going on with the world. Its soo "me, me me, me" it makes my head spin.. Nobody cares about anyone but themselves.. and its getting worse everyday. No one wants to do a good job anymore. Get me in and get me out quickly. I hate the way the world is going and this another fine example of the pure disrespect in this country. I don't find this surprising one bit though.
On a side note, I was a Comcast installer once. And these customers do tend to get seriously out of hand sometimes. I had a lady tell me she was going to call the cops on me because i wasn't going to put an outlet in her apartment without written consent from the landlord. Told me i was lying about the letter and i just didn't want to do it. Then told me to leave her house (i was on private property) as soon as she saw i had the video working..
So, this lady probably pulled some crazy antics on someone along the line, and this was the result. I don't agree with it but when you start telling the cable guy your going to call the cops on him, when you scheduled them to come to your house. Then I can see how a situation like this could happen. | |
| | | | Re: Doesn't surprise me If everyone would just remember the golden rule!
Treat others the way you want to be treated.
Or is it
The One with the GOLD makes the Rules. | |
| | | | "Customer service is going right down the shitter. And this is another fine example of it. Nobody gives a rats ass about anyone anymore. Its like every man fend for himself these days. Its probably due to low pay and overworked labor. "
Not really ( Believe it or not ) . Its the Job itself. Would you rather 15$/hr and go home happy or 20$ and go home hating life?
Would you pay 100$ for a connection every month that never goes down, or 50$ for one that is hit or miss sometimes?
The good people in the CSR field use it as a stepping stone, then break away from it. Why would ANYONE want to read a site like this and then go work for an ISP? You cannot go into ANY forum from ANY provider and not see the flaming.
Why should a CSR care about YOU, the customer, when management wants their ' talk times ' down lower and more calls answered? Management in this country is CONVINCED they have the answers and the CSR's are all wrong. That CSR's statistics have to make a certain ' Average ' every month. If they don't.. the door swings.
*I* would rather someone whom takes an hour and gets the customers issues resolved then someone whom does patchwork and gets rid of them in 30mins. When you average out the expences of running a call center, all that is seen are ' costs of operation '.
The CSR's don't make those phones ring, nothing of their actions causes a dilema.. but they are expected to handle the brunt of it. " its their ' job ', their ' problem '.. " *I* don't think so. | |
|
1 edit | All jobs are tough, but I have had quite a few jobs and can say the amount of abuse outnumbers other careers. While in retail, you could interact with maybe 30-60 people per day, a CSR will interact with 150-175 people each day. When you look at these numbers, the chances of having a bad experience are greatly increased. You may have one bad person per day, but a phone rep has about 6-10 each day. While that still may not seem as much, just one of them can ruin your day completely.
It is also true that they are the last to learn. Many times, we find things out from the customer because upper management believes if unnecessary to inform the front line.
My wife works at a restaurant and deal with rude people. She has had food thrown at her face because another person committed a mistake. So even though it is not her fault, she gets the punishment. Also, why would some people think that getting an incorrect order is a pass to throw food at someone? | |
| | | | | | | Re: All jobs are tough, but "People who are rude to CSRs need to be politely told to discontinue the abuse or else their service will be terminated".
NO! That CSR would be shown the door. Its cheaper to fire a CSR and hire someone off the streets then to loose revenues... | |
|
|  Tiberus
join:2002-09-06
Plainfield, CT | Maybe she is ugly or fat, I noticed that ugly or fat people often get food thrown at them | |
|
 dddane
join:2002-01-10
Chicago, IL | i think people are fed up... I think these days, customers are angry before they even call... Companies seem to have REALLY bad CSRs in India, or just really bad high school reps here. Did anyone bother to ask the age of the reps at Comcast that were fired (i haven't seen this info anywhere). I'd be they weren't over 25.
People are getting fed up with CSR's in general... how many times do you call a customer service hotline and get someone in india, whose name is thomas jefferson, who doesn't know that Chicago is a city in Illinois? If you're me, your answer would be "quite frequently" ... Unfortunately, there are too many companies off-shoring their customer service to get cheap labor and a customer service rep somewhere that does half as good of a job....Even the best of companies have done it (Dell, anyone?). This sets our expectations for CSRs extremely low, and when we call a CSR we are expecting to have to fight to get anything done right... Its unfortunate for the companies that don't offshore, as the CSRs everywhere are getting the backlash... But even those CSRs that are here are very often imcompetant at what they do ..
Lets face it, for most companies customer service went out the door years ago... (some never had it).
