Do Public Servants have to give their name?

Lofty123

chopper6 wrote: »

No...some of us actually work for a living and will have to pay for GP and hospital visits anyway.

My daughter worked as well, before an accident at work caused her condition.
She would love to be able to work, but cannot through no fault of her own. I hope it never happens to you.

Friend Computer

When I worked--briefly, as with brendanL it was a temp position during the summer many years ago--as a civil servant, nothing made my blood boil quicker than some narky arsehole smugly asking my full name. And it was always asked after I told them I couldn't help them, through no fault of my own and they always asked for it in a tone that suggested I'd personally killed their first-born. Usually they'd be looking to speak to someone in the office that wasn't there and telling them that would not be met with civility and understanding, as you might expect from a normal person.

To clarify, I worked in accounts payable in a local office of the county council. My only interaction with the public was in answering phone calls, as everyone else in the office did.

So no, after being threatened a couple of times I didn't exactly feel like giving out information that could be used to identify me by idiots and maniacs in the general public.

jamesjoyce1710

Lofty123 wrote: »

My daughter worked as well, before an accident at work caused her condition.
She would love to be able to work, but cannot through no fault of her own. I hope it never happens to you.

can you not pay for medical insurance for her/pay ofr it out of the compensation she got from work? is it the states job to pay for every person who has a medical condition?
like, in fairness half the country has a medical card? that the big joke in all this

runawaybishop

Lofty123 wrote: »

The initial reason my Daughter requested the lady's name was to have a contact within an anonymous department to ensure that documents sent did not get "lost" or "not received", which has happened to her before. This is important, letters from government departments now demand that you respond within 7 days! Good luck trying to get a response from them within that time.
This was explained at the time, only to be met with rudeness. If you cannot deal with people in a civil manner, you should not be answering calls from them.

So you asked for her name after accusing them of incompetence and are surprised when she got snippy? Maybe politeness goes both ways.

Lofty123

jamesjoyce1710 wrote: »

can you not pay for medical insurance for her/pay ofr it out of the compensation she got from work? is it the states job to pay for every person who has a medical condition?
like, in fairness half the country has a medical card? that the big joke in all this

Medical Insurance companies will not pay for treatment for a pre-existing condition or will make you wait for years before they cover it.
The small amount of compensation she received has been eaten away by 8 years of debt incurred, travelling to specialists both here and in the UK etc. We would all prefer to pay for her treatment rather than deal with the unfeeling, inefficient and increasingly belligerent people in the HSE.

Rather than adopt holier than thou attitudes, some people on here would be more advised to worry about the state of our healthcare system. Old age beckons, and there but for the grace of god...:(

Pingi

Pingi wrote: »

Are you sure she was on to the appeals office and not the client registration unit (the usual number for ringing about the status of the card application etc)? if the latter then they're not civil servants.

If it was the appeal office which one and were they able offer an explanation to why it was withdrawn or has she received a letter at this point? (I dont want to know the reason)

Bananatop

From personal experience of dealing with government departments, I ensure that I am through to the right person and I have all the info required so that the issue is resolved as soon as possible. I'm a primary school teacher, so my pay comes through a government department. I work as a sub/temporary teacher, so my pay isn't regulated in the normal manner and it is down to me to ensure that I've been paid for all days worked. I work out how many days I've worked, I ring them explain my situation and it's generally worked out within a short time. I've often heard other people complaining that the payroll dept is 'useless', 'don't know what they're doing', but I've yet to have any hassle with them.
I've also been on social welfare, and have never had any hassle with the welfare office either. I record any information they give me, pay attention to any correspondence I receive from them, and everything's fine.

I think it's a difficult job to work in an office where every single 'customer' is going to have a different story/different rights etc. It's not like a regular company where the company decides what it's going to offer its customers, there's a boundary there. Every single person who rings social welfare/hse/government departments is going to have a different background, different set up, different needs and they all need to be met. I think this should be kept in mind when ringing any government department.

General General

Lofty123 wrote: »

d
Mary Harney created the HSE to hide behind. It would appear that the employees are now doing the same.:mad:

Well, if the HSE was big enough for Mary to hide behind... & now she's gone... it would only make sense that there would be a whole lot of hiding space for... oh, this doesn't help, does it.

It's not just the public services, they're pretty bad in that Currys too.

Lofty123

Pingi wrote: »

If it was the appeal office which one and were they able offer an explanation to why it was withdrawn or has she received a letter at this point? (I dont want to know the reason)

Yes it was the appeals office in Dublin, the only one as far as I know.
No explanation, just "computer says no" type response and a request for further documentation.

I shall sign off now, to many "outraged taxpayers" questioning her entitlement without knowing any of the background or details, which I don't intend to post on here.

Will update when we get a response, which may take some time.

michellie

Carawaystick wrote: »

Do you work in the public sector?

Do you not have the confidence that a vexatious complaint will be dealt with correctly?

Says a lot for Public services who have often sent me anonymous letters where the line for a name at the bottom of a letter is deliberately left blank.

