New Process for Agents when they call customer service
Whats up with the custromer having to talk to the call center rep? It makes the rep at the agent look completely stupid and useless. If the customer wanted to call customer service they would have done it on there own. I am so pissed off at this. It makes me look inadequet in my customers eyes. Who else in any agents is having this problem. I mean it seems to me USCC wants to make themselves different from the agent locations, When we launched in this market we got all this training "One Team One Goal" and I firmly believed that untill now. I am very passionate about what I do, I until this point I was very pleased with the overall opperation of the Agent to Retail locations. I mean WTF?
...
It's problably having to do with fraud issues. I know here in St. Louis we have to fax in a copy of the id and have the customer talk to them. Go figure. I think it's cool to prevent fraud but then at the same time it does make us look less than uscc. But USCC does a good job of making themselves look bad on their own. I'm starting to really regret working for them.
...
i don't think its all that bad, but i have seen a lot more cancellations this month... probably a lot to do with their 911 thing, but good for salespeople who get the 911 customers who are not completely pissed.
...
I don't have a problem with having the customer speak to CS if Agents are requesting "sensitive" informative (ie. call logs). However, it seems ridiculous that we should have to inconvenience the customer just to find out a customer's minutes of use or an account balance. What possible fraud could come from giving out that information to an Agent?!? This new policy, given it's extreme measures, makes the Agents look untrustworthy and incompetent. Shame on US Cellular! USCC corporate stores are not being held to the same extreme levels of security.
...
Dodge_T said:
I don't have a problem with having the customer speak to CS if Agents are requesting "sensitive" informative (ie. call logs). However, it seems ridiculous that we should have to inconvenience the customer just to find out a customer's minutes of use or an account balance. What possible fraud could come from giving out that information to an Agent?!? This new policy, given it's extreme measures, makes the Agents look untrustworthy and incompetent. Shame on US Cellular! USCC corporate stores are not being held to the same extreme levels of security.
I agree totally I hate having Rules that they don't even enforce for there own corporate employees.
...
i agree as well. All of us (one team one goal) shoul have to follow correct procedures. Also, what's the deal? I understand we have been verifying customers all along but now we get this email from our vp that says even if you mess up one part of the process your fired!!?? Aren't we all "human"? I feel this is not so "dynamic" and they aren't having "respect" for their associates. Now I am in fear of losing my job just because i dont verify a callers last name...give me a break! If i am talking to sally smith (ex only) and I ask for a name and the cust states sally...i am assuming i am talking to sally smith!! Dont get me wrong, i am ALL FOR security but this seems a little over the top. I like my job and value it, but I thought QA w...
(continues)
(continues)
...
That's horrible if your agent is so large they have a VP. I hope everything works out for you but if that is the kind of stance they are gonna take it is not a good sign.
...
oh, ok, i havent heard this new policy, but my manager called customer service and wanted a change and they said they would get fired if they did that... sounds very bad.
...
yeah i think this is a little overboard but who am I to say. I am just a measly rwc ya know!
...
Whatever the company wants to do is fine by me, they may be fascist windbags, but all cell phone corporations are.
...
From what I understand, this new rule was most likely started due to past situations. I have heard of different occasions when agents reps were calling in for customers that were not present in the store. Now I know from experience that sometimes the reps have the customer's consent and the customer may not be there because of something simple like they had to step out of the store for a moment.(I mean, sometimes the hold times can be kind of extensive.) So..all of the good agent reps/companies owe these kinds of new policies to all of the shady ones out there that continue to give all agents a bad name. These kinds of things happen with all cellular companies though.
As far as the same policy being placed upon retail associates...well, t...
(continues)
As far as the same policy being placed upon retail associates...well, t...
(continues)
...
yeah sorry i don't work for an agent or in retail at all. I work in cust service. we got an email from the director of our call center and it was a zero tolerance email about verification. Things have changed due to internet co's putting customers personal info on the net for purchase and also due to identity theft. (i.e. people will call cs and pretend they are an agent with a fake comp/loc etc) I just think its very unfair and isn't it illegal to just fire an employee w/ no warning. I thought due to employment laws that a verbal, written, and final were required steps for termination. All i know is that i am no longer looking forward to going to work due to these changes. I am afraid and my whole team is scared of messing up.
...
labor laws have been severely deteriorated over the years, and companies establish business in "business friendly" states, a lot of states are popular because they dont have to pay overtime. But to even fight something like that is usually not worth it, chances are whatever they say goes.
...
I'm only familiar with labor laws in Wisconsin, but in that state "employment at will" is the standard. An employer or employee can terminate employment for any reason, so long as the employer doesn't terminate employment on the basis of a trait protected under Title VII.
The reason employers generally follow a disciplinary track like the one you describe is to create a paper trail in case that someone in a protected class claims that there was discrimination involved.
