Things about places you've worked at that they don't want the general public to know

wildlifeboy

miss no stars wrote: »

And yet you posted about serial complainants in response to someone who was at the end of their tether with UPC over service interruptions, which is within their remit. Yeah, there are crazies, but people having to ring over and over about things going wrong with what they're paying for aren't serial complainants, they're getting serially bad service.

all you do is moan in here. take it elsewhere

Greyfox

miss no stars wrote: »

This just epitomizes the Irish attitude to 'service'. Customer is paying for something that, for whatever reason, they're not receiving properly so they ring up and try to get it resolved. Met with a lack of helpfulness from an agent who does nothing or doesn't have the power to do anything. After no improvement, i.e. customer still NOT getting what they're PAYING for, the customer rings up again and asks to speak to a manager. They're fobbed off, told the manager is busy and will call them back. Instead, another customer 'service' agent rings them back. Because they're equally as helpless as the first, the problem is still not resolved. So here we are, three phone calls in and nothing improved for the PAYING customer. Who calls back again, probably very annoyed at this stage and asks for a reason to continue to stay with the 'service provider'.

Customer is branded a serial complainant, when in fact the problem is that they're just trying to get what they're paying for. The string of complaints couldn't possibly have anything to do with poor service, could it? Nah, they're just a serial complainant. :rolleyes:

It’s true though, frequent complainers tend to cost more money then their worth. Just because someone is a paying customer doesn’t mean an agent/manager should get out a magic wand to solve their problem, most of the time the agent has done all the can and customer is just unwilling to accept this and it just costs more money to have a manager waste half an hour of their time saying the same thing. The point is managers don't call customers back most of the time because the majority of complainers are going nuts for minor issues that don't require an escalation

miss no stars

Greyfox wrote: »

It’s true though, frequent complainers tend to cost more money then their worth. Just because someone is a paying customer doesn’t mean an agent/manager should get out a magic wand to solve their problem, most of the time the agent has done all the can and customer is just unwilling to accept this and it just costs more money to have a manager waste half an hour of their time saying the same thing. The point is managers don't call customers back most of the time because the majority of complainers are going nuts for minor issues that don't require an escalation

See, if I went into a shop and asked for a kilo of ham and got given 0.8 kilos of ham but was charged for a kilo, why am I wrong to complain? The answer is, I'm not. The problem with services like UPC is that they have people locked into contracts so people cant just readily leave.

Sky used to be awful for stuff like that, but I'm guessing they were losing customers hand over foot. They've changed their tune. Our dish fell off the roof last Thursday in the wind. It'll be early next week before we get a new one installed (no cost) so they're crediting the account for the amount of time we won't have service. A while back I was having problems with UPC in my apartment. Had no TV or Internet for a couple of days. They honestly couldn't have cared less. No crediting of account and the customer service response was 'well, there's not much I can do about it being gone so unless you've got another problem I can't help you'. See the difference? I rang UPC back a couple of times to find out when service would resume as I NEEDED the Internet I was paying for but just got snotty responses. I guess I was lumped in as a serial complainant. Sky rang me back to confirm when the new dish would be installed. One is customer service, the other is not. With one, the customer gets what they're paying for, with the other they don't and are treated like crap.

Oh and those customers who follow up on why they aren't getting what they're paying for are worth retaining. Eventually they'll go elsewhere (this obviously excludes the gombeens who think eircom control the post and so on). So will others. The fact that sky have so dramatically changed their tune compared to a couple of years ago says that a lot of the customers they fobbed off went elsewhere. Now they see the value of retaining customers and giving their customer service agents the power to actually fix problems.

Dubl07

Greyfox wrote: »

It’s true though, frequent complainers tend to cost more money then their worth. Just because someone is a paying customer doesn’t mean an agent/manager should get out a magic wand to solve their problem, most of the time the agent has done all the can and customer is just unwilling to accept this and it just costs more money to have a manager waste half an hour of their time saying the same thing. The point is managers don't call customers back most of the time because the majority of complainers are going nuts for minor issues that don't require an escalation

If the company hasn't done all it can, the customer is within his/her rights to insist on matters being escalated until a resolution can be found. Companies who train their CS staff to mouth platitudes are doing themselves zero favours.

weemcd

miss no stars wrote: »

