Lemme see. So far you have attributed to me that I’m “angry”, “can’t control your own frustration well enough to not be an asshole”, “being an asshole”, “being a fucking asshole to somebody who isn’t responsible for you being pissed off”, fabricated a “final little petty pathetic-ass goal” for me, and wrapped up with “have you, in fact, wasted the teller’s time and yours? Yes. Yes, my hypothetical asshole, you have.”
In attempting to demonstrate this stance, you have fabricated a number of strawmen as to my behaviour and motives.
Along the lines of Evil Captor’s post about overdraft fees, another source of these fees is the automatic payment that is scheduled a day or two before a regularly-scheduled automatic paycheck deposit.
EVERY ONE of my accounts set up for automatic payment is set up first to be paid 10 days ahead of due date with a second attempt made 5 days before due date should the bank
inform them of insufficient funds. In theory, this keeps me from being overdrawn if the first attempt arrives a day or two ahead of my paycheck.
In practice, I recently got charged for an overdraft because my bank did not tell State Farm on first attempt that my account would be overdrawn if they honored the request.They paid State Farm in full and charged me for an overdraft that I did my best to
avoid.
My deposit history over the past 6 years has been a paycheck every other Thursday,thus they knew that if they sat on State Farm’s request for 2 days, I’d be good for it. And they knew what day the first request from State Farm would reach them. And they knew that the bill wasn’t actually due for 10days, per auto-payment SOP.
This was a blatant attempt to collect $30 fees for a~ $10 overdraft that needn’t have occurred as the payee was going to ask again in 5 days had they been informed that their request would put me ten bucks and change in the hole.
I hate banks. Bravo to the OP’s stading up to BoA! Had I been standing in line behind him, I’d have loudly told the manager to close MY account out,too.
The “scene” was a customer trying to close an account.
Although I did, at one point “raise my voice”, it was only raised to a level very slightly higher than ordinary conversation. Enough to convey my displeasure, not even approaching anger.
If by punish, you mean continue to ask for the only thing I wanted, yes. If terminating my relationship is punishment for the teller, things are worse at the Bank of America than I realized.
Yet those are not the things that the teller or the manager were asking about. When they decided to give me my money, they did so, and I handed the already signed withdrawal documents to the teller. He gave me the money; I said thank you and left. What happened to the many important things that needed to be done at that point?
And in your mind, nothing went wrong at all. I happen to think things went wrong much earlier, in fact years earlier during the time that I learned about the incompetence of the Bank of America you refer to. I didn’t scream at anyone then, nor did I scream at anyone subsequently. I spoke in a clear, and clearly audible voice, with extremely precise diction. I asked for my money. I declined to discuss my reasons for doing so. I was not rude. I was not disturbing the peace, as you assume. I was acting like a customer who wanted a banking service that the Bank of America was having an unreasonable level of difficulty providing.
You propose lots of excuses for their behavior. Did it occur to you that it might well have been an attempt to just cow me into leaving my money in the bank, if only for a few days? Is it possible that it was the bank that was being unreasonable? Although I keep hearing about the noble and necessary reasons for the stalling, once those tactics failed, none of that stuff seemed all that important. The teller did not educate me on the dangers of Nigerian banking laws, nor did the manager verify my recent withdrawals, or deposits not yet processed. When they finally realized that I wanted only to actually close my accounts, and take my money in cash, they did so without further side shows.
You can continue to disdain this image of me standing, red faced, and foaming at the mouth in the center of the lobby of the Bank, screaming obscenities, and threats if it makes you happy. It has no relationship with the facts I presented, but why would that bother you? I must clearly represent a threat to the orderly conduct of the economy at large. Fear me. Tremble at night at the threat I represent, with my uncontrolled rage, and un-American insistence on my monomaniacal goal. I would still like my money, in cash, now. Thank you.
My image of you is the angry old man raising his voice just enough for the rest of the customers to hear, and accusing the bank of trying to steal his money, when he knows damn well that they are processing his request. Hey everybody, look at me stand up to the mean old bank teller!
Continuing to ask for something, while the people you asked are working to give it to you, IS being rude. It’s really kind of pathetic that you see yourself as some sort of crusader for being nothing more than a pain in the ass for some barely-over-minimum-wage tellers.
What the teller SHOULD have said to you is “The manager must process your transaction, and the manager is coming. I cannot magic him into existance, no matter how much you want me to, and I’m not going to violate bank procedure and get fired because you want me to.”
