>> - How BT does business.
> 
> Surely not that different to many other large companies?

I mean stuff like knowing which departments deal with which problems, 
what order a customer request has to go from place to place to get stuff 
done, things like that. Stuff that's perculiar to the particular 
department structure that BT has chosen to implement.

>> - How to install wired analogue telephone systems.
>> - How to perform diagnostics on wired analogue telephone systems.
> 
> Those skills could probably be used by many companies with their own 
> internal telephone systems (ie every company with more than 10 
> employees). I'm sure it wouldn't take her long to do some training (if 
> she hasn't already) to brush up on digital phone systems.

I'm not sure how many companies need you to attach overhead wires to 
telegraph poles, but sure, the internal stuff is probably relevant. 
Except that my mum doesn't *do* installation work any more. Diagnostics 
could be a possibility though...

Post a reply to this message

> They'd just promise the customer a product, take their money, give the 
> customer an empty shoe box with some wires on the front, and be laughing 
> all the way to the bank.

Ermm yeh, doesn't sound like a very sustainable business model...

> Fortunately, such behaviour is illegal. Unfortunately, laws do not apply 
> to Microsoft.

It appears you forgot all the "debunking" we did a while back of all your 
fictitious beliefs of what MS had done in the past.  IIRC you had some 
pretty weird versions of history, like MS stealing DOS and reselling it etc.

Anyway, hasn't MS given the EU court a shed load of money recently?  I guess 
they just did that for fun.

Post a reply to this message

> I mean stuff like knowing which departments deal with which problems, what 
> order a customer request has to go from place to place to get stuff done, 
> things like that. Stuff that's perculiar to the particular department 
> structure that BT has chosen to implement.

Nobody expects you to know that internal detail when you join a new company 
though, it can be learnt by anyone pretty quickly.  Just the fact that she 
has worked in a large organisation with these types of systems is a benefit 
if she's looking to join another large company.

> I'm not sure how many companies need you to attach overhead wires to 
> telegraph poles,

I'm sure lots of companies have multi-building sites that need to be linked. 
I guess your mum knows the pros and cons of overhead vs underground cables 
quite well, that sort of stuff is surely needed when planning new sites.

Post a reply to this message

>> I mean stuff like knowing which departments deal with which problems, 
>> what order a customer request has to go from place to place to get 
>> stuff done, things like that. Stuff that's perculiar to the particular 
>> department structure that BT has chosen to implement.
> 
> Nobody expects you to know that internal detail when you join a new 
> company though, it can be learnt by anyone pretty quickly.  Just the 
> fact that she has worked in a large organisation with these types of 
> systems is a benefit if she's looking to join another large company.

I just ment that her existing knowledge is largely only useful to her 
current employer.

>> I'm not sure how many companies need you to attach overhead wires to 
>> telegraph poles,
> 
> I'm sure lots of companies have multi-building sites that need to be 
> linked. I guess your mum knows the pros and cons of overhead vs 
> underground cables quite well, that sort of stuff is surely needed when 
> planning new sites.

Well, maybe. I don't suppose many new sites get built very often though.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> My mum, on the other hand, is one of those rare people who actually 
> wants to help the customer. 

She is definitely in the wrong job then ;)

How is she now BTW?



-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
>>> I mean stuff like knowing which departments deal with which problems, 
>>> what order a customer request has to go from place to place to get 
>>> stuff done, things like that. Stuff that's perculiar to the 
>>> particular department structure that BT has chosen to implement.
>>
>> Nobody expects you to know that internal detail when you join a new 
>> company though, it can be learnt by anyone pretty quickly.  Just the 
>> fact that she has worked in a large organisation with these types of 
>> systems is a benefit if she's looking to join another large company.
> 
> I just ment that her existing knowledge is largely only useful to her 
> current employer.
> 

No wonder you’ve never changed jobs :P

Now, just put your mother on the newsgroup so we can speak to someone 
sensible. ;)


-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

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. 
> 
> She is definitely in the wrong job then ;)

Well yah. ;-)

But if you can't do anything else, gotta earn a living somehow...

> How is she now BTW?

The doctor has signed her off work with depression. She doesn't have to 
go back to work until next month.

Post a reply to this message

>> I just ment that her existing knowledge is largely only useful to her 
>> current employer.
> 
> No wonder you’ve never changed jobs :P

Hey, *my* knowledge isn't even useful to my *current* employer! :-P

> Now, just put your mother on the newsgroup so we can speak to someone 
> sensible. ;)

Not at the speed she types at...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> ...a systemic culture of work-avoiders and blame-shifters? QED.

You're aware that Scott Adams of Dilbert fame started the comic while he 
worked at Pacific Bell, one of the US equivalents of BT, yes?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Is God willing to prevent naglams, but unable?
     Then he is not omnipotent.
   Is he able, but not willing, to prevent naglams?
     Then he is malevolent.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Does this mean that all that M$ stuff about "we technically own your PC 
> now and you can't stop us doing anything we want to it" is not actually 
> legally binding?

It probably does not mean this.

> (E.g., presumably you can't write an EULA that says in the small print 
> "by using this software you agree to surrender your first-born child to 
> us". Or rather, you *can*, it just won't mean squat.)

Correct.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Is God willing to prevent naglams, but unable?
     Then he is not omnipotent.
   Is he able, but not willing, to prevent naglams?
     Then he is malevolent.

Post a reply to this message