If this would have happened 15 years ago, the president of the company would be calling the victim personally and offering free service for life. They wouldn't be saying, "oh, you mean your name isn't Bitch Dog? We'll update our database." and offering 2 months of service free for her troubles. | |
| | RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: i think people are fed up... Precisely.
It's really interesting reading the supposed-CSRs here trying to defend this as "the customer deserved it". I think they've made your point dozens of times over.
One little thing they are missing is this wasn't just an internal system they messed with. The name was changed on something printed and sent out into the public realm. In other words, it was published. There can be severe repercussions for that for both the individuals, their supervisors and the company.
--
Let me see you make decisions, without your television. | |
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | said by dddane:Lets face it, for most companies customer service went out the door years ago... (some never had it). This simply is a statement that ages you. Customer service, even in the 50's, was definetly there. Times have changed, more customers to serve, people want and expect what they had years ago and it's just not able to happen today at the same leve. You want that today? The cost of goods and services WILL go up.
If this would have happened 15 years ago, the president of the company would be calling the victim personally and offering free service for life. They wouldn't be saying, "oh, you mean your name isn't Bitch Dog? We'll update our database." and offering 2 months of service free for her troubles.
I think you are wrong. 15 years ago was not much different than today. In 1990, these phenominon of "let me have your supervisor" was already well in full swing. Go back to the 80's and you never had to deal with supervisors ebcause the CSR was able to do the job - and all with out a customer "gettin' in your face" as the younger generation of today thinks is acceptable.
No, 15 years ago the president of the company would not be calling, and no, you would not be getting "free service for life"...
Also, to clear up the statement that was made in the paper or at least give it MY take on what she was saying is that "if this is not her name, then it shouldn't be there..." Do you know how many people are able to get names put in on their accounts today that are funky names, their pets name, or something they made up? I think what the spokeslady was saying (and you have to remember, it's one sentenance/sound bite of a whole conversation we were not privy to) was that if Comcast employees did indeed change the name, then they should not have done that and that's what caused her statement. Further, she was stating that if the name was on the account from the get-go, then what's the company to do? Was this a stunt pulled by a customer to shake the company down like the Wendy's Finger-in-the-bowl-of-chilie lady did? It's only fair that comcast be given the time to investigate the WHOLE story before comitting themselves to binding words. This statement, if you remember, was done so BEFORE the investigation.
So seriously, people need to look past that statement and move on and stop taking alot of the facts out of context. | |
| | | RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: i think people are fed up... Wrong. You don't have enough info to make those assumptions. It was covered by TV and the papers here, and Comcast was definitely giving her the brush-off before the bad publicity hit. And from the usually pro-business Tribune at that.
People's Gas had a similar incident and they fired the people involved, and went out of their way to satisfy the customer involved, without any publicity. The only reason it came to light was via the Citizen's Utility Board. That's the way you handle bad personnel.
Comcast dropped the ball, plain and simple. Your multi-paragraph excuse is amusing, but dead wrong.
--
Let me see you make decisions, without your television. | |
| | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: i think people are fed up... You really need to skip over my post.
Your insultive and nasty toned responses are getting old, RD. | |
|
 rrz103RichardZPremium
join:2003-09-16
Canton, MI | That's the Point Quote: "Meanwhile the Tribune editorialists wonder who stands up for abused support reps?"
Who would want to work for a company that provides very poor service to its customers and in turn receives numerous complaints. The feeling that the customer service rep isn't (directly) responsible and shouldn't hear about the problems is ridiculous. They need to convey these complaints (and unhappiness) to their supervisors. At the same time they should be treated humanely.
Hopefully this episode will only promote Comcast to improve customer service.
As a side note and a personal rant, I have Comcast and I think they're crap.
--
Rich Z - »www.richardz.com | |
| | | CSR what? No one said customer service was easy. Regardless of company policy, it is the individuals responsibility to take ownership of how they do their job. If they arent given enough knowledge then THAT is a policy/communication problem. Everyone has the ability to control their emotions and what they say regardless of the situations. Needless to say, I have no sympathy for those CSR's, they were obviously in the wrong line of work. | |
| | | It's a management problem If people who were fired were only frontline csr's nothing will change. Comcast's truly horrible service and support when MANAGEMENT is held accountable. The problems are systemic and firing a couple of csrs won't make a difference.
Who needs to be fired:
1. The person who did it.
2. That person's boss.
3. The boss's boss.
Comcast service will never improve until all layers of middle managementup to and including VP's are held accountable for what their employees do.
The most important part of a manager's job is being responsible for what other people do. | |
| |
See 10 replies to this post |
| |
|
·
·