 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:15:33 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>> (It also wouldn't surprise me if her contract forbids her working for
>>> a competetor for X years - but I haven't actually checked...)
>>
>> I have that for 6 months too, but it isn't legal so you can just ignore
>> it
>
> Wait - you mean if somebody is in a contract, it's not necessarily
> enforcible?
As Darren says, it depends on what it is. But even in circumstances like
that, I know people who have been hired by a competitor who had to wait
out the "waiting period" and their new employer arranged things for them
to be paid while they took a year off in order to fulfill the non-compete
clause.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:49:32 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>> She spent about 10 years installing people's telephones, running
>>> telephone cables, diagnosing network faults, etc.
>>
>> OK. That would be the monopoly part, yes.
>>
>> Maybe look at a construction company who wants someone experienced when
>> wiring up new buildings?
>
> ...except that she doesn't do that any more. She ended up in the call
> center because she was getting too old for lugging ladders and stuff
> around in all weather.
Supervisory work would probably be a good option, then - she knows how
it's done, so she could possibly lead a team, do the actual cable plant
design work (but have someone else pull the wires), that sort of thing.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 01:11:43 -0400, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> at least for what I have seen on U.S.A trial movies,
I wouldn't use this as a guide for what's possible in the real world....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Depends, some cases are fictional so those will stay out of
consideration but, real-life cases maybe be a good reference. I wouldn't
call it a guide since it doesn't guarantee any success but I think would
give you an idea what to expect. But since our friend here is English
won't be much of a help, probably he knows better about legal outcomes
in UK.
Cheers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:37:51 -0400, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Depends, some cases are fictional so those will stay out of
> consideration but, real-life cases maybe be a good reference.
There's almost always some dramatic license taken with the cases shown in
movies or on television. I'm a huge fan of Law & Order (the TV series),
but I hold no illusions that their presentations are very highly
dramatized for effect. I've been in court a few times (never as a
defendant, once as an observer and twice as a prospective jurist - and I
was selected once), and it's generally fairly boring stuff that wouldn't
make good TV. (I've also got family in the legal profession and a cousin
who works as a sheriff's deputy, and they confirm that it never really
gets that exciting in the actual courtroom).
> I wouldn't
> call it a guide since it doesn't guarantee any success but I think would
> give you an idea what to expect.
I really don't think so. My experience is limited, but as I stated
above, it seems that dramatizations have to add stuff to make it more
entertaining.
> But since our friend here is English
> won't be much of a help, probably he knows better about legal outcomes
> in UK.
Probably, but L&O UK wouldn't be my choice as a guide, either.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Oh I see, of course you need the appeal factor on everything on TV but
what I meant was that real-life based TV/movies cases are more likely to
show what abuse cases are all about, not something you take notes on,
you know what I mean?
I've never been in court.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:38:50 -0400, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Oh I see, of course you need the appeal factor on everything on TV but
> what I meant was that real-life based TV/movies cases are more likely to
> show what abuse cases are all about, not something you take notes on,
> you know what I mean?
I'm not sure I follow....
> I've never been in court.
It's an interesting experience.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Well, this is it. The call handling target *was* 500 seconds per call.
LOL I love it when people set targets like that, then the person who hangs
up every call after 499 seconds looks to be way "better" than the person who
spends the time giving out quality advice when it's needed.
Also I suspect that *most* of the calls are quite easily solved in under 500
seconds, it's just going to be a few that aren't. Then it's just going to
be luck of the draw which operator gets more than their fair share of those
in a month making their results look rubbish.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> Well, this is it. The call handling target *was* 500 seconds per call.
>
> LOL I love it when people set targets like that, then the person who
> hangs up every call after 499 seconds looks to be way "better" than the
> person who spends the time giving out quality advice when it's needed.
QED.
This, I suspect, is how the managers can claim that "everybody else can
do it". Um, no, they can't, they're just better at gaming the system.
My mum, on the other hand, is one of those rare people who actually
wants to help the customer. Every service quality measurement they have
a statistic for, my mum is above target by a mile. The *only* stat below
target is call duration. Need I explain further?
> Also I suspect that *most* of the calls are quite easily solved in under
> 500 seconds, it's just going to be a few that aren't. Then it's just
> going to be luck of the draw which operator gets more than their fair
> share of those in a month making their results look rubbish.
Indeed.
BT seems to have an institutional culture of everybody trying to dump
work on other people as fast as possible. People will transfer calls to
totally inappropriate departments just to keep their own stats looking
good. The faster you transfer the call, the faster it becomes "not my
problem any more". Heaven forbid that *I* should actually do some *work*...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> My mum, on the other hand, is one of those rare people who actually wants
> to help the customer. Every service quality measurement they have a
> statistic for, my mum is above target by a mile. The *only* stat below
> target is call duration. Need I explain further?
Not to me, but I guess to her manager if he shouts at her. If I were your
mum I would simply ask him what to do, simply say would you prefer me to cut
off callers early in order to reach this target or carry on as I'm doing
actually trying to solve the problem, or maybe he has another suggestion.
Get it in writing what she should be aiming to do, as there doesn't seem an
obvious way to meet the target *and* solve every problem properly.
> BT seems to have an institutional culture of everybody trying to dump work
> on other people as fast as possible. People will transfer calls to totally
> inappropriate departments just to keep their own stats looking good. The
> faster you transfer the call, the faster it becomes "not my problem any
> more".
Hehe, I guess if your average call duration is 502 seconds and it's near the
end of the month you need a few 5 second "hang on while i transfer you"
calls to get under the magic 500!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