Correct. Here’s why: you used the word “I” throughout your entire post to describe the actions you would hypothetically take in that situation. My post was arguing against the actions you stated “you” would take, therefore that was the word I used. Never once did I state that “I” had anything to do with imposing these policies upon you, and in fact, I endeavored to show you precisely why that was not the case. In a discussion of whether particular individuals do or do not represent other entities, such seemingly harmless things as pronouns become important indicators of intent.
Yes, as I said, they “can” opt out AND GET FIRED, if you want them to do that. Doing something that costs the bank money that requires manager approval, without manager approval, has a tendency to cost one one’s job. Believe me, I know of what I speak. When I said that sometimes they “can”, I meant it in the same sense in which, if you have an account with my bank, I “can” transfer all your money to Timbuktu at the push of a button. My saying that this was “not true” was intended as sarcasm, to show that even if they have the physical ability to hand you your money right then and there – which, again, they might not – they have very little practical ability to do so.
I don’t. I do not defend these policies. Read again:
Do you want me to say it again? I agree with you. Many corporate policies are bullshit, including ones that force customer service to interrogate customers upon the closing of accounts. The sole and entire point of everything I’ve posted thus far in this thread is that, while the policies suck, being belligerent to the teller will do absolutely nothing whatsoever to get anything changed.
All right. Looking at the situation honestly, I will admit that I have ascribed a certain ulterior motive to you based on this sentence from your first post: “If your scripts/procedures don’t recognise this, then I’ll have as much fun as I want loudly asking why I can’t get my money back.” When I imagine people “having fun loudly asking” customer service something, I envision that person gleefully flipping the fuck out on one of my representatives and losing all semblance of rationality. Perhaps I’ve simply witnessed that exact situation one too many times, and that wasn’t your intention. That said, if you didn’t mean that, could you please describe what actions you did (hypothetically) intend to take? It would certainly have to be at least somewhat more abrasive and angry in nature than what Tris did, since it doesn’t sound like he had any fun, let alone as much fun as he might have wanted, and he didn’t get too loud either.
You’d think they would be, but the evidence tends to show that they’re not. I’m really quite entirely serious. Long story ahead by way of example, but I promise you it goes somewhere. A recent fee structure revision at my bank did away with a particularly unfair and seemingly random $45 “service charge” that was impacting hundreds of customer accounts per day, with a high percentage of those customers either calling in or going into branches to raise the seven hells when they discovered it. Everyone involved in any sort of customer service capacity at my bank despised this fee, and half of the newer branch employees didn’t even know what it was for. When a customer would complain, the branches would submit feedback through their channels and call the customer service area to get an explanation/reversal, and customer service would submit feedback through THEIR channels. The fee was finally removed not because of these thousands of customer listening reports, but because of one letter, sent to Office of the President and forwarded to everyone at the bank by way of explanation, that had ended up on the CEO’s desk. Apparently a 20-year customer with accounts totalling about $100,000 – not small by any means, but not ground-shattering either – had grown disgusted after receiving this fee, and moved all of her accounts to another bank. Of course, this had been happening in truckloads since this fee was first imposed, and customer service had been saying this for years, but it took that one letter to get anything changed. That made quite an impact on me, and when I got the chance a few months ago to speak with a senior VP at a more, er, informal occasion, I asked her why it was. She told me this: customer service feedback that comes from a telephone rep or a branch teller generally means that the customer is simply pissed off about something at the moment. As long as we resolve that particular issue for that particular customer – as we would, by waiving that damned fee every time it showed up – they’re not likely to close their accounts or go elsewhere. The real measure of what would be a problem for the bottom line, she said, was the number of complaints they received about a certain issue from the customer directly. This meant that the customer was upset enough abot this not just to complain to customer service at the moment it was discovered, but even after they had the chance to calm down and think it over, they were still upset enough to write us a letter and actually take action because of it. She then went on to stress the importance of submitting customer feedback “because it gives us something to compare the letters against”, but that more or less sealed it in my mind: the executives DO ignore these situations. They do it, they know they do it, and they know why. And you know what? When you think about it from the standpoint of a prick who doesn’t care about people one bit beyond the amount of money he might get out of them, it really does makes sense.
