Customers Suck!

Customers Suck! (http://www.customerssuck.com/board/index.php)
-   Sucky Customers (http://www.customerssuck.com/board/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   So many Special Snowflakes.... (http://www.customerssuck.com/board/showthread.php?t=103126)

Ashaela 11-14-2013 01:46 AM

So many Special Snowflakes....
 
I swear, this year has been the Year of I-Don't-Like-The-Rules.

Everybody thinks their special case is the one that deserves unique consideration with sprinkles on top, because, well take your pick:

The requirements are too hard (doesn't change the law)

Nobody anywhere else asked them to do this (doesn't change the law)

They didn't read the email telling them what they needed (still doesn't change the law)

They're too important to be lumped into the same requirements as everyone else (all together now on the chorus)

Seriously, I've wasted so much time on these - explaining on the phone why they can't be exempt. Then explaining in writing the same thing. Then I have to collect all the documents and type them up for the manager who says no. Then they appeal the decision and I have to re-type it including the appeal for the director who says no. Then they appeal that decision and it has to go to the committee meeting and the committee says no.

And then they decide it's too much trouble to meet the requirements and don't bother finishing their applications, and I've now spent hours dealing with someone who then says "meh, no thanks" and vanishes. I even tell them in advance how many appeals I've processed this year, and that all of them were denied, and they still put me through this.

:cry: I have so much other work to do.... :cry:

dakhur 11-14-2013 09:07 AM

It's because somewhere in their lives, so bastard has agreed that yes, they're a special case in whatever they were arguing about and then they got their own way. So, in their tiny little minds, it means you must give way as well.

Oh, how I used to enjoy smiling slightly and saying 'no' when this happened.

Sandiercy 11-14-2013 09:23 AM

I personally read those words to Michael Jackson's Smooth Criminal.

Mondestrucken 11-14-2013 03:42 PM

I get this a lot in civil service, and I think it comes from retail work where so many people have learned that Tantrum = Doing what I Want-How I Want-Getting what I Want. It seemingly blows their mind that sometimes No actually means: No, because I will not break the law and lose my job because you will be inconvenienced.

One lady even told me that I should give her a discount for her "inconvenience." I explained:
(1) Discount? Our fees are set by law. This isn't Kmart.
(2) Inconvenience? You are required by law to furnish proof of insurance when renewing your car registration. We allowed you to have your insurance agent fax in your insurance (on our fax), and we allowed you to get back to the front of the line once it came in. The only ones inconvenienced are us and the other customers.

Estil 11-14-2013 05:21 PM

To the OP; I'm confused, what exactly are they trying to get exceptions/exemptions for?

Ironclad Alibi 11-14-2013 07:40 PM

Quote:

Quoth Estil (Post 1182080)
To the OP; I'm confused, what exactly are they trying to get exceptions/exemptions for?

What is there that they aren't trying to get exceptions/exemptions for?

Ashaela 11-20-2013 02:59 PM

Sorry about the delay - I didn't want to post about this from work and my home internet is unreliable. There's a law that says you have to pass an approved test within 10 years of applying to get a license. There are a couple of exemptions - one is that you can go back and take this generalized test, or take one of a particular series of 'unapproved' tests along with some other requirements to get a special certification.

Well, no one want to take the general test because they'd have to study, and the set-up to get the certification renewed is either inconvenient to when they applied, or they're considered 'grandfathered' in to the certificate and just don't want to do it again. Or most recently, they took the test for the certification, but didn't finish any of the other requirements, but of course that ought to be good enough anyway

Mondestrucken 11-20-2013 05:30 PM

I just had another one. She is owed a refund, but so much of what happened is her fault.

10/4, busy Friday afternoon. Lady does not want to wait to renew her plates. She sees this machine we have, which is basically an ATM for car plate tags, and she goes to use it. The machine prints out her tag and registration, and a receipt for her credit card, which shows she was charged an extra $2, so she comes up to the counter and asks one of the clerks about the extra $2. The clerk said: "It tells you that there is an extra $2 per tag to use the machine." The customer fluttered at me telling me: "I don't read those screens!" Mistake #1.

Now she was a little ticked, and she flounced over to the machine to do the other vehicle, but she was a little hot, and she renews the same plate (and pays for it) again. Mistake #2. She asks the clerk if she can just use the second tag on the other car: only if you really want your car impounded if you get pulled over.

Finally, she renews her other plate. She says she gave the clerk her extra registration, and the clerk said that the state would reverse the charges, and she leaves. Except she doesn't remember which clerk she spoke to, and none of the clerks remember her.

So I have applied for a refund for her, but she tells me to tell the finance department that they also need to send her extra as a penalty. She made me promise to tell them that, and the Finance department had a good laugh. I did try to explain to her that won't be happening, but she kept insisting it was our fault. Now, if she did truly hand the extra one over to one of the clerks (and a few are so ditsy to have completely forgotten having accepted one and forgot to submit it the same day), then that part is our mistake. But every other part was her own doing.

wolfie 11-20-2013 10:04 PM

Quote:

Quoth Mondestrucken (Post 1183214)
Lady does not want to wait to renew her plates. She sees this machine we have, which is basically an ATM for car plate tags, and she goes to use it. The machine prints out her tag and registration, and a receipt for her credit card, which shows she was charged an extra $2, so she comes up to the counter and asks one of the clerks about the extra $2. The clerk said: "It tells you that there is an extra $2 per tag to use the machine." The customer fluttered at me telling me: "I don't read those screens!" Mistake #1.

Now she was a little ticked, and she flounced over to the machine to do the other vehicle, but she was a little hot, and she renews the same plate (and pays for it) again.

Having spent some time as a programmer, I've got a bit of sympathy for the SC. This is one of the things that should have been anticipated in the spec - someone renewing multiple plates, getting distracted, and entering the same plate again rather than one which hasn't been renewed.

Proper practice would be, rather than blindly renewing the same plate (system should KNOW that the plate has already been renewed, since the plate number serves as a unique identifier), pop up a message box telling the person that this is a duplicate renewal, and if they were trying to go for a 2-year renewal rather than a 1-year but accidentally entered 1 year the first time, they would need to resolve the issue at the counter (necessity of taking back the 1 year sticker and ensuring it's complete is beyond the capabilities of the kiosk).

Of course, a REALLY user-friendly system would then pop up a list of plates registered to the same entity but not yet renewed, asking if they want to renew one of them or cancel the transaction.

Ophbalance 11-20-2013 10:46 PM

Except this is a state funded project, sold to the lowest bidder ;)

Kit-Ginevra 11-20-2013 10:58 PM

How about this-if a plate is input that has already been renewed,a large hand springs out of the side of the machine,slaps them about the face with a small fish,whilst announcing in a loud tone 'You've already done that one,you muppet'...

wolfie 11-20-2013 11:18 PM

Quote:

Quoth Ophbalance (Post 1183268)
Except this is a state funded project, sold to the lowest bidder ;)

But the spec for the project (i.e. what it has to be capable of doing) should have come from the DMV, and they should have anticipated "multiple plates, gets distracted" and included it in the specs. After all, manual correction of a routine problem that the machine should be able to prevent is an ongoing expense.

As for why the spec should have come from the DMV, it's a simple matter of "We need a hardware/software package that can do this - what are your bids?"

EnoughAlready 11-22-2013 07:11 PM

Quote:

Quoth Kit-Ginevra (Post 1183276)
How about this-if a plate is input that has already been renewed,a large hand springs out of the side of the machine,slaps them about the face with a small fish,whilst announcing in a loud tone 'You've already done that one,you muppet'...

I would pay to see this!


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:26 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.