This just epitomizes the Irish attitude to 'service'. Customer is paying for something that, for whatever reason, they're not receiving properly so they ring up and try to get it resolved. Met with a lack of helpfulness from an agent who does nothing or doesn't have the power to do anything. After no improvement, i.e. customer still NOT getting what they're PAYING for, the customer rings up again and asks to speak to a manager. They're fobbed off, told the manager is busy and will call them back. Instead, another customer 'service' agent rings them back. Because they're equally as helpless as the first, the problem is still not resolved. So here we are, three phone calls in and nothing improved for the PAYING customer. Who calls back again, probably very annoyed at this stage and asks for a reason to continue to stay with the 'service provider'.

Customer is branded a serial complainant, when in fact the problem is that they're just trying to get what they're paying for. The string of complaints couldn't possibly have anything to do with poor service, could it? Nah, they're just a serial complainant. :rolleyes:

Get off your fucking high horse. Massive generalisations there.

Shock, horror. Some people LOVE to complain. I know for a fact, and have seen with my own two eyes, hundereds of customers that certain companies would be better off without. When you take the value of their purchases, then take the cost of each complaint they made ie. paying someone to deal with customer services, phone line, computer systems, then any goodwill they are given. There is not a chance the company would ever turn a profit from them.

And just to be clear I am not talking about one complaint, or one issue that has not been resolved after several attempts - this is bad service. I am talking about serial complainers here.

runawaybishop

miss no stars wrote: »

This just epitomizes the Irish attitude to 'service'.

Nothing particularly Irish about what you posted.

Dubl07

weemcd wrote: »

Get off your fucking high horse. Massive generalisations there.

Shock, horror. Some people LOVE to complain. I know for a fact, and have seen with my own two eyes, hundereds of customers that certain companies would be better off without. When you take the value of their purchases, then take the cost of each complaint they made ie. paying someone to deal with customer services, phone line, computer systems, then any goodwill they are given. There is not a chance the company would ever turn a profit from them.

And just to be clear I am not talking about one complaint, or one issue that has not been resolved after several attempts - this is bad service. I am talking about serial complainers here.

I'd far rather have a customer who complained to my company and allowed us to find a remedy than one who complained to friends and family and reduced our subsequent business.

Studies have shown over and over again how customer satisfaction in a customer with a remedied issue, properly dealt with by CS, is significantly higher than one who has never experienced a problem. Any company which views a complaint as a nuisance rather than an opportunity is barking.

ash23

A reasonable complaint is fine and to be dealt with appropriately and to be learned from. Hours wasted on a person who will never ever be happy is not the same thing.

A huge number of people think that the customer is always right and the company should give them what they want, even if it's not in their contract. I'm talking about people who complain about not having sky sports and movies even though they are on the basic package. That's the equivalent in my workplace of the type of people who complain. It's not that they aren't getting what they pay for.....they are. They just aren't happy with what they signed up for because they never read the t&c to check what they actually have bought.

Short of giving something away for nothing or changing the whole company structure and ethos to accomodate them, there's little to be done.

miss no stars

weemcd wrote: »

Get off your fucking high horse. Massive generalisations there.

Shock, horror. Some people LOVE to complain. I know for a fact, and have seen with my own two eyes, hundereds of customers that certain companies would be better off without. When you take the value of their purchases, then take the cost of each complaint they made ie. paying someone to deal with customer services, phone line, computer systems, then any goodwill they are given. There is not a chance the company would ever turn a profit from them.

And just to be clear I am not talking about one complaint, or one issue that has not been resolved after several attempts - this is bad service. I am talking about serial complainers here.

Excuse me? A touch abusive there. Yes, some people love to complain. I acknowledged that. I also spoke of my own experience of dealing with a company who couldn't care less that I wasn't getting what I paid for as well as experience of dealing with a company who actually dealt with my problem. I actually specified quite clearly that I was talking about a quite common scenario whereby people with genuine grievances are fobbed off by customer 'service' and obviously labelled as serial complainants.

You, on the other hand, just took the opportunity to be abusive to me. Work in customer service by any chance?

weemcd

miss no stars wrote: »

Excuse me? A touch abusive there. Yes, some people love to complain. I acknowledged that. I also spoke of my own experience of dealing with a company who couldn't care less that I wasn't getting what I paid for as well as experience of dealing with a company who actually dealt with my problem. I actually specified quite clearly that I was talking about a quite common scenario whereby people with genuine grievances are fobbed off by customer 'service' and obviously labelled as serial complainants.