Once again, from the standpoint of the business transaction and how it ought to be conducted, I agree with you. What I’m saying is that, when faced with the fact that your ideal realization of conducting this transaction is going to be impossible due to the way the teller must operate, you do yourself no good and others harm with any aggressive (or passive/aggressive, as the case may be) behavior toward the folks at the branch, who categorically CANNOT do anything to resolve your plight any better than they are. You continue to conflate the two sides of the situation. You continue to believe that your personal interaction with the teller somehow constitues in any way, shape or form a dialogue between you and the Bank of America. In this, and this alone, you are wrong.
As to the strawman accusation: first of all, regarding “My objective when going to a bank is neither to piss off other customers, shout at a teller, or even to get people to close their account”, what then did you mean by:
It sounds to me like this is pretty much exactly what you want to do, insomuch as you feel it’d be splendid if you accomplished it.
Beyond that, though, it is possible that I read too much into your intentions based upon your stated desire to “have as much fun as I want loudly asking why I can’t get my money back” and to cause “little scenes”. To whatever extent I misinterpreted your intentions, I sincerely apologize. I do, however, still wonder what else you might have meant by that. If you didn’t mean that you wanted to flip out on the teller, what did you intend – hypothetically, again; I know we’re not discussing anything either of us actually did – to do? If you intend to behave rationally, how would that constitute having fun being loud, and causing a little scene? Please elaborate.
Banking and specific examples aside, my main point in the thread is that everyone who is employed in a customer service capacity is at some point tasked with enforcing policies they both disagree with and are powerless to change. This is true of every corporation that has ever had both A) a policy that could be considered unfair, and B) customer service. Most of your major companies fall into this category. This can be frustrating to the customer, who has a legitimate complaint, and wants both to voice it and have it addressed. Unless you’re dealing with a mom-and-pop outfit, though, voicing these complaints – rationally or otherwise – at the customer service rep is not going to accomplish anything at all. I’ve described in my posts why I strongly believe this to be true.
In customer service, there are times – lots of them, every day – when you just can’t do anything.
There was one specific point mentioned that I do want to address: in taking a job in which you’re required to take certain actions, you are not absolved of personal responsibility for the results of those actions. Ideologically (and I’m an ideological kind of guy), I would agree with this. If I pay you to kill someone, and you kill them, it doesn’t make you any less of a murderer…so, if I pay you to inconvenience people, it doesn’t make you any less of a jerk for doing it. As an abstract concept, that holds true. What this means is that whatever you believe you are morally justified in doing to a jerk, you are morally justified in doing to someone who has been paid to be a jerk. If you believe it moral to act belligerent toward someone who inconveniences you for selfish reasons, then you believe it moral to be belligerent toward customer service people when they enforce corporate policies that do the same. Point granted.
I would argue, however, that in a customer service interaction, attaining the abstract concept of ideological or moral “rightness” is not your goal. Instead, your goal is practical in nature: you want to get something done. You want it done as quickly as possible, and with the minimum amount of fuss that is required. Practical goals are most efficiently achieved through pragmatism, so let us approach the situation pragmatically. Once you have ascertained what the company you are dealing with – and, in turn, the customer serviceperson you are dealing with – requires in order to fulfill your request (and further concluded, if you like, that the representative is unwilling to circumvent these requirements for you), it behooves you to “bite the bullet” and comply with the requirements for the time being (remember, you can always complain after the fact, and with an equal or greater chance of having your complaint properly addressed). This accomplishes your immediate goal. If you also had a long-term, but still practical, goal of inspiring the company to change its procedures, I have already demonstrated why presenting your argument to the people immediately available to you is not a pragmatic method of achieving this.
In a perfect world, where employees of companies are free to pick and choose which of their employers’ policies they agree with and would like to implement while still retaining their source of income, arguing at length with customer servicepeople would be both justified and an ideal method of achieving your goals. Until we live in such a world, however, you will only be wasting your time.
** Roland Orzabal**, I understand you a bit better than some of the other posters, and your objections, as well. Yes, I was not willing to be reasoned with. But, I had been down the reasonable path twice before. I don’t know about your bank, but I do know about the Bank of America. They were not trying to find out how to please me. Procedures there always increase the amount of time that money stays in the bank. Grace periods, clearing practices, and just giving you cash when you close an account, all have procedures that take time, often days. Putting money in is instantaneous. There is no chance at all that this set of practices is in place for the benefit of the customer. The first time, it took me five days to actually get my money into another bank. It also took two trips to BoA, in addition to the trip to the new bank.