I'm the only one in this office, so if someone wants to make a complaint well that's fine as its clear who the complaint is about without having to give my whole name

Just editing to add, that you wouldn't believe the amount of scary irate people I have had to deal with and even on 2 occasions call the guards. Not a hope in hell am I giving out my full name to them! First name grand, last name, not a hope !

chopper6

A lot of people ring the wrong department and start off by ranting and raving anyway...a bit of politenesss goes a long way and i certainly wouldnt be giving my name out to somebody who's giving me a load of verbal.

Dostoevsky

true-or-false wrote: »

But I am not going to give my name out on the phone to an irate customer who is looking to form a vendetta against me just because they don't like the truth.

But if it's "the truth", or more pertinently the factual reality, you have nothing to fear by giving your name. Nothing. I suspect employees don't like giving their names because they have not done their jobs correctly by knowing the required information, and are therefore waffling when they give answers over the phone. They should be held to account for the information they provide as part of their job. Getting their name is the most obvious way to ensure this accountability.

Zulu

joe swanson wrote: »

Pay peanuts - get monkeys.

This is the result of cuts upon cuts.

Dear, oh dear. This might be true if only for one little fact: there were no mandatory redundancies! It's the same people who were working there during the years of benchmarking that work there now. You know, before the cuts.

The only "monkeys" are the people who think this behaviour is acceptable.

Ray Palmer

Lofty123 wrote: »

The faceless people I am referring to are those that make arbitrary decisions without communicating them in writing with a signature.

The reason for this is simple, no person issues the letter. It is an automated system where rules are set and letters are issued. Don't respond and the system automatically cuts you off. No human intervention. It isn't arbitrary, match the criteria and a letter is sent don't respond and you are cut off. People have problems with strict rules and try to get wiggle room.

You are suggesting it just randomly happens which isn't the case. I already pointed out that failure to fill out forms is the biggest reason for things getting "lost". Where as an insurance company may send you a letter saying you didn't fill out the form correctly (at a massive cost to them) the public services don't(due to massive cost).

Ray Palmer

Dostoevsky wrote: »

But if it's "the truth", or more pertinently the factual reality, you have nothing to fear by giving your name. Nothing. I suspect employees don't like giving their names because they have not done their jobs correctly by knowing the required information, and are therefore waffling when they give answers over the phone. They should be held to account for the information they provide as part of their job. Getting their name is the most obvious way to ensure this accountability.

People come into social welfare offices shouting out names and threatening them all the time. Officers and their cars have been attacked. Attacked in the streets is common enough too. I know several people who avoid shopping anywhere near the area they work in due to attacks and threats.

Would you give your name out in those circumstances?

runawaybishop

Dostoevsky wrote: »

But if it's "the truth", or more pertinently the factual reality, you have nothing to fear by giving your name. Nothing. I suspect employees don't like giving their names because they have not done their jobs correctly by knowing the required information, and are therefore waffling when they give answers over the phone. They should be held to account for the information they provide as part of their job. Getting their name is the most obvious way to ensure this accountability.

I suspect employees don't like giving out their names so idiots don't hound them by ringing up and demanding to speak to XX because they mistakenly think XX handles them exclusively.

relax carry on

I work in the public sector where I am public facing and must provide my full name and contact info otherwise the "clients" would never have their cases resolved.
Oddly, in one of my last private sector jobs, it was policy not to provide your real name. The names kept changing. Made it a bit of an odd place to work but the occasional death threat from clients kept it interesting.

Plazaman

runawaybishop wrote: »

I suspect employees don't like giving out their names so idiots don't hound them by ringing up and demanding to speak to XX because they mistakenly think XX handles them exclusively.

Exactly, the person you initially contact is mainly just a phone jockey and nothing to do with making a decision on the claim at all.

But the irony of a caller insisting on speaking with the person who decides the claim (and I have had experience with this) whilst expecting a speedy decision to be made. However the person making decisions cannot do this because they spend all their time on the phone listening to rants about the time it takes to process claims. Vicious circle. This is why the majority of Government Depts and places like Insurance Companies etc have phone banks so staff not involved with claim decisions can read the status of a claim and pass the information to the customer or get that information and ring them back.

However I agree that there is totally no call for rudeness, but just like profiling the type of people who call Joe Duffy, I can tell that that particular civil servant was indeed called Mary, has worked there 22 years and is frustrated as the job is ever changing and she can't keep up and her 2010 Nissan Micra is giving her gip as well cause she nevers goes higher than 3rd gear when driving.

Dostoevsky

Aitana Straight Graveyard wrote: »

It's unacceptable for you to demand personal details from employees. A first name will suffice.

For the security of the employee, they are not obliged to give you their second name. If you lack cognitive capacity and are unable to use the other information available to you to identify the person you are dealing with, then that's your problem.


This part is complete bullshít;



Clearly, this is incorrect. Have you thought that maybe there are other reasons?