You, on the other hand, just took the opportunity to be abusive to me. Work in customer service by any chance?

Trust me, if I was "abusing" you. You would know all about it. Also have a look at the word abuse in the dictionary, and stop being so easily offended.

Dubl07 wrote: »

I'd far rather have a customer who complained to my company and allowed us to find a remedy than one who complained to friends and family and reduced our subsequent business.

Studies have shown over and over again how customer satisfaction in a customer with a remedied issue, properly dealt with by CS, is significantly higher than one who has never experienced a problem. Any company which views a complaint as a nuisance rather than an opportunity is barking.

Maybe I wasn't making myself clear. So I'll try again, we are talking about serial complainers here. This is not your average person who has one, two problems max and gets on with the rest of their life. This is someone with a compulsion to complain.

You try and sort them out and two things will happen:
1) it's not good enough, and they tell everyone they know or
2) you give them money and they are satisfied, they tell everyone they know how to play the game and be a pain in the hole until they get what they want.

this is the last time i post on this thread

spiderman1885

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What if they were paper shoes?

ash23

The original post that I responded to was in relation to someone who had been told there was nothing else the company could do and persisted to complain repeatedly.

I am assuming they signed up for a contract which didn't meet their expectations. However I'm also assuming that somewhere in that contract, the specifications were given and the company are maintaining their end of it or that the problem is being caused by something outside of the companies control (like broadband speeds available in the area for example).
Despite being told repeatedly the reason and the fact that there is nothing else the company can do, the person complains repeatedly.

Dealing with that scenario is like banging your head off a brick wall and isn't really something that a CS agent would want to throw discounts and incentives at. All that will happen is another lot of complaint calls the following year and the same problem which can't be solved or which isn't under the remit of the contract or the companies control.

I have days where I feel like that character from Little Britain "computer says no". And I'm not doing it to be difficult or awkward or backward. It's not covered or it's not possible to cover it or change it. It is what it is and there is nothing that can be done about it, even if you call every hour on the hour, 24/7 for a year. It won't change and it's going around and around in circles.

Some people can't accept being told no, not matter how valid the no may be.

rubadub

April O Neill wrote: »

it's not a secret that vinegar is dilute acetic acid.

Some places will use acid which I think can be a by product of the petroleum industry or gas industry, rather than being from brewed grain or fruit. I have never seen this in supermarkets here, it is on sale in UK ones, it is not allowed to be called vinegar in the UK

Non-brewed condiment

This is not some dodgy scam, it is intended for food use.

http://www.mysupermarket.co.uk/sainsburys-price-comparison/oils_and_vinegar/amb_fish_and_chip_shop_non_brewed_condiment_284ml.html

miss no stars

ash23 wrote: »

The original post that I responded to was in relation to someone who had been told there was nothing else the company could do and persisted to complain repeatedly.

I am assuming they signed up for a contract which didn't meet their expectations. However I'm also assuming that somewhere in that contract, the specifications were given and the company are maintaining their end of it or that the problem is being caused by something outside of the companies control (like broadband speeds available in the area for example).
Despite being told repeatedly the reason and the fact that there is nothing else the company can do, the person complains repeatedly.

Dealing with that scenario is like banging your head off a brick wall and isn't really something that a CS agent would want to throw discounts and incentives at. All that will happen is another lot of complaint calls the following year and the same problem which can't be solved or which isn't under the remit of the contract or the companies control.

I have days where I feel like that character from Little Britain "computer says no". And I'm not doing it to be difficult or awkward or backward. It's not covered or it's not possible to cover it or change it. It is what it is and there is nothing that can be done about it, even if you call every hour on the hour, 24/7 for a year. It won't change and it's going around and around in circles.

Some people can't accept being told no, not matter how valid the no may be.