The second experience was even worse. I was actually told that I would have to wait ninety days to close my savings account. That was part of the proposed changes in the account rules that caused me to come in to close the account, and it took a threat of legal action to break my savings loose. I had signed no such agreement. That time, yes, I really did raise my voice.
So, yes, I was willing to waste six minutes of their time rather than let them “explain” how good it was for me to not get my money. And the possibility that I might be able to help them understand how to serve customers better was of no interest to me. I have grave doubts that it was of any interest to them, either. The teller has no power. I understand that. It is not enough reason for me to answer impertinent questions before closing an account. The manager in this particular bank was in an office out of sight of the lobby, and I could not have begun with him. I had to begin with the teller. Sorry it was no fun for him. I bet working for the Bank of America sucks big time. But that isn’t my fault either.
Other Posters: You know, it comes down to this: I think the teller could have given me my money immediately. I think the manager could have told him to give me the money immediately, when the teller first came to him. I think he could have told him to give me my money as soon as he satisfied himself that I was not willing to participate in the banks customer retention routine.
All the knowledgeable bank workers seem to think that it was not possible for that to happen. But, when it finally came down to it, the bank manager told the teller to give me the money, and the teller did do so immediately. The notification of closure of the account ended up being just the regular statement, on the regular day of the month, with the withdrawal noted, and the words “account closed” on the end of the page.
So, everything that happened happened because the bank didn’t want to give me my money without trying to retain me as a customer. You think that’s OK, and not liking it is unreasonable. I think that accepting anything short of entirely satisfactory service is stupid. It’s not polite, or reasonable, it’s stupid. I know it was possible to just give me the money, because in the end, that is exactly what they did. Wishing I was willing to be part of a song and dance routine is not enough reason for me to comply with accepting poor service.
From the customer’s point of view though, that’s completly fucked up. I complain to the manager, and I expect him to be able to take care of the problem. If it really takes elevating it up to a Senior Vice President by the customer to get action, then that bank really is not responsive to the customer at all. WTF, the Senior Vice President doesn’t listen to his managers?
Now, here’s something interesting: apparently it is commonplace that no attention be paid to customer complaints delivered by any medium other than by the customer’s writing to a senior vice-president.
That being the case, what possible interest could a customer who wishes to close her account have in explaining the reasons therefor, as these reasons will apparently be conveyed nowhere?
The Customer Service person, to the customer, IS the face of the company that they work for. From BofA to Best Buy to Subway/McDonald’s, the person that takes may order, processes my transaction, provides service in exchange for my money represents and IS the public face of the company that they work for. That the Customer Service person is forced to cause the customer to waste time because of their corporate policies, and must then endure the wrath and abuse of their customers because the company is wasting the customer’s time is irrelevant. It is not the fault of the customer that sputters and fumes (or passive-aggressive refusal to follow the corporate script as in the OP) at a teller over a time-wasting corporate policy.
It is that teller’s company that caused the friction and unpleasantness with the customer. It is the failing of that company’s CEO and CFO and COO and Senior VPs for enacting and enforcing the policies that cause the friction and waste of time.
It is the fault of the Senior Managers and those that create the time-wasting and customer-inconviencing policies that placed that teller/salesperson/order-taker in that position.
Roland Orzabal, your attitude seems to be that customers should be prepared to waste their time, and jump through corporate hoops because the teller/salesperson/order-taker has no power to change the policy, and that passive-aggresive or angry and loud public objection to that policy is unwarranted and rude.
In the face of said corporate hoops, the customer may need to resort to passive-aggresive or angry and loud public objection to such policies in order to cut through the corporate script/policies/procedures to complete the transaction and make most effecient use of time.
My attitude is that my time is my most precious asset - it is, after all, what we are paid for.
If a teller/salesperson/order-taker is offended by my vocal and aggressive objection to ther company’s time-wasting policies…tough shit. That teller/salesperson/order-taker is the face of the company. If that person can’t handle the incompetance and poor leadership of the company that they represent, they can certainly find other employment.
I don’t give a rat’s ass about how a company handles customer complaints, and I don’t care at all that a company may only pay attention to complaints sent directly to officers of said company.
Your arguments remind me of those that defend telemarketers…
So…you don’t care whether or not you accomplish anything, or how you might go about doing that. You just want to be belligerent at someone who can’t do anything because you’re annoyed about something. Gotcha. Well, have fun with that.
