Rogers retention made change on my account without my agreement!!!!!!!!! RAGE!

[DataDude]

You told her what you wanted, she did what you wanted. Your own words.

Actually, no. OP wanted the rep to confirm the details of his new plan before switching him over - but she had already flipped the switch. She should have gotten explicit consent before making that change particularly if credits were going to be removed. If you want to buy my car, and you say, "yeah, I want to buy that," I wouldn't immediately report you for not making payment. There's a point where everybody has to say, "okay, here's exactly what's going to happen, here are all the costs involved, can we all agree on this?"

[DataDude]

Firstly, I don't know your definition of lie.

While it might not be an outright lie it CERTAINLY is not telling the whole truth. A position I've seen here a fair amount blurs the line between a "lie" and "Rogers training to employees to say/not say/avoid talking about something." For example if an agent says "our system won't allow credits on this plan" that might be a falsehood. They may simply be told not to offer credits on that plan unless deemed absolutely necessary. But according to my definition, I'd still consider that a lie since they could have just said "sorry, in your situation we can't really offer much right now."

Likewise with the shortcuts. "No, they're not there anymore" probably translates into "I'm not allowed to say and/or I don't know." But I definitely would feel more sympathetic to the CSRs if they'd simply stuck to the truth.

[ceredon]

Actually, no. OP wanted the rep to confirm the details of his new plan before switching him over - but she had already flipped the switch. She should have gotten explicit consent before making that change particularly if credits were going to be removed. If you want to buy my car, and you say, "yeah, I want to buy that," I wouldn't immediately report you for not making payment. There's a point where everybody has to say, "okay, here's exactly what's going to happen, here are all the costs involved, can we all agree on this?"

Yep. Agreement requires consideration and consent. Given the rep didn't even know of the plan the OP couldn't have really known she'd even found the right one. Confirmation of details should have been a given.

Interesting that 'pulling a fast one' is considered a legitimate business practice. And that exact what the argument is coming down to, pushing it through without allowing details to be considered.

[WorldIRC]

"sorry, in your situation we can't really offer much right now."

I'm not going to start teaching call centre tactics; but that is one of the worst things any CSR could say to a client. It opens too many doors for escalation. Due to consumer sensitivity, simply saying we are unable to extend any [more] credits at this time, and leaving it at that, is more than sufficient.

The client is not entitled to know the "internal business rules" and if they don't like that response, they're free to write a letter to the OOP explaining their dissatisfaction.

[ircu]

I'd still consider that a lie since they could have just said "sorry, in your situation we can't really offer much right now."

Likewise with the shortcuts. "No, they're not there anymore" probably translates into "I'm not allowed to say and/or I don't know." But I definitely would feel more sympathetic to the CSRs if they'd simply stuck to the truth.

And the CSR's should put there jobs at risk because you think you are entitled to all the details. There is more stuff that you can't know about, shouldn't know about and will never find out about. Just because you are not told does not make it a lie no matter what you say.

You must go around thinking the world is lying to you because everyone has details they cannot tell you for whatever reason.

[DataDude]

And the CSR's should put there jobs at risk because you think you are entitled to all the details. There is more stuff that you can't know about, shouldn't know about and will never find out about. Just because you are not told does not make it a lie no matter what you say.

You must go around thinking the world is lying to you because everyone has details they cannot tell you for whatever reason.

Well, I suppose we could write to the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary and get an "unless it puts someone's job at risk/makes it easier for businesses to interact with a client" clause in the definition of a lie. Until then, yes sir, a lie is "something which is not true," and Rogers is not an exception to that.

NOT telling somebody something isn't exactly a lie - it just isn't telling the whole truth.

I understand why Rogers does it and even see why it may be justifiable in _certain circumstances_, but you can't tell me that "a CSR could lose her job, so if she tells you something that isn't true, then it's not a lie because she's protecting her job."

[DataDude]

I'm not going to start teaching call centre tactics; but that is one of the worst things any CSR could say to a client. It opens too many doors for escalation. Due to consumer sensitivity, simply saying we are unable to extend any [more] credits at this time, and leaving it at that, is more than sufficient.

The client is not entitled to know the "internal business rules" and if they don't like that response, they're free to write a letter to the OOP explaining their dissatisfaction.

For sure, I've worked in a call centre before so I'm well aware of "tactics" for making people easier to deal with. One of them, unfortunately, is blurring the truth a little bit. Not even saying that shouldn't happen in certain respects, but I'd still consider that a lie even if business policies/logistical issues may make lying easier.

[WorldIRC]

For sure, I've worked in a call centre before so I'm well aware of "tactics" for making people easier to deal with. One of them, unfortunately, is blurring the truth a little bit. Not even saying that shouldn't happen in certain respects, but I'd still consider that a lie even if business policies/logistical issues may make lying easier.

It is an acceptable business tactic; why don't we call it that

I'd never lie (tell untrue information) to a client; and Rogers would also never ask their employees to tell "untrue information". They ask their employees to exercise caution and ensure only pertinent information is shared (e.g. my example -- we are not able to extend you any more credits as per our internal policy). That "internal policy" is not for the client to know, and all they need to know is that they cannot have any more credits.

[DataDude]

It is an acceptable business tactic; why don't we call it that

I'd never lie (tell untrue information) to a client; and Rogers would also never ask their employees to tell "untrue information". They ask their employees to exercise caution and ensure only pertinent information is shared (e.g. my example -- we are not able to extend you any more credits as per our internal policy). That "internal policy" is not for the client to know, and all they need to know is that they cannot have any more credits.

Absolutely WorldIrc. My apologies, I totally missed your wording when I replied earlier today. But yes, I'd have no qualms about having that said to me or saying it to a customer. It's factual and not the least bit untruthful.

It's only when a CSR tells an outright lie and/or insists something is true when they don't really know it's true, where I'd say things start to get mirkier. Definitely didn't mean to accuse you personally of stretching the truth, I just completely missed the example you gave.