I just re-read that post and I suppose our respective biases probably made us draw different conclusions about what the problem was. The phrase she used was 'service quality issues'. Having been with UPC in the past, I had service quality issues. Internet dropping in and out every couple of months was a big one for me. That's a service quality issue - as in, I expect service 365 days per year because that is what I pay for. If not, I should be refunded any days where they haven't provided it. From your background you obviously decided that service quality issues was the extent of service, but somehow I doubt that HeidiHeidi is unable to read a simple document explaining the package she's signing up for.

ash23

miss no stars wrote: »

I just re-read that post and I suppose our respective biases probably made us draw different conclusions about what the problem was. The phrase she used was 'service quality issues'. Having been with UPC in the past, I had service quality issues. Internet dropping in and out every couple of months was a big one for me. That's a service quality issue - as in, I expect service 365 days per year because that is what I pay for. If not, I should be refunded any days where they haven't provided it. From your background you obviously decided that service quality issues was the extent of service, but somehow I doubt that HeidiHeidi is unable to read a simple document explaining the package she's signing up for.

Strange, I don't think that is what I said at all. I would imagine that if a company were failing to uphold their end of the contract, a person wouldn't be tied into it, or to be looking for discounts to stay with them. If the service is dropping in and out, move to a different provider.....don't look for incentives to stay with them.
If the service is dropping in and out because of something the company can control I doubt they would be saying "there's nothing more we can do".

So yes, I took a different slant on it. Not that someone was unable to read a simple document. More that the terminology used might have been misunderstood. For example "up to 80% off" doesn't mean the same as "80% off" but it might not stop a customer complaining that the item they want has 30% off.
There are a lot of small prints in contracts which most people (myself included) tend not to read properly and then end up assuming things about the product which simply aren't true or available.

Very rarely are contracts a "simple document". The greatest lie ever told seems to be "I have read and agree to the terms and conditions".

Greyfox

Dubl07 wrote: »

If the company hasn't done all it can, the customer is within his/her rights to insist on matters being escalated until a resolution can be found.

I have seen callers looking for a manager for the following:
Been overcharged by 76 cent and not believing this has been corrected, not getting a bill in the post, somebody with a van with the company logo on it blocking their driveway, complaining about the fact that we don’t stock a certain product, these should not be passed to a manager as you only have a right to have it escalated if it’s a genuine complaint and that’s where it’s up to the agent to decide if it should be passed to a manager otherwise half the calls made to a call centre would be going to a manager
What if the resolution is you have to go back to the store where you purchased the product or as per the terms and conditions we cannot do what your asking for.

miss no stars

ash23 wrote: »

Strange, I don't think that is what I said at all. I would imagine that if a company were failing to uphold their end of the contract, a person wouldn't be tied into it, or to be looking for discounts to stay with them. If the service is dropping in and out, move to a different provider.....don't look for incentives to stay with them.
If the service is dropping in and out because of something the company can control I doubt they would be saying "there's nothing more we can do".

So yes, I took a different slant on it. Not that someone was unable to read a simple document. More that the terminology used might have been misunderstood. For example "up to 80% off" doesn't mean the same as "80% off" but it might not stop a customer complaining that the item they want has 30% off.
There are a lot of small prints in contracts which most people (myself included) tend not to read properly and then end up assuming things about the product which simply aren't true or available.

Very rarely are contracts a "simple document". The greatest lie ever told seems to be "I have read and agree to the terms and conditions".

Okay, I'll put it this way. If for some reason UPC can't get Internet and tv to me for a full 24 consecutive hours, I should not be charged for that day. That is something they can do. If the milkman didn't deliver to you for two days in a row, but charged you anyway, and said 'ah I was having trouble with the supplier, nothing I can do about that' would it be okay? No, it wouldn't. Customer doesn't get what's to be provided - refund them. If the poor unfortunate at the end of the phone hasn't the authority to do that (regardless of whether they have, they should have that authority) then it has to go higher up beyond them.

runawaybishop

miss no stars wrote: »

That's a service quality issue - as in, I expect service 365 days per year because that is what I pay for.

You sure about that?

Dubl07

Greyfox wrote: »

I have seen callers looking for a manager for the following:
Been overcharged by 76 cent and not believing this has been corrected, not getting a bill in the post, somebody with a van with the company logo on it blocking their driveway, complaining about the fact that we don’t stock a certain product, these should not be passed to a manager as you only have a right to have it escalated if it’s a genuine complaint and that’s where it’s up to the agent to decide if it should be passed to a manager otherwise half the calls made to a call centre would be going to a manager
What if the resolution is you have to go back to the store where you purchased the product or as per the terms and conditions we cannot do what your asking for.