To the people who’ve mentioned that it’s fucked up that your complaints must go directly to the top in order to do any good: I agree. It is. That sucks. Is it stupid? I guess, though given that companies that act this way are among the top moneymakers in the world, one has to wonder. Is it right? I don’t think so. But of course, I’m not the corporation, despite what Fritz and others would insist upon believing.
Whatever your answers to those questions, though, the fact remains that bitching at the customer service people doesn’t do anything. People get pissed, they want someone to bitch at, and customer service is handy – hell, that’s half of what customer service is there for; they exist to serve as a layer of protection for the people who actually make the decisions to protect them from having to deal with customer reactions to the results. The customers bitch, they feel better, they feel self-righteous, life goes on. They could complain to people who could do something, but they don’t, because that’d be work and it provides no instant gratification. Hell, some companies even go a step further, and make it next to impossible for them to get contact information for anyone who could possibly do something, thereby increasing the likelihood that they’ll resort to bitching at customer service and get it out of their systems. Shady? Immoral? Unethical? Fuck yes. Would I do business with a company that acted this way? Fuck no. But, as RTFirefly pointed out, there are plenty companies that act this way that are household names across the United States and the world. As soon as the company is large enough to pull it off, the policy makers shield themselves from the horrors of feedback with the time-tested shield of Customer Service, because it was demonstrated long ago that they can convince people that Bank Teller Bob and Phone Rep Jenny are in fact the ones who are REALLY responsible for their anger. They’ll vent their frustrations on THEM, and then continue, for reasons I will never in my life understand, to give the corporation their money.
I do NOT advocate compliance. I do NOT support submitting to unfair policies. I do NOT recommend jumping through hoops, saying nothing, and acting like a good little trained sheep of a consumer and taking your ration of shit from Big Daddy Corporation. I loathe that attitude! I despise it! I would love nothing more than to see people wake up, see the light, see the way things are run, realize that it’s bullshit, and tell the people responsible that they’re not taking it anymore! If enough people did that, all hell would break loose, things would change, and it would no longer be a decision anyone would have to worry about making! The people who are responsible know this perfectly well, and this is why for decades now they’ve spent massive amounts of time and money devising a system to convince the public to route their frustration to the place where it will do the least harm to the bottom line: the institution of customer service.
Like I said, it seems to be working out pretty goddamned well for them so far.
And it’s not going to change, either. Not as long as people keep playing along with the bullshit. I don’ mean the bullshit about account closures, I don’t mean the bullshit about manager procedures, I don’t mean the bullshit about invasive questionaires when all you want is a simple transaction. No, I mean the ultimate bullshit: the belief that the way to get rid of all the OTHER bullshit is to bitch out customer service, which has been made nice and convenient to you for the express purpose of convining you to go along with this. Like it or not, that’s the way the system is set up to run, and run it does. And people keep playing into it. Every time you bitch out a service rep, the people who actually DID the things you’re bitching about give a silent thanks for your compliance. And yet, people keep right on doing it. They don’t even need to be convinced anymore; they’ve discovered that it feels good in the moment and now they’re making up their own justifications to hide behind while convicing themselves they’re doing something productive.
So, you know what? Screw what I said about personal interactions, about how people are individuals and the one right in front of you had nothing to do with actions taken by other people who work for the same place he does. Yell at the customer service rep, that stupid bastard. He caused all your problems. He can fix all your problems. And if he can’t, he should be able to, and if you yell at him, then he WILL be able to, because he can fix that too. You know he can, so yell at him. Yell at him like people have been yelling at reps since the fucking advent of customer service, and companies are still doing the same shit that causes the yelling. Raise holy hell at your bank branch like people have been raising holy hell in bank branches for years, and the bank still follows the same procedures. Call your phone company and yell at that guy like people have been yelling at telephone reps since Ma Bell was born, and phone companies are still following those same practices. You know the stuff everyone’s pissed about, that everyone wants to bitch at customer service for? Check this: EVERYONE’S PISSED ABOUT IT. Everyone has bitched at customer service about it. Many times. Every day. For years. Always, unceasingly, endlessly pissed off and bitching. About the same shit. And companies still do it. Obviously they still do it, because everyone’s still pissed about it. I wonder why they’re still doing it then? Don’t they LISTEN? When you bitch at customer service, doesn’t it MATTER?
