Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Rut-roh, I think I got some of the fellas in trouble! S-hole is on vacation this week. And since Boss has been cross-training the rest of the guys on guard-key duties, they're starting to get the big head about how much freedom they have to make executive decisions when S-hole or Boss aren't around. They don't seem to want to defer to me unless it's an issue they don't know about--i.e.: ask Sassy, she'll know.
So yesterday it was me and D-rod opening, J was a mid-shift, and D-rod and D-ball closing (poor D-rod, Mr. I've-Got-The-Guard-Key-So-I'm-In-Charge had to work all day!). I'd been off the day before, so D-rod filled me in on the account-goal standings: we were a tiny bit behind, so Boss had issued an edict that we'd stay open an hour late every night that we were still behind. They'd stayed open late the night prior and D-ball was determined not to do it again because it sucked ass. Understandable. So, one of the products we tend to push when we're behind is a sweep savings account. It's a special savings account that's only available to new customers if they do this little online financial education course and deposit at least $25. When they do that, we deposit $25 in the savings account to act as overdraft protection for the checking account. A great deal, and an easy sale for most folks--but the online course is a bit of a hurdle because a lot of our customers claim to not have access to the internet. So at first we started logging into the course on our computers and letting the customers do it while we opened their accounts on another computer. Corporate did not like that. Non-employees are absolutely not allowed on company computers due to proprietary information available there, as well as access to customer information covered by a ton of federal regulations to privacy. This makes perfect sense. So then Boss and I started bringing in our personal laptops, and Boss purchased a portable internet hub, and we let customers do the course on the laptops. Eventually Boss decided to leave his laptop at the branch and mine was no longer necessary. Recently, he took it back home. In the meantime, Boss told us that there was a big stink going around because some other branches had been caught letting customers on their computers to do the course and people were getting fired. When his laptop was unavailable, some of my co-workers once again started letting customers on the company computers. I disapproved and refused to partake, but I didn't intervene--sorry, I'm not the boss, you know. We were admonished once again. Then yesterday, about two hours into my shift, I realized that D-rod had opened one of these savings accounts for a new customer--and she hadn't done the course at all. Later, he did the course on his computer to print out the necessary paperwork "proving" that she had. I was chagrinned, but went about my day. By the end of the day, it appears that he, and perhaps one of the other guys, had opened FOUR of these accounts in this manner. This breaks so many damned rules, I can't being to tell you how pissed off I was. BUT I'M NOT THE BOSS! And they did not speak to me about the practice, while simultaneously making it clear to me that they were in contact with Boss--thereby implying that they had his approval. Not my place to question it, right?
This morning, Boss was talking casually about the accounts and asking if the guys had gotten the laptop out. J claimed they couldn't get it connected to the internet (lie: they hadn't even taken it out). Boss took the implicit message that they had used company computers. He was chagrinned about it, but said nothing. A bit later, I found myself in the back room with him. I couldn't hold my tongue: I told him point blank that they had opened all of those SSP's without any of the customers completing the course. He was P-I-S-S-E-D. A bit later I got a tell-tale email asking me to detail what I knew about the course of events. These emails are the beginning of documentation for writeups, I'm no fool.
It aggravates me that he is barred from discussing specifics when disciplining someone, because the msytery helps shroud the consequences of known bad behavior. Who knows what will happen to them--I'm sure I'll not be aware of it. I think the thing that pisses me off most is that our montly bonuses are based in part on the number of these accounts that we open--so not only were they cheating to get our overall goal numbers up, but they will be paid BONUSES for cheating, too. My numbers are always consistently lower than theirs are--why? Because I won't cut corners like that, lying or cheating or twisting the truth to force people to do things they clearly don't want to do.
But I don't want to dwell on the stuff that pisses me off. There's too much of that in my life. So I have to tell another work story: We hold a semi-annual "Cutest Baby Contest" at the branch to raise money for our corporate charity foundation (it goes to the Ronald McDonald House). Our newest contest is starting soon, so we're taking photos. A regular customer of ours (and I could tell dozens of stories attesting to her mental instability) brought in a photo to enter her foster-son. He's 4. She says he's 3 because the contest cuts them off at 3, but we know he's 4. I digress--in previous contests, she's always provided a nice "professional" (i.e: WalMart photo studio) posed shot of him, as are the majority of entries. This one is a candid shot. In the photo, he is clearly bursting with joy--chest thrown out, head thrown back, huge grin on his face, clutching a squirrel. No, not a stuffed squirrel. An ACTUAL squirrel. An ACTUAL DEAD SQUIRREL.
I'll pause a minute while you imagine in your head the dozens of times I say, "No, I'm not kidding." as you disbelivingly say, "No! You're joking!"
Customer explained proudly that they had taken this 4-er 3 year old squirrel hunting. And naturally, he grew attached to the squirrel they shot. So he held it and cuddled it and loved on it for HOURS until they finally took it away from him. She even told us that he KISSED it. She's not the least bit embarassed or even cautious about this story--clearly, since she's presenting a photo of it to enter in the CUTEST BABY CONTEST.