Generally, when a customer asks for details prior to the conversation, I find them to be obnoxious and ignorant. They tend to be argumentative and have a self entitled way about them. Whoever came up with "the customer is always right" is an idiot. Generally, customers haven't a clue what they are talking about and make ridiculous demands. Of course, this depends largely on the industry.

In fairness, perhaps you should have nothing to do with public service if you're going to be so paranoid about the intentions of members of the public? A request for the name of the person one is talking to is translated into a "demand" in your evidently hostile and confrontational mindset.

I always ask for details "prior to a conversation" if by details you mean the name of the person to whom I'm speaking. Most people, however, just answer the phone with their company/section name, and then their own name. Simple. That this is a big deal to you is not a good omen for your public service attitude.

Furthermore, if there are three Marys in a section, the obvious thing is to then ask which of the Marys are you talking to. Most employees then will just give you a surname. They do, after all, have the customer's name (and often PPS number). Should the customer be paranoid? It's not a conspiracy so please chill.

Dravokivich

Dostoevsky wrote: »

But if it's "the truth", or more pertinently the factual reality, you have nothing to fear by giving your name. Nothing. I suspect employees don't like giving their names because they have not done their jobs correctly by knowing the required information, and are therefore waffling when they give answers over the phone. They should be held to account for the information they provide as part of their job. Getting their name is the most obvious way to ensure this accountability.

Giving their name makes them an entity. This should not be the case. The department they work for is the entity. They're just working on behalf of it. They are not it.

It's not a matter of truth or intent to deceive. It's about cutting out the "He Said/She Said," element that will always come up when people give into giving a full name. It makes them a target, it makes them representitive. They become what is perceived as the Department. Which is exactly how the OP is viewing this person who was unfortunate enough to do their job.

Dostoevsky wrote: »

In fairness, perhaps you should have nothing to do with public service if you're going to be so paranoid about the intentions of members of the public? A request for the name of the person one is talking to is translated into a "demand" in your evidently hostile and confrontational mindset.

I always ask for details "prior to a conversation" if by details you mean the name of the person to whom I'm speaking. Most people, however, just answer the phone with their company/section name, and then their own name. Simple. That this is a big deal to you is not a good omen for your public service attitude.

Furthermore, if there are three Marys in a section, the obvious thing is to then ask which of the Marys are you talking to. Most employees then will just give you a surname. They do, after all, have the customer's name (and often PPS number). Should the customer be paranoid? It's not a conspiracy so please chill.

1) Where I work, for any of the public user bases it's actually company policy that the call taker are not to provide their full name.
2) With minimal information such as when a call took place, it's very easy to investigate from there who was involved and how they may have affected the call, along with determining any appropriate actions to take place. 3 Mary's can be eliminated to 1.

Penny Dreadful

Lofty123 wrote: »

does anyone know if a Public Servant from a government Department is obliged to give their name if asked?

My daughter was on the phone to the Medical Card Appeals Section of the HSE today. Her medical card has been withdrawn. She was not informed, and only discovered this when she went to collect a prescription at her local pharmacy.

She wanted to send documentation in support of her appeal. The lady she spoke to was rude and unhelpful. (this seems to be becoming commonplace when dealing with "Public Servants")
When asked for her name she refused to give it, saying "we get far too many appeals now to be giving our names to people". If we wanted to lodge a complaint about her rudeness how could we do so if we didn't have the name of the person?
My daughter was advised to fax the documents to them.. Fax, in 2013???
After some discussion, she managed to get an email address for the department. In my experience if you are dealing with a department rather than a person documents tend to get "lost" or "not received"

Surely you have some rights in this situation? Who made the decision to rescind her medical card? Why was she not informed in writing, with said persons signature?

Mary Harney created the HSE to hide behind. It would appear that the employees are now doing the same.:mad:

Public service systems haven't been well maintained across the wider service so the fax option may be the only one open to them.
What is wrong with using a fax whether its 2013 or not?

ash23

I've worked in customer service for years and I cannot believe that someone working in a job where they need to speak to customers or clients would refuse to give at least their first name.

It's seriously unprofessional not to give your name.

If someone wants to make a complaint about me, I give them my full name, title and my supervisors name and title. I give them the complaints procedure and explain to them how they would make a complaint.

If we then refuse to uphold a complaint or appeal, we issue them with a letter which contains the details of the ombudsman if they wish to pursue that complaint.

It's totally incomprehensible the way some places operate. Both public and private.
But appeals and complaint procedures should be laid down and issued to the customer if requested. And of course some sort of identifying detail should be given about a person to whom you are speaking. Be that an employee number or a first name.
But a customer shouldn't have to play "guess the employee" when they are trying to explain a timeline or train of events in terms of an appeal or complaint.

Larbre34

OP wants to lodge a complaint about 'rude and unhelpful' because the only thing they would have seen as 'polite and helpful' would have been the immediate and unambiguous restoration of said medical card without further delay.