Obviously. Fucking. Not.
Look, if anyone out there has read the rest of my arguments in this thread and is still convinced that bitching out customer service accomplishes anything, or is somehow “right” to do, that’s the only thing I can add.
Don’t bitch at customer service. I’ve been understanding thus far in this thread. I’ve taken people’s proclamations of having no motives in customer service interactions beyond accomplishing their stated goals and correcting unjust policies at face value, and I’ve written at length about why it is a sub-optimal strategy on personal, business, practical and ideological levels. I’ve argued each one of these positions without question. But you know what? The fact that I even had to do it is bullshit. Bitching at customer service doesn’t do anything. You know it doesn’t. You know this. You see it every day. It’s right there before your eyes; people do it and it accomplishes nothing. People do it because they’re angry, and they want release, and they KNOW it doesn’t accomplish anything other than giving them that immediate gratification, but because they’re angry, that’s all they really want. They don’t have any grandiose goals about affecting changes in corporate policy or upholding personal morality. They hide behind these things because they’re angry and they want to bitch and they want justification. You know this. Be honest with yourself. When you go apeshit on some customer service rep, what is on your mind? Is it “by doing this, I believe that I am taking the best option available to me tol ensure that the company understands the causes of my frustration, and understands that this may impact the future of my business relationship with them”? Or is it “goddamn it, I’m pissed, and I’m going to let this little fucker have it but good”? Anyone who can look me in the eye and tell me it’s the former is a far better liar than I am.
You want me to be honest? I have. Now, be honest with yourselves, and answer the question I posed at the very beginning of this thread. When you complain at customer service:
Ya know, I woulda said to the teller that “I’ve been through this before, I want to close my account, and you’re going to need to get the manager. So why don’t you go get the manager now and make it easy on all of us.” and if that doesn’t work, then you can be curt or even nasty.
[/slight hijack]Some motherfucking “investment advisors” got my business card from somewhere, and I get calls at work or worse via international roaming on my cell. I was a pro for 8 years, and therefore don’t need investment advice or hot stock tips. I always say “I used to be in the biz, there’s nothing you can do for me, and please take my name off your call list as a waste of time.” And if I don’t hear a “thanks for the candor, bye” then I turn rabid. Gah, I really hate those fucktards, but I’ll cut slack to the boiler room android guy cold calling because I still have to cold call for a living. But just get off the dang phone when I call bullshit.[/slight hijack]
Not at all. I do care that I get something accomplished and will always start by being pleasant. It’s only in a situation like the OP describes, and when I realize that my time is going to be wasted do I begin to be irate.
My own experience with this type of policy came courtesy of AOL - I spent 20 minutes trying to cancel an account and fending off questions like “but WHY do you want to cancel?”
And yes, Roland Orzabal, I do understand that companies that have policies like these most likely know how irritating these policies are and have made a conscious decision to continue for what they believe to be good business reasons.
Doesn’t matter, that CSR is still the person that will waste my time if I allow it. I’ll be very pleasant until I know that pleasantness won’t work.
Complaining loudly, and “making a scene” is likely to bring about the desired result more quickly than being a good sheep. As the OP indicated, a raised voice and unpleasantness brought the manager over and the transaction was concluded, mostly to end the unpleasantness within the earshot of other customers.
If he hadn’t raised his voice and made a scene, what would the difference have been? I suspect it would have been the tragedy of working with the manager for 5 whole minutes while concluding the transaction.
There is a middle ground between being a sheep and being an asshole.
Sorry, it was Triskadecamus’s experience I was commenting on, not the OP’s
Yes, Cheesesteak, there is a middle ground between being a sheep and being an asshole.
As I said, my default position will always be “pleasant.” When faced with assinine retention policies that Tris experienced, however, my patience will be finite. Having to spend an extra 5 minutes is not a tragedy, but remaining pleasant can extend that 5 minutes to much longer than that.
BofA just bought my “bank”. (as opposed to either of the two CUs where I keep most of my money).
Sounds like your new bank deserves my custom. Could you give a bit stronger hint at thier identity? Sounds like it won’t matter how far away from me they are located.
The only complaints that mean shit are those that go directly to the top.
Corporations over a certain size make sure you can’t complain directly to the top.
The implication seems to be that nothing we do will do any good. So we might as well do whatever makes us feel better. If yelling at the customer service rep does that, well then: that’s what makes sense from what you’ve said.