If the company has erred, it is their responsibility to correct the error. If that means spending the price on a stamp to send out a coupon; reprimanding the driver of the offending van and teaching him/her to park only in front of the property to which he is making a delivery or to have a phone number ('need me to move?') in the vehicle window; actually source the requested product or offer a reasonable alternative, then the problem is easily solved. Such resolutions are easy, cheap and effective. None of them are outside the bounds of possibility for a properly trained manager or CS individual. It's a question of mindset; something even Ryanair are beginning to comprehend.

Greyfox

ash23 wrote: »

A reasonable complaint is fine and to be dealt with appropriately and to be learned from. Hours wasted on a person who will never ever be happy is not the same thing.

A huge number of people think that the customer is always right and the company should give them what they want, even if it's not in their contract. I'm talking about people who complain about not having sky sports and movies even though they are on the basic package. That's the equivalent in my workplace of the type of people who complain. It's not that they aren't getting what they pay for.....they are. They just aren't happy with what they signed up for because they never read the t&c to check what they actually have bought.

Short of giving something away for nothing or changing the whole company structure and ethos to accomodate them, there's little to be done.

This +1,000

Greyfox

miss no stars wrote: »

Okay, I'll put it this way. If for some reason UPC can't get Internet and tv to me for a full 24 consecutive hours, I should not be charged for that day.

Wrong, In the case of internet companies the reason that you may not be able to get service could be something that's out of UPC's control, it could be you need to reset your equipment or an issue with your PC

Temptamperu

I worked for sky tv, 3% of their gross per year is subscriptions. They would be more profitable if it was free.

minidazzler

WhiteRoses wrote: »

At peak times, when the club is really busy, glasses are only put in the dishwasher for a maximum of 20 seconds before being taken out for the next lot to go in.

In every single nightclub I've worked in (and I've worked in several) the toilets are cleaned by a minimum wage college student glass collector at about 4am, who happened to pull the short straw that night. Managers never give a shít so long as there isn't any visible piss or vomit they're easy going about it. 99.9% of the time they aren't cleaned properly at all.

As someone who has seen how a large portion of them are cleaned..Use at your own risk. There isn't bleach or toilet cleaner used. Quick mop of the floor and wipe the sinks/mirrors and your done unless an absolute horror has puked somewhere.

From my own experience I wouldn't use a club toilet (any club, not just the ones I've worked in) if you paid me.

For a long time I cleaned the ones in the club I'm working it. I'm not minimum wage by a fair shot and I seriously cleaned them well. 1 each night getting a spring clean and the rest getting a good going over but not perfect.

Now we have Toilet attendants so they get scrubbed down each night.

Stovepipe

I saw the following: cook throws meat from complaining customer onto floor, picks it up, spits on it and then gives it a few seconds in the pan before sending it back out.............a new car sent in for it's "free" first service? Simply parked in the corner for two days. The apprentice put plastic seat covers on, to give the impression that they actually gave a ****.Informed by friend who worked there that it was standard practise........a well-known pub in D9 where an extra till appeared on a Friday night, cash only, stayed in place over the weekend. Every fifth drink was rung up on it.......a main dealer where a popular brand of car was recalled, requiring replacement of suspension parts. I had one and got a recall letter from the importer, telling me to go to nearest dealer and they'd sort it out, no cost to me. I arrive at the dealer to see a queue of people standing there, waiting to talk to the sales people. Just as I'm joining the queue, a female sales lady shouts out "anyone whose car is here for the recall, get your credit cards out, please". I asked how much? She says to me, that'll be Eu 600. I promptly said that I had had a letter from the importer saying that it wouldn't cost me a cent and that I'd called the importer and they had confirmed it. She immediately denied it, said I had to pay up and then uttered the line "you won't be able to tax your car unless you get this done!", which was utter ****e so I showed my letter to the nearest guy in the queue and left........Tips? always do your best to give them to the staff directly.

regards
Stovepipe

Funfair

Used to work in a bakery, the health inspector came in one day and caught a Polish worker crimping the edges of a tart with his teeth. The health inspector was shocked and shouted at him “you must use your tool for that” The polish Guy replied “I can’t, I only use my tool to put the holes in the ring doughnuts“

ash23

miss no stars wrote: »

Okay, I'll put it this way. If for some reason UPC can't get Internet and tv to me for a full 24 consecutive hours, I should not be charged for that day. That is something they can do. If the milkman didn't deliver to you for two days in a row, but charged you anyway, and said 'ah I was having trouble with the supplier, nothing I can do about that' would it be okay? No, it wouldn't. Customer doesn't get what's to be provided - refund them. If the poor unfortunate at the end of the phone hasn't the authority to do that (regardless of whether they have, they should have that authority) then it has to go higher up beyond them.

