August 24th, 2004
|11:28 am - Training Fun|
I don't understand open-book quizzes. Rather, I don't understand people who get questions wrong on open-book quizzes. Especially when the open-book quiz has been specially formulated to be as easy as goddamned possible. I mean, we have a fill-in-the-blank section. The section consists of lines taken straight from the book with one word missing. Remember, it's open-book. THE LINE IS RIGHT THERE. And people are complaining that they got it wrong!
I've also learned that once I finish my training for this product and/or service, I am actually going to be only working with this product and/or service. The other products and/or services which I have been working with will no longer be products and/or services I will be working with. Apparently this means I'll be getting maybe 5 calls per 8-hour shift. And oh the rigamarole I'll have to go through each and every time.
Things are getting insane.
Anyway, here's your new abstract. It may be the last in the series for a while. Slightly running out of source material.
|Date:||August 24th, 2004 08:54 am (UTC)|| |
isn't five calls/eight hours a good ratio?
It would be if they weren't calculating our Average Handling Time across all calls. Before training I was taking maybe 40-50 calls a day. If one of those calls took 45 minutes, and they sometimes do (especially when dealing with that hellhole around New Jersey/Pennsylvania/Delaware) it'd average out across the other five-minute calls. If I take five calls in a day and one of 'em is 45 minutes long (due to circumstances beyond my control, of course, and not due to any incompetency on my part) and the rest are 5 minutes, their silly plan will somehow deduce I am not doing my job well.
You mean there's not a different standard on different products with different scripts?
These people are loons, of course.
Oh, it gets better.
One of our standard phrases is "covered for a tow to the closest dealer." Simple enough, right?
Only this New Client that I'm training for has decided they don't want us to say "closest." They want us to say "nearest." Even though we handle approximately fifty-nine other car companies and their subsidiaries and their accounts and never before has one raised a stink over goddamn semantics, and even though we've all had "closest dealer" burned into our brain, New Client says "oh nos you must say 'nearest' with us." Corporate talked back and forth with them over it. There's no rhyme or reason for it. New Client just likes "nearest." It's absurd, and even the trainer is forgetting to say "nearest" too.
What kind of America are we in, that you must deal with such loony OEMs and I must sell used cars?
I think I'll blame Reagan.
|Date:||August 24th, 2004 10:00 am (UTC)|| |
OK, yeah, that bites.
Gimmie your number and I'll make a bunch of quick 20-second calls to you :-)
I've actually thought of doing this a few times, just calling up the number and disconnecting as someone picks up. I don't know who I'd reach, but I know I'd be helping someone's average call time pretty nicely. Paying it forward, as it were.
|Date:||August 24th, 2004 09:02 am (UTC)|| |
When I was in 7th grade, our math teacher gave us a probelm set which included:
9 + 7 = 7 + ___?
and people were completely stumped. We were in 7th grade! We learned to add in first grade. You don't even need to know how to add to answer that question.
People have an astonishing capacity for dumbness.
|Date:||August 24th, 2004 10:02 am (UTC)|| |
Wait, addition is commutative?!? Gah, no wonder my code keeps failing.
I recognize that abstract! It's a fork!
Beware of bein' the roller when there's nothing left to roll.
|Date:||August 25th, 2004 02:40 pm (UTC)|| |