People think they are the only ones in the World with problems when they get on a phone, meanwhile an office of 30 or 40 people are dealing with perhaps 15-20,000 cases which can be called up on a screen for any of them to review. Asking for a specific name is a waste of everyones time and official complaints procedures are so abused by the very people they are supposed to protect, that the people in the office spend all their time dealing with the distractions and not the actual business of substance of the queries.

The nature of business and interaction has become a call centre culture, which is hugely problematic, but dont say you wouldnt get the same treatment from every bank, insurance company, power company, phone company, online business you might deal with - just because you dont get a desirable outcome doesnt mean they havent done their job.

Dostoevsky

runawaybishop wrote: »

I suspect employees don't like giving out their names so idiots don't hound them by ringing up and demanding to speak to XX because they mistakenly think XX handles them exclusively.

Or that XX is familiar with their case and they are sick and tired of going through their case with somebody new each time so they want to deal with a single person to prevent going back to scratch each time they call?

Clarehobo

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The reason for this is simple, no person issues the letter. It is an automated system where rules are set and letters are issued. Don't respond and the system automatically cuts you off. No human intervention. It isn't arbitrary, match the criteria and a letter is sent don't respond and you are cut off. People have problems with strict rules and try to get wiggle room.

You are suggesting it just randomly happens which isn't the case. I already pointed out that failure to fill out forms is the biggest reason for things getting "lost". Where as an insurance company may send you a letter saying you didn't fill out the form correctly (at a massive cost to them) the public services don't(due to massive cost).

Just one observation - you say it costs too much to inform people they have filled out a form incorrectly.
The Public Service has the use of modern technology: what is the harm in sending out emails to people from an anonymous mailbox with a scanned copy of the form indicating what was filled out wrong and get them to submit a new form.
Also, placing a disclaimer on all forms that unless an email address is provided, you will not be informed if the form has been rejected and that if you have not heard from the dept in x amount of days, then contact the relevant section.
Saves on postage and frustrated, irate people.

Dostoevsky

ash23 wrote: »

I've worked in customer service for years and I cannot believe that someone working in a job where they need to speak to customers or clients would refuse to give at least their first name.

It's seriously unprofessional not to give your name.

If someone wants to make a complaint about me, I give them my full name, title and my supervisors name and title. I give them the complaints procedure and explain to them how they would make a complaint.

If we then refuse to uphold a complaint or appeal, we issue them with a letter which contains the details of the ombudsman if they wish to pursue that complaint.

It's totally incomprehensible the way some places operate. Both public and private.
But appeals and complaint procedures should be laid down and issued to the customer if requested. And of course some sort of identifying detail should be given about a person to whom you are speaking. Be that an employee number or a first name.
But a customer shouldn't have to play "guess the employee"

This. Basic professionalism, along with open and transparent governance in this democracy.

OldNotWIse

Larbre34 wrote: »

OP wants to lodge a complaint about 'rude and unhelpful' because the only thing they would have seen as 'polite and helpful' would have been the immediate and unambiguous restoration of said medical card without further delay.

People think they are the only ones in the World with problems when they get on a phone, meanwhile an office of 30 or 40 people are dealing with perhaps 15-20,000 cases which can be called up on a screen for any of them to review. Asking for a specific name is a waste of everyones time and official complaints procedures are so abused by the very people they are supposed to protect, that the people in the office spend all their time dealing with the distractions and not the actual business of substance of the queries.

The nature of business and interaction has become a call centre culture, which is hugely problematic, but dont say you wouldnt get the same treatment from every bank, insurance company, power company, phone company, online business you might deal with - just because you dont get a desirable outcome doesnt mean they havent done their job.

This I dont mind giving out my name but it's one of those things that really annoys me for no apparent reason, when people ask for it and then overuse it! You know the type, "thank you oldnotwise, now oldnotwise, can I ask you this oldnotwise?""


Shuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut uuuuuuuuuuuuuup! Knowing (and wearing out) my name does not make you special, and I will not treat you any more favourably than anyone else who does not know my name. In fact, when you use my name every second word, its like someone scraping their nails on a blackboard and its all I can think about

tupac_healy

I work in the public sector (duck!!!!!) & in a busy a&e none the less!!!

Ive been there 4-5 years now and never asked for my name, but if someone did I wouldnt give it....


I'd. Just say ask for the good lookin fella!!!!!


See! Sense of humour and all even with all the cuts!

runawaybishop

Dostoevsky wrote: »

Or that XX is familiar with their case and they are sick and tired of going through their case with somebody new each time so they want to deal with a single person to prevent going back to scratch each time they call?

And if that is not how the department operates? Because it isn't.

Dostoevsky

Ray Palmer wrote: »

People come into social welfare offices shouting out names and threatening them all the time. Officers and their cars have been attacked. Attacked in the streets is common enough too. I know several people who avoid shopping anywhere near the area they work in due to attacks and threats.

Would you give your name out in those circumstances?