By that logic if there's a power cut, Tesco should refund me for the food the spoiled, RTE should give me back part of my licence fee and sky, eircom and netflix should give me a refund. It's not their fault I have no access to their product but I can't use the service so I should get a refund? That's absurd.

If UPC can't provide a service due to something out of their control, then it's out of their control and they shouldn't and wouldn't be in a place to offer a refund.

A milkman is different because they are providing a product as opposed to a service. If they don't provide the tangible product you want, there's no charge. A service is different as the company are providing the service even if a customer can't access it because of outside influences.

Scouser

1) complaints to call centres

your complaint/query has not been escalated

it has merely been handed to the guy at the desk beside me

2) my work experience in large bakery section of major irish supermarket

that apple square your eating? the apple mix was spread by a very large hairy man in a wife beater with the most horrendous hygiene. he uses the entire span of his arm from finger tip to arm pit.

SusieBlue

minidazzler wrote: »

For a long time I cleaned the ones in the club I'm working it. I'm not minimum wage by a fair shot and I seriously cleaned them well. 1 each night getting a spring clean and the rest getting a good going over but not perfect.

Now we have Toilet attendants so they get scrubbed down each night.

I've worked in 5 different clubs and all the floor staff were on minimum wage, are you bar or floor? We've asked management for contract cleaners to come in once a week so we only have to give it a once over every night, but we're ignored. We have to do the sanitary bins and everything

IvaBigWun

Temptamperu wrote: »

I worked for sky tv, 3% of their gross per year is subscriptions. They would be more profitable if it was free.

And 97% is on Broadband?

Corkbah

ash23 wrote: »

By that logic if there's a power cut, Tesco should refund me for the food the spoiled, RTE should give me back part of my licence fee and sky, eircom and netflix should give me a refund. It's not their fault I have no access to their product but I can't use the service so I should get a refund? That's absurd.

If UPC can't provide a service due to something out of their control, then it's out of their control and they shouldn't and wouldn't be in a place to offer a refund.

A milkman is different because they are providing a product as opposed to a service. If they don't provide the tangible product you want, there's no charge. A service is different as the company are providing the service even if a customer can't access it because of outside influences.

surely if there was a power cut the electricity supplier would be liable and not the companies who sold the products to the consumer …. so (in theory) the electricity supplier would have to compensate for food spoiling, inability to watch TV, inability to cook food,….. electricity is one of the few services where you pay for the units that are used (or estimated)

Billy86

Beat me to it - better examples would be if you bought a dozen eggs from Tesco and one was a crate of beer from Tesco and one was an unopened-but-empty can (actually happened years ago when I worked there), if RTE/Sky went entirely off the air for a few days for no explanation or electricity issues, and likewise if Netflix website went down.

IvaBigWun

IvaBigWun wrote: »

And 97% is on Broadband?

Advertising I would imagine...

foxy farmer

suicide_circus wrote: »

This does not surprise me. A lot of the meat I used to buy from supermarkets with the Bord Bia quality assurance mark was of atrocious quality. I now actively avoid it.

All these inspectors are double jobbing. Bord Bia don't have any clout. Just a marketing body
Remember the pork scandal. There was products left on shelf, brands which we assume are irish. This only goes to prove it was imported produce and not affected by dioxin scare. Meat processors were experts at rebadging meat during intervention era 20-30 years ago. As the saying goes "you never see paper to refuse ink". Pure spoofing. Anyway how fresh is prepacked meat. Argentinian beef is miles ahead of irish but processing and traceability isn't like here.

tipptom

foxy farmer wrote: »

All these inspectors are double jobbing. Bord Bia don't have any clout. Just a marketing body
Remember the pork scandal. There was products left on shelf, brands which we assume are irish. This only goes to prove it was imported produce and not affected by dioxin scare. Meat processors were experts at rebadging meat during intervention era 20-30 years ago. As the saying goes "you never see paper to refuse ink". Pure spoofing. Anyway how fresh is prepacked meat.