This is a slice of the demographic I deal with every day.
So yesterday it was me and D-rod opening, J was a mid-shift, and D-rod and D-ball closing (poor D-rod, Mr. I've-Got-The-Guard-Key-So-I'm-In-Charge had to work all day!). I'd been off the day before, so D-rod filled me in on the account-goal standings: we were a tiny bit behind, so Boss had issued an edict that we'd stay open an hour late every night that we were still behind. They'd stayed open late the night prior and D-ball was determined not to do it again because it sucked ass. Understandable. So, one of the products we tend to push when we're behind is a sweep savings account. It's a special savings account that's only available to new customers if they do this little online financial education course and deposit at least $25. When they do that, we deposit $25 in the savings account to act as overdraft protection for the checking account. A great deal, and an easy sale for most folks--but the online course is a bit of a hurdle because a lot of our customers claim to not have access to the internet. So at first we started logging into the course on our computers and letting the customers do it while we opened their accounts on another computer. Corporate did not like that. Non-employees are absolutely not allowed on company computers due to proprietary information available there, as well as access to customer information covered by a ton of federal regulations to privacy. This makes perfect sense. So then Boss and I started bringing in our personal laptops, and Boss purchased a portable internet hub, and we let customers do the course on the laptops. Eventually Boss decided to leave his laptop at the branch and mine was no longer necessary. Recently, he took it back home. In the meantime, Boss told us that there was a big stink going around because some other branches had been caught letting customers on their computers to do the course and people were getting fired. When his laptop was unavailable, some of my co-workers once again started letting customers on the company computers. I disapproved and refused to partake, but I didn't intervene--sorry, I'm not the boss, you know. We were admonished once again. Then yesterday, about two hours into my shift, I realized that D-rod had opened one of these savings accounts for a new customer--and she hadn't done the course at all. Later, he did the course on his computer to print out the necessary paperwork "proving" that she had. I was chagrinned, but went about my day. By the end of the day, it appears that he, and perhaps one of the other guys, had opened FOUR of these accounts in this manner. This breaks so many damned rules, I can't being to tell you how pissed off I was. BUT I'M NOT THE BOSS! And they did not speak to me about the practice, while simultaneously making it clear to me that they were in contact with Boss--thereby implying that they had his approval. Not my place to question it, right?
This morning, Boss was talking casually about the accounts and asking if the guys had gotten the laptop out. J claimed they couldn't get it connected to the internet (lie: they hadn't even taken it out). Boss took the implicit message that they had used company computers. He was chagrinned about it, but said nothing. A bit later, I found myself in the back room with him. I couldn't hold my tongue: I told him point blank that they had opened all of those SSP's without any of the customers completing the course. He was P-I-S-S-E-D. A bit later I got a tell-tale email asking me to detail what I knew about the course of events. These emails are the beginning of documentation for writeups, I'm no fool.
It aggravates me that he is barred from discussing specifics when disciplining someone, because the msytery helps shroud the consequences of known bad behavior. Who knows what will happen to them--I'm sure I'll not be aware of it. I think the thing that pisses me off most is that our montly bonuses are based in part on the number of these accounts that we open--so not only were they cheating to get our overall goal numbers up, but they will be paid BONUSES for cheating, too. My numbers are always consistently lower than theirs are--why? Because I won't cut corners like that, lying or cheating or twisting the truth to force people to do things they clearly don't want to do.
But I don't want to dwell on the stuff that pisses me off. There's too much of that in my life. So I have to tell another work story: We hold a semi-annual "Cutest Baby Contest" at the branch to raise money for our corporate charity foundation (it goes to the Ronald McDonald House). Our newest contest is starting soon, so we're taking photos. A regular customer of ours (and I could tell dozens of stories attesting to her mental instability) brought in a photo to enter her foster-son. He's 4. She says he's 3 because the contest cuts them off at 3, but we know he's 4. I digress--in previous contests, she's always provided a nice "professional" (i.e: WalMart photo studio) posed shot of him, as are the majority of entries. This one is a candid shot. In the photo, he is clearly bursting with joy--chest thrown out, head thrown back, huge grin on his face, clutching a squirrel. No, not a stuffed squirrel. An ACTUAL squirrel. An ACTUAL DEAD SQUIRREL.
I'll pause a minute while you imagine in your head the dozens of times I say, "No, I'm not kidding." as you disbelivingly say, "No! You're joking!"
Customer explained proudly that they had taken this 4-er 3 year old squirrel hunting. And naturally, he grew attached to the squirrel they shot. So he held it and cuddled it and loved on it for HOURS until they finally took it away from him. She even told us that he KISSED it. She's not the least bit embarassed or even cautious about this story--clearly, since she's presenting a photo of it to enter in the CUTEST BABY CONTEST.
This is a slice of the demographic I deal with every day.
Comments:
Post a Comment