How often has this type of extreme scenario happened to the state's 300,000 public servants? Basing a general customer service policy for all citizens on extreme cases like this will never result in a good policy. It's akin to gardai being allowed to treat all citizens as hostile because they deal with a tiny minority of hostile citizens. Fortunately, this state does not have such a customer service policy and when I ring up my local Garda station the person on the phone will identify themselves. If not, I'll ask their name and they'll tell me. No bother. Natural. I've never encountered any paranoia on this fairly basic exchange between people.

B.A._Baracus

I would never give out my real name in a job. Be it a face-to-face job or even a telephone job.

The only possible way someone would want an employees name is to some how fuck with them.

Ray Palmer

Clarehobo wrote: »

Just one observation - you say it costs too much to inform people they have filled out a form incorrectly.
The Public Service has the use of modern technology: what is the harm in sending out emails to people from an anonymous mailbox with a scanned copy of the form indicating what was filled out wrong and get them to submit a new form.
Also, placing a disclaimer on all forms that unless an email address is provided, you will not be informed if the form has been rejected and that if you have not heard from the dept in x amount of days, then contact the relevant section.
Saves on postage and frustrated, irate people.

You don't understand how scanning works. They don't even scan a document not filled out correctly. The forms often are not returned with the required documentation or the documentation is returned without the form. Not sure who the documents are from.

There is a note on the forms say if the form is not filled in the claim will not be processed and they still send it in. There is a check list on some to verify you include all the documents and they still don't do it.

Some insurance companies don't even bother informing people now due to the costs. The harm is simply cost. You workout somebody's day at 10 minutes to process an application . If they take longer the person working is questioned. Are you going to risk your performance review because somebody didn't bother filling out their forms? Ultimately the delay and time wasting effects the person in question not everybody else. Seems reasonable really.

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

Public service systems haven't been well maintained across the wider service so the fax option may be the only one open to them.
What is wrong with using a fax whether its 2013 or not?

Public service systems are actually more up to date than many large private companies. Fax is used due to legal requirements. E-mails are not accepted as legal documents for most things.

ash23

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

I would never give out my real name in a job. Be it a face-to-face job or even a telephone job.

The only possible way someone would want an employees name is to some how fuck with them.

Or so they can make note of the advice they were given?

Are calls to public service offices recorded and monitored or is quality something we just shouldn't expect because it's public service?

Zulu

As a professional I'd just like to point out that I've always answered the work phone as: "IT, Zulu speaking". I don't wait to be asked my name.

ash23

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You don't understand how scanning works. They don't even scan a document not filled out correctly. The forms often are not returned with the required documentation or the documentation is returned without the form. Not sure who the documents are from.

There is a note on the forms say if the form is not filled in the claim will not be processed and they still send it in. There is a check list on some to verify you include all the documents and they still don't do it.

Some insurance companies don't even bother informing people now due to the costs. The harm is simply cost. You workout somebody's day at 10 minutes to process an application . If they take longer the person working is questioned. Are you going to risk your performance review because somebody didn't bother filling out their forms? Ultimately the delay and time wasting effects the person in question not everybody else. Seems reasonable really.


Public service systems are actually more up to date than many large private companies. Fax is used due to legal requirements. E-mails are not accepted as legal documents for most things.

I work in private sector, processing claims.
Claim comes in and text is sent saying it's been received (if mobile number is on the form). The form is checked within a day or two to make sure info is all there. If it's not, it's scanned and returned with a letter saying info is missing.

I think that not acknowledging the receipt of a complete or incomplete application will actually lead to more calls and emails querying the status of claims etc. because nobody knows if they filled it in properly or if it even made it in the post.


For example I made a claim for Disability allowance. I was told to send in the initial application and then send on the medical completed by GP. I got no acknowledgement of any receipt of either part of the claim. The processing time for DA is 8 to 11 months. So what do I do? Wait 12 months before I call, only to be told it was never received? Or do I call and ask after a month or so of hearing nothing?

Plus there's no "set" guidelines. When I used to apply for FIS I got an acknowledgement letter saying my claim would be processed. But you don't get anything for DA. But I'm meant to just know that?
It's a mess to be honest.

Ray Palmer

Dostoevsky wrote: »

How often has this type of extreme scenario happened to the state's 300,000 public servants? Basing a general customer service policy for all citizens on extreme cases like this will never result in a good policy.

Threats to DSP staff who deal with the public probably get a threat at least once a week from what I hear. Do you know how to distinguish which ones are real? Opportunity to do something maybe all they need to carry out a threat.

If they are on a run of cutting peoples' benefits they get much more threats and even put on extra security sometimes knowing a group has been targeted.

I have been with somebody who was threatened and followed when we were in a supermarket. Their crime was doing their job in DSP but the customer wasn't happy that their money was cut. If I hadn't been there she would have been extremely scared.

Private company don't allow their staff to identify themselves either. It is not uncommon or unique to civil servants. It is also pointless as the person you talk to has nothing to do with your claim and never will.

ash23

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Private company don't allow their staff to identify themselves either. It is not uncommon or unique to civil servants. It is also pointless as the person you talk to has nothing to do with your claim and never will.

