“What if I make a second account? What if I use my sister’s account? If I can find someone in the library not using the computers and get them to sign in, can I take their seat?”
Again, you might not see these as “loopholes” (I don’t), but people looking for “loopholes” are often hoping to try something like this.
There’s also the distinct possibility that the clerk did know what the policy was, but didn’t want to get into a debate about the underlying reasons. (Granted, Stoid says she wouldn’t have started one, but most people who ask “Why?” are generally looking to do just that.) So, rather than lie and say “I don’t know,” the clerk resorted to the only truthful option: repeating the policy and directing Stoid’s inquiry to a superior, whose job it is to deal with such things. Which, to me, seems to make absolute sense.
Unless Stoid would rather have had the clerk just lie and say “I don’t know.” It’s the same basic placation inherent in repeating in the policy, only it’s dishonest.
And that is a good reason?
There is no difference whether 10 people use the computer 1 hour each a day, or whether one person uses the computer 10 hours in a day. If they can only use the computer for one hour before logging off and getting in line again then everyone gets a crack at it and no one is being inconvenienced. The only possible reason for such a rule is based upon an arbitrary decision by some policy maker who, in most cases, made a quick decision without looking at the consequences too closely.
I encounter this sort of bureaucratic mentality quite a bit at work.
Some clerk wants me to fill out a form to keep track of time. I have a system that all my employees use to track time, so I don’t want to fill out another form to give them that same information. I print out a report from my time tracking system and give them that. They won’t accept it because it doesn’t look the same. I show them that my system actually looks better and makes more sense than their excel worksheet. Nope, the claim is that they send the report off to a govt agency and this is the way they expect it. I say they were the ones who decided on the format, not the govt. There is no way the govt cares one way or the other AND I know for a fact that they don’t send it to the govt and they only keep it on file for the auditors. Nope, it has to be in this format only. So, I had the programmer change my report so it looks exactly like the one they wanted. Again, a bean counter wanted it done is such a manner and the rest of us, who he is there to support, btw, must kowtow to his whims.
I spend a large portion of my job asking why. I don’t do it to piss people off, I do it to make the business more efficient and, more importantly, help the customer get what they need from those groups who are being paid to support them. Recently we implemented Sharepoint which allows us to pull data from multiple sources and automate many processes. I am currently trying to beat down the doors of those in our organization who keep using phrases like ‘because that is the policy’ and ‘it’s always the way we’ve done it before’. The questions I ask are, “What are you trying to accomplish?”, or “How does this support the business?”. Frankly, if they can’t answer it, I don’t fill out their form, or give them their report. Obviously, this only applies to internal issues inside the company where I have the option of doing so.
While I am decidedly hostile to dishonesty overall, I would much prefer a dishonest “I don’t know” to restating the policy three different ways. One is a bummer, the other is absolutely infuriating (and does the opposite of placating me.)
Example:
“It’s the library’s policy that you can only use the computer for two hours.”
“Why is that the policy?”
“Because you’re only allowed to use it for two hours.”
“Yes, I understand what the policy is. I’m asking what is the reason for the policy?”
“Well, to keep anyone from using the computers for more than two hours.”
“really, I fully understand WHAT the policy is, I’m trying to understand why it is that way, what it’s designed to accomplish…”
“It’s designed to stop people from using the computers for more than two hours. That’s the policy.”
“Oh. Would it be okay if I slap you really hard a couple of times right now? That’s my policy.”
Vs.
“It’s the library’s policy that you can only use the