The reason employers generally follow a disciplinary track like the one you describe is to create a paper trail in case that someone in a protected class claims that there was discrimination involved.
...
Employment at will states also dont really give you unemployment if the employer objects, you can fight it in court, but you will probably only win if the company is so huge their laywers dont really care to show up, like was the case for me and my friend when we worked for boeing, the judge will then take your word for it because he will be mad they wasted his time.
...
Why are Agents deemed less trustworthy than USCC corporate Associates?
One team, one goal?!?
Almost half of all USCC phones are sold through the Agents. Yet we continue to get treated as if we are the enemy.
One team, one goal?!?
Almost half of all USCC phones are sold through the Agents. Yet we continue to get treated as if we are the enemy.
...
yeah, but thats never been true every company is wary of their indirect stores although they are much lest costly for a company There are a lot of untrustworthy agents for every company and they usually end up costing a company a lot of money, "one team one goal" has always just been a propaganda tool to improve morale and try to stem shady practices. The trustworthy people will always be punished for the actions of the untrustworthy ones. Like this policy.... Until they figure out things like this are an effort in futility, like their while e911 thing (still more cancellations than renewals and practicly no new lines this month).
...
just because we are an agent doesn't mean we are less trustworthy!! I am sick of this b.s. maybe I am better off going to woprk for cingular!!
...
you'd only be punishing yourself if you went to work for that heap of garbage.
...
My guess is it simply is relevant to agents, not that it doesnt apply to retail stores (since they dont have to CALL IN to do everything agents do)
...
thats right thats why this is crap b/c if cares goes down a corp. employee cant do n e thing anyways where as aim goes down frequently so we as agent must call in for almost everything at 1 point or another!!!! 👿
...
the point i am trying to make is that we must call in and when we call in the cs agent wants to speak with the customer like I haven't done my job or that I don't know what I am doing makes me feel like uscc wants to seperate themselves from the agents. What happened to "One team One Goal?" or was that jus propaganda? This whole policy is crap 👿 👿 👿 👿 👿 👿 👿 👿 👿
...
Iv worked here(retail) for over 10 years and we have always had to put the customer on with C.S.
...
if thats the case why would they roll this out with a letter of policy change! the reason you guys must put the customer on the phone with c.s. is that there should be nop reason for you to call!! if cares is down its down throughout your entire market, whereas AIM can go down in one store a whole market or even just one town. Thats Why the new policy is B.S.
...
Look, this is what I've been told. The verification thing isn't something we shouldn't have been doing in the first place. Other companies (credit card, other cell companies, etc.) already strictly verify accounts to prevent fraud and identity theft. Verifying that you have permission to speak to a non-us cell sales associate is just a good business practice. I think that people are just freaking out over nothing. Although, it's understandable with the language that was rolled out with the policy change.
...
littlepinksock said:
Look, this is what I've been told. The verification thing isn't something we shouldn't have been doing in the first place. Other companies (credit card, other cell companies, etc.) already strictly verify accounts to prevent fraud and identity theft. Verifying that you have permission to speak to a non-us cell sales associate is just a good business practice. I think that people are just freaking out over nothing. Although, it's understandable with the language that was rolled out with the policy change.
I meant to say that it was something we should still be doing to begin with. *blush* It's been a LOOOOOONNNGGG Day
...
But, this makes me as agent seem a little stupid like I don't know what I am doing. this is B.S. no matter what way you turn it!!!!!! 👿
...
Ok so if we are an authorized agent and don't sell any other carriers why do we need to be by passed. USCellular is all we sell. I can understand if we sold the competitors service or something but we don't. So why should we be treated differently. It just doesn't make sense to me.
...
I can understand that they want to do it for security reasons, but then wouldn't just make sense to tell the customer to just call into cust. serv. on their own. The only time we would call for a customer was for an issue that was out of our control, so know when we get customers in that just want to add a line or something then it makes it seem like this is out of our control also. It's bad enough that we have to send them to corp. stores for other reasons, but now it makes the corp. stores look even better than agents since we have to let them tlk to the customer for something simple. I think that it just makes us look like we're (agents) the one's causing all the fraud problems.
...
Sending people to corporate stores has its downside, like the possibility they will return to that store, which is why corporate stores and agents don't tell customers the other store is even there if they need something. But sending people to a corporate store for stuff where commission is not involved, like paying their bill or putting accessories on their bill clogs them up and pisses off commission activity, like a customer that needs a new line.
...
We call c.s. when we get some jerk that wants something for nothing. We tell them no and then to cover our a-- we let c.s. tell them the same thing. Because some customers think we can just do what ever they want and we cant. Some times c.s.doesnt agree with us but thats ok they eat the cost not us when they tell the cust. otherwise. I think if you had confidence in yourself you wouldn't have a prob.letting the cust talk to c.s. If what you've told the customer is right then it can only make you look like you know your job.
...