That is untrue. In insurance and banking, you must provide a customer with your business card which has your full name, title and contact information on it. It's all part of financial regulation.

All emails etc I send have to have my name and title and when I answer the phone I have to introduce myself. I'm not sure if the phone bit is financial regulation but the email etc is.

By law, we have to have a list of our advisors and their qualifications which is available to anyone who walks in off the street and asks for it.

mattjack

tupac_healy wrote: »

I work in the public sector (duck!!!!!) & in a busy a&e none the less!!!

Ive been there 4-5 years now and never asked for my name, but if someone did I wouldnt give it....


I'd. Just say ask for the good lookin fella!!!!!


See! Sense of humour and all even with all the cuts!

Shouldn't be too hard to find you with that name , Mr. Tupac Healy.

Ray Palmer

ash23 wrote: »

I work in private sector, processing claims.
Claim comes in and text is sent saying it's been received (if mobile number is on the form). The form is checked within a day or two to make sure info is all there. If it's not, it's scanned and returned with a letter saying info is missing.

.

That's really interesting. Trusting OCR to read a mobile correctly or is that somebody manually reading the number and then sending a text?

So nobody scans the document unless there are errors?

A day or two to process is impressive too.

I am a contractor who works in private, semi-private and state companies and have worked on lots of processing claim systems. Some scan all documents and then process them later. Others don't scan at all and stick with paper. Then other scan each case individually and process them.
All scanning requires manual intervention to read the writing as the system can't be sure.

Your description sounds very wasteful and expensive. DSP aren't going to do it and would be crazy to do it due to the volumes they deal with.

If people need and want the money they will send in the correct information.

Ray Palmer

ash23 wrote: »

That is untrue. .

Did I say all companies? To clarify some private companies do not allow their staff to give their real name over the phone to customers.

ash23

Ray Palmer wrote: »

That's really interesting. Trusting OCR to read a mobile correctly or is that somebody manually reading the number and then sending a text?

It's a person. Part of her job.

So nobody scans the document unless there are errors?

All documents are scanned. Everything. Just that they are sorted into piles. Some for processing. Some for return.

A day or two to process is impressive too.

I didn't say a day or two to process. I said they are looked through within a day or two. Anything that can be processed is then sent for scanning and processing. Anything that has items missing is sent for scanning and then returned to staff to be sent back with a letter advising we need more information/claim form not signed/etc. However, again with Financial regulation, we have a definitive amount of time to deal with a claim.

I am a contractor who works in private, semi-private and state companies and have worked on lots of processing claim systems. Some scan all documents and then process them later. Others don't scan at all and stick with paper. Then other scan each case individually and process them.
All scanning requires manual intervention to read the writing as the system can't be sure.

Your description sounds very wasteful and expensive. DSP aren't going to do it and would be crazy to do it due to the volumes they deal with.

If people need and want the money they will send in the correct information.

Hmmm, must be why we are expanding so? Wasteful and expensive? To make sure our customers know where they stand with their claims? Much better to spend all day answering calls about where or what status a claim is at?
If people knew that there was something missing surely that is fairer?
If you're talking about 8 to 10 months to process a claim, how is a person meant to know that a claim has been received? Or should they wait for a year and then ask only to be told it wasn't signed and they have to start from scratch?

Since when is keeping people informed a bad thing. It wouldn't be acceptable from ANY other sector so why from PS?

ash23

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Did I say all companies? To clarify some private companies do not allow their staff to give their real name over the phone to customers.

You said

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Private company don't allow their staff to identify themselves either. It is not uncommon or unique to civil servants. It is also pointless as the person you talk to has nothing to do with your claim and never will.

so the clarification is warranted.

But in a lot of sectors it's pretty standard to give your name. I can't actually recall ever dealing with a company where I wasn't given the persons name and that's without even asking for it. I thought it was pretty standard practice that the person knows who they are speaking to, both from my own professional experience and personal experience as a consumer.

Bananatop

ash23 wrote: »

Since when is keeping people informed a bad thing. It wouldn't be acceptable from ANY other sector so why from PS?

I think it's because any other sector can define what they are/aren't providing. Public Service can't do that. They're expected to meet everybody's expectations, even if it's stated clearly that certain criteria have to be met. You then have many, many cases where PS staff have to deal with queries that really shouldn't have to be dealt with at all, due to public expectation of what the PS should provide. PS aren't dealing in selling products, they're dealing with peoples lives and how they live them.

Edit : Not that I think it isn't frustrating when something isn't done by the way! : ). My pay is at the mercy of a government dept, so I always make sure I have copies of anything I've sent in, record phone conversation times and what was said etc

ash23

Bananatop wrote: »

I think it's because any other sector can define what they are/aren't providing. Public Service can't do that. They're expected to meet everybody's expectations, even if it's stated clearly that certain criteria have to be met. You then have many, many cases where PS staff have to deal with queries that really shouldn't have to be dealt with at all, due to public expectation of what the PS should provide. PS aren't dealing in selling products, they're dealing with peoples lives and how they live them.