Argentinian beef is miles ahead of irish but processing and traceability isn't
like here.

Agentinian beef is better than Irish beef?

donutheadhomer

IvaBigWun wrote: »

Apparently few supermarkets bake their own bread. Its all frozen and part baked elsewhere.

Ever wondered why airlines overbook seats? Because on average about 10-20 people don't check in for a flight, and for the airlines to make money they need to have full planes. so they oversell the aircraft based on the average number of people they hope will not turn up.

Rigged coin waterfalls in arcades.

People who work in food manufacturing doing bold things.



Is there anything you remember from a job that they don't want the general public to know?

I worked in a certain pizza factory making dough one summer in college - a large place. One guy was really pissed with the boss and took dough off the line and wiped his ass with it

runawaybishop

ash23 wrote: »

If UPC can't provide a service due to something out of their control, then it's out of their control and they shouldn't and wouldn't be in a place to offer a refund.

And also because most of those contacts state that they don't guarantee 100% uptime and wont reimburse you. People need to be reading contracts.

13.1 Things beyond our control may affect the quality or availability of the Services, such
as power outages and fluctuations in the internet. We will
not be liable for any delay or
failure to provide the Services, including access to emergency services, or any
interruption or degradation in Services, or any loss of data that is caused by any of the
following

etc etc etc

13.3 In no event will we be liable to you for any consequential or indirect losses,
including but not limited to loss of revenue, profits, contracts or anticipated savings or
wasted expense, or any financial loss or l
oss of data or liability to third parties for
damage, or any general loss on account of the loss of use of the Services

blackwhite

runawaybishop wrote: »

And also because most of those contacts state that they don't guarantee 100% uptime and wont reimburse you. People need to be reading contracts.

13.1 Things beyond our control may affect the quality or availability of the Services, such
as power outages and fluctuations in the internet. We will
not be liable for any delay or
failure to provide the Services, including access to emergency services, or any
interruption or degradation in Services, or any loss of data that is caused by any of the
following

etc etc etc

13.3 In no event will we be liable to you for any consequential or indirect losses,
including but not limited to loss of revenue, profits, contracts or anticipated savings or
wasted expense, or any financial loss or l
oss of data or liability to third parties for
damage, or any general loss on account of the loss of use of the Services

Neither of those preclude refunds for non-provision of service. They are rejection of liability for damages caused by non-provision of service. UPC are protecting themselves from a case where you sue for damages because the internet being down meant that you suffered some form of financial loss and/or damages. (i.e. you missed out on selling something on eBay).

If UPC are contracted to provide a service, and fail to provide said service, then there's not much they can put in their T&Cs that will legally shelter them from having to refund what they have charged for that service.

ash23

blackwhite wrote: »

Neither of those preclude refunds for non-provision of service. They are rejection of liability for damages caused by non-provision of service. UPC are protecting themselves from a case where you sue for damages because the internet being down meant that you suffered some form of financial loss and/or damages. (i.e. you missed out on selling something on eBay).

If UPC are contracted to provide a service, and fail to provide said service, then there's not much they can put in their T&Cs that will legally shelter them from having to refund what they have charged for that service.

The point is that we don't know what the issue the person had was. It was speculation that it was something that could be remedied as opposed to something that is outside of UPCs control.
As a CS agent I have had people complain when I can't give them a competitors price for example. It would be like going into Tesco and expecting them to know how much Dunnes charge.
All the poster said was the UPC had said there was nothing more they could do. That to me (having had to use that line myself) that it's something that isn't within the companies control.
If it was then it should be remedied. But if it's not then constantly calling and complaining about it is a waste of the CSR's time and it's not worth keeping customers who simply think that if they want, they should get, regardless of what the company say or do.

