Tweet
Quick background: Where I am working today, our area is directly off of the reception area and there's an open door between them. We can hear every conversation that takes place out there. Also, this is a multi-tenant office building.
This happened just a few minutes ago. I was minding my own business when the mailman came into reception with a package. He asked if so-and-so worked at this company, and the receptionist said yes. He then proceeded to chew her out because the address on the package did not include the company name, that he didn't have the time to go around to all the companies in the building to ask, and that from now on, any such insufficiently addressed packages would be returned to sender. He also told - not asked, not suggested - but flat-out TOLD the receptionist that she needed to send out a company-wide memo telling people to make sure their packages are addressed correctly. And he was really pissy about the whole thing, too.
OK, I know as well as any postal carrier how much of a pain in the ass it is when something is insufficiently addressed. I deal with the same kind of problem all the time when receiving and shipping packages in my job. People make these sorts of mistakes ALL the time and it can get really frustrating. I've lost track of how many times I've had to chase people down to get the right information, and how often it's people who SHOULD know better. It's annoying as all hell, I know.
But chewing out the receptionist for it is completely unacceptable. It's rude, unprofessional, and what's more it's not going to accomplish anything.
First of all, she can not control what information people include when they send out the address. The package in question was a personal package that had been purchased on eBay; it may simply not have occurred to them to put a COMPANY name on a PERSONAL package. But whatever the reason, it's not something the receptionist - or anyone else here, for that matter - can control. Sending out a company-wide memo (which, by thew way, has ALREADY BEEN DONE, and she told the guy that. He kept it up anyway) guarantees nothing. Anyone on this forum understand that SCs never read signs/emails/memos/etc.
Then there's the fact that we can't control what the shipper puts on the address label. It could just as easily have been a screw up on their end.
And lastly, who the hell is he to tell ANYONE on his route what to do? "You need to send out a company-wide memo?" Who died and made you CEO? It's not his place to tell any company how to run their business. Besides, as I pointed out, this was a PERSONAL package (and it was obvious, since it said eBay click n ship right on it). The company doesn't give a hoot about personal mail or packages. As long as the work-related stuff shows up, then they are happy and have no incentive to take the time or energy to remind people about this.
I suggested that she call the post office to complain about the way he handled the situation. Even if the problem was severe enough to say something, it could have been handled a LOT better than chewing out the receptionist over it. It's exactly the same as an SC cussing out a CSR over something the CSR has no control over.
This happened just a few minutes ago. I was minding my own business when the mailman came into reception with a package. He asked if so-and-so worked at this company, and the receptionist said yes. He then proceeded to chew her out because the address on the package did not include the company name, that he didn't have the time to go around to all the companies in the building to ask, and that from now on, any such insufficiently addressed packages would be returned to sender. He also told - not asked, not suggested - but flat-out TOLD the receptionist that she needed to send out a company-wide memo telling people to make sure their packages are addressed correctly. And he was really pissy about the whole thing, too.
OK, I know as well as any postal carrier how much of a pain in the ass it is when something is insufficiently addressed. I deal with the same kind of problem all the time when receiving and shipping packages in my job. People make these sorts of mistakes ALL the time and it can get really frustrating. I've lost track of how many times I've had to chase people down to get the right information, and how often it's people who SHOULD know better. It's annoying as all hell, I know.
But chewing out the receptionist for it is completely unacceptable. It's rude, unprofessional, and what's more it's not going to accomplish anything.
First of all, she can not control what information people include when they send out the address. The package in question was a personal package that had been purchased on eBay; it may simply not have occurred to them to put a COMPANY name on a PERSONAL package. But whatever the reason, it's not something the receptionist - or anyone else here, for that matter - can control. Sending out a company-wide memo (which, by thew way, has ALREADY BEEN DONE, and she told the guy that. He kept it up anyway) guarantees nothing. Anyone on this forum understand that SCs never read signs/emails/memos/etc.
Then there's the fact that we can't control what the shipper puts on the address label. It could just as easily have been a screw up on their end.
And lastly, who the hell is he to tell ANYONE on his route what to do? "You need to send out a company-wide memo?" Who died and made you CEO? It's not his place to tell any company how to run their business. Besides, as I pointed out, this was a PERSONAL package (and it was obvious, since it said eBay click n ship right on it). The company doesn't give a hoot about personal mail or packages. As long as the work-related stuff shows up, then they are happy and have no incentive to take the time or energy to remind people about this.
I suggested that she call the post office to complain about the way he handled the situation. Even if the problem was severe enough to say something, it could have been handled a LOT better than chewing out the receptionist over it. It's exactly the same as an SC cussing out a CSR over something the CSR has no control over.
Comment