Well that's not really true. The majority of cases have set criteria in terms of income limits etc. There are a few where a "call" is made (such as illness or disability benefit) but for a lot of claims there is a cut off and if you're above it, you're not eligible.

I work in health insurance so it's similar enough with people needing treatment which isn't covered. We aren't telling them that they don't need the treatment, just that the criteria aren't met. A lot of people expect things to be covered and a lot of my day is spent explaining why it's not. That is also why calls are recorded and monitored. So that if someone feels they were misdirected, the call can be listened to.

I think the problem is that when people are claiming benefits, it's seen that they are being done a "favour". Because a person buys a product from us, we are viewing them as a customer and that they are keeping our company going and we need to keep them happy.
However in the PS, the "cost" is thrust upon us and when it comes time to claim, there is a certain "you are getting something for nothing" attitude. Like we are being done a favour by the person picking up the phone.

This attitude of "we don't have to do this for you" is rife and it's poor practice imo. It's like it's being seen as a favour to simply process a claim or answer a phone.

Ray Palmer

ash23 wrote: »

It's a person. Part of her job.

Yes that is wasteful

ash23 wrote: »

All documents are scanned. Everything. Just that they are sorted into piles. Some for processing. Some for return.

So some documents are scanned twice if there is an error? Seems wasteful

ash23 wrote: »

I didn't say a day or two to process. I said they are looked through within a day or two. Anything that can be processed is then sent for scanning and processing. Anything that has items missing is sent for scanning and then returned to staff to be sent back with a letter advising we need more information/claim form not signed/etc. However, again with Financial regulation, we have a definitive amount of time to deal with a claim.

A costly method compared to others

ash23 wrote: »

Hmmm, must be why we are expanding so? Wasteful and expensive? To make sure our customers know where they stand with their claims? Much better to spend all day answering calls about where or what status a claim is at?

Just because your company is expanding doesn't mean it doesn't have wasteful expensive practices. I have seen massive waste in lots of companies expanding and making money. There is a element of call handling here. You get 100 calls anyway and can handle 100 calls. Improve the system and you only get 50 calls so have capacity for 50 more. All seems reasonable and how people expect it to work. The reality is you get 200 call and can only deal with 100. If the 200 calls increases it makes no difference as you only handle a 100 anyway. This is not unique to PS.

ash23 wrote: »

If people knew that there was something missing surely that is fairer?
If you're talking about 8 to 10 months to process a claim, how is a person meant to know that a claim has been received? Or should they wait for a year and then ask only to be told it wasn't signed and they have to start from scratch?

As I pointed out people send in documents and forms with no way to identify them easily or uniquely. Is it fair that people who filled out their forms are delayed due to somebody else not paying attention? People on allowance in DSP have lots of free time and have to go to the offices regularly. Very easy to find out where your claim is on those visits.

ash23 wrote: »

Since when is keeping people informed a bad thing. It wouldn't be acceptable from ANY other sector so why from PS?

It isn't unique to PS and many private companies do the same. Some replacement of systems are now there so you can check your processing on line. This will probably be introduced in the PS in time combined with the SAFE cards once it is complete

ash23

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Yes that is wasteful

So some documents are scanned twice if there is an error? Seems wasteful

Where did I say that? Claims are recieved and reviewed. Two piles. One for processing, one for return. Each batch is scanned once. From scanning batch one goes to processing and batch two is returned to sender with a letter. That way if it gets lost in the post, we have a scanned copy. ya know, to make it EASIER for the person to claim rather than ten times harder.

A costly method compared to others

Depends on the business model. If you're going to ignore the phones and incoming emails from people with queries about their claims then I guess it could be seen as costly.
If you're going to deal with queries then minimising them makes sense. If you're not then you can expect more angry complaints and more calls. It seems customer service isn't a priority in PS so I suppose they don't really mind if people are confused and angry.

Just because your company is expanding doesn't mean it doesn't have wasteful expensive practices. I have seen massive waste in lots of companies expanding and making money. There is a element of call handling here. You get 100 calls anyway and can handle 100 calls. Improve the system and you only get 50 calls so have capacity for 50 more. All seems reasonable and how people expect it to work. The reality is you get 200 call and can only deal with 100. If the 200 calls increases it makes no difference as you only handle a 100 anyway. This is not unique to PS.

Again though, there are still ways and means to handle complaints and queries. Ignoring them or dismissing them isn't best practice, public or private sector. And there is huge waste in the PS also.

As I pointed out people send in documents and forms with no way to identify them easily or uniquely. Is it fair that people who filled out their forms are delayed due to somebody else not paying attention? People on allowance in DSP have lots of free time and have to go to the offices regularly. Very easy to find out where your claim is on those visits.

Obviously if there is no name/address/PPS number/phone number or any identifying features on the claim then it's not reasonable to expect someone to process it. And while I appreciate it can happen, I don't think it's common.
More common is someone attaching a payslip instead of a P60 or forgetting to sign a section of the form.
Rather than binning it or ignoring it, send a letter back with it saying "you need to sign the form".