I'm not talking about UPC refusing to provide something that is in the contract. I'm talking about them not providing something that they simply can't control or change or do anything about.

runawaybishop

blackwhite wrote: »

Neither of those preclude refunds for non-provision of service. They are rejection of liability for damages caused by non-provision of service. UPC are protecting themselves from a case where you sue for damages because the internet being down meant that you suffered some form of financial loss and/or damages. (i.e. you missed out on selling something on eBay).

If UPC are contracted to provide a service, and fail to provide said service, then there's not much they can put in their T&Cs that will legally shelter them from having to refund what they have charged for that service.

Actually there is plenty that will shelter them - all they need to do is state the uptime. As long as the outage falls within that they dont legally have to refund you anything. Most of the ISPs will have 99.9% uptime, which allows them 87 hours a year.

blackwhite

ash23 wrote: »

The point is that we don't know what the issue the person had was. It was speculation that it was something that could be remedied as opposed to something that is outside of UPCs control.
As a CS agent I have had people complain when I can't give them a competitors price for example. It would be like going into Tesco and expecting them to know how much Dunnes charge.
All the poster said was the UPC had said there was nothing more they could do. That to me (having had to use that line myself) that it's something that isn't within the companies control.
If it was then it should be remedied. But if it's not then constantly calling and complaining about it is a waste of the CSR's time and it's not worth keeping customers who simply think that if they want, they should get, regardless of what the company say or do.

I'm not talking about UPC refusing to provide something that is in the contract. I'm talking about them not providing something that they simply can't control or change or do anything about.

Say someone hires me to come and provide a service, pays a deposit in advance, and then I cannot provide the service because somebody steals my equipment.
Should i be entitled to keep the deposit?

They've been paid to to provide a service and failed to do so. The whys and hows are irrelevant. Legally, they are not entitled to keep any consideration if the service is not provided/performed.

blackwhite

runawaybishop wrote: »

Actually there is plenty that will shelter them - all they need to do is state the uptime. As long as the outage falls within that they dont legally have to refund you anything. Most of the ISPs will have 99.9% uptime, which allows them 87 hours a year.

If there's an uptime provision then they are covered.

My posts above were in relation to the claim that if UPC didn't cause the problem then they have no responsibility for it - should have made it clearer.

runawaybishop

blackwhite wrote: »

They've been paid to to provide a service and failed to do so. The whys and hows are irrelevant. Legally, they are not entitled to keep any consideration if the service is not provided/performed.

This is nto correct, they are being paid to provide a service for X amount of time, that X is not 100%.

ash23

blackwhite wrote: »

They've been paid to to provide a service and failed to do so. The whys and hows are irrelevant. Legally, they are not entitled to keep any consideration if the service is not provided/performed.

They are if it's in their contract or terms and conditions. I'd say nine times out of ten most complaints are covered in the t&c. People don't bother reading them, sign and agree with them and then complain when they find out what's actually in them.

rawn

Well, this thread has tanked.

rubadub

donutheadhomer wrote: »

I worked in a certain pizza factory making dough one summer in college - a large place. One guy was really pissed with the boss and took dough off the line and wiped his ass with it

wow, that really taught the boss a lesson, he must have been livid when he didn't find out :rolleyes:, but at least the hard done by guy gained a lot from his crime.

The guy who allegedly did it, or his family/friends could have ended up eating that pizza.

tipptom

rawn wrote: »

Well, this thread has tanked.

Yea,preferred it when people were talking about scandalous behaviour at work than technicality's about terms and conditions.

Seamus1964

rubadub wrote: »

wow, that really taught the boss a lesson, he must have been livid when he didn't find out :rolleyes:, but at least the hard done by guy gained a lot from his crime.

The guy who allegedly did it, or his family/friends could have ended up eating that pizza.

+1
Also it must be pretty weird experience to wipe your ass with dough do

XxMCRxBabyxX

Seamus1964 wrote: »

+1
Also it must be pretty weird experience to wipe your ass with dough do

That's got to be uncomfortable! And when it dries...

Gremlinertia

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

That's got to be uncomfortable! And when it dries...

Dingleberries!! (Meatballs anyone?)

IrishEyes19

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

Used to work in a bar in Corfu where all the spirits were flavoured wood alcohol. Watching your customers puck blood after a couple of weeks drinking all in the name of profit - lovely!
Moral: when abroad, drink what the locals drink, in Corfu's case Metaxa brandy.

why don't people report things like this if they know. Jesus christ like..........