You seem to think the only people claiming anything have "loads of free time". Which pretty much sums uo the attitude in the PS to the people who claim. Many claimants work full time or have children or are carers. They may have disabilities.
There is no thought for them and how to make the process easier on the person who is or has been paying for the service of the PS. It's more an attitude that the PS are doing them some big favour, simply by doing their job.

Anyway, back to the original topic, I think giving a name should be mandatory if asked. Or at least an identifying number so that a staff members call can be tracked.

Ray Palmer

ash23 wrote: »

Anyway, back to the original topic, I think giving a name should be mandatory if asked. Or at least an identifying number so that a staff members call can be tracked.

By all means ignore the fact knowing the persons name is of no use as they will not be processing your claim. Ignore the fact that such information could put the person under threat.

Expecting the same service from the PS as a private company making a profit from it's customers is just somewhat foolish.

You realise the PS lost employees and deals with more people than it did before. People coming into the offices are often very aggressive. I wouldn't do the job myself. Not many private employees dealing with claims have to carry an emergency response alarm when doing their job. They also don't deal with sexual offenders, junkies, recently released criminals etc... Often in small offices where if you were attacked you might not be found for a while.

Lovely job and they are all just waster really:rolleyes:

ash23

Ray Palmer wrote: »

By all means ignore the fact knowing the persons name is of no use as they will not be processing your claim. Ignore the fact that such information could put the person under threat.

It might be of no use other than for record keeping and putting in an appeal. As in "on 14 Aug 2013, I spoke to john who told me my medical card was denied". Or because if the woman in the op was rude the ops daughter has the right to complain about the way the call was handled.
If the threat you are talking about is the threat of a complaint then that is absurd. A person has the right to complain about the manner in which their query is dealt with. Ps are not above being complained about.
If your talk of threat is about a real physical threat, first name only is anonymous enough and anyone making threats of that nature should be reported to the garda. After all, when a person calls they give their pps number.

Expecting the same service from the PS as a private company making a profit from it's customers is just somewhat foolish.

Expecting someone to do their job is foolish? To give their first name and be polite? Do we really expect so little of those working in the ps?

You realise the PS lost employees and deals with more people than it did before. People coming into the offices are often very aggressive. I wouldn't do the job myself. Not many private employees dealing with claims have to carry an emergency response alarm when doing their job. They also don't deal with sexual offenders, junkies, recently released criminals etc... Often in small offices where if you were attacked you might not be found for a while.

Lovely job and they are all just waster really:rolleyes:

Ah look, we're ttalking about speaking to someone in a decentralised office who deals with calls here. Get over yourself. Plenty of ps workers never see a sinner.

Bananatop

Bananatop wrote: »

I've also been on social welfare, and have never had any hassle with the welfare office either. I record any information they give me, pay attention to any correspondence I receive from them, and everything's fine.

This is a hugely important point. Often (although I'm not with DSP) I get customers giving me all sorts of abuse, because I've told them that they haven't filled out their form correctly. I get other customers who bring in the information they've been clearly asked for, and those customers can make my week, just because I'm so used to the difficult ones. It's a lot easier to help someone, when they'll actually listen to your advice.

Lofty123 wrote: »

No explanation, just "computer says no" type response and a request for further documentation.

I shall sign off now, to many "outraged taxpayers" questioning her entitlement without knowing any of the background or details, which I don't intend to post on here.

Her entitlement isn't in question - you were initially enquiring about public servants providing names because your daughter had to deal with someone who allegedly seems out to get her and ruin her life for no good reason. No one knows enough about her circumstances to say whether she's entitled or not. However a lot of people are pointing out that her not being entitled doesn't mean that shooting the messenger is going to change things.

Dostoevsky wrote: »

But if it's "the truth", or more pertinently the factual reality, you have nothing to fear by giving your name. Nothing. I suspect employees don't like giving their names because they have not done their jobs correctly by knowing the required information, and are therefore waffling when they give answers over the phone.

As I've said, I'm more than happy to give out my name to someone who's looking for a contact where I work. I'm not happy to give my name out to someone who seems like they're out for blood. And yes, I'm at the stage in my job where I can easily tell the difference. And yes, I do have something to fear in those cases, regardless of whether the information I've given is correct or not. I live a very short distance from where I work, and I have been threatened many times, and I have had people threaten to hurt/steal from my parents as well. People often do not like the truth, as can be seen from the OP. She didn't post to complain that her daughter should be entitled to a medical card, she posted to personally complain about the employee who delivered the news, as she clearly sees the two issues (her daughter not having a medical card being one, and the employee being an incompetent bitch being the other) as being one and the same. If anything suggests that people should be entitled to withhold their name when they want to, it's this thread itself.

Vizzy

MadsL wrote: »

http://www.ombudsman.gov.ie/en/

Puts manners on depts.

Is that the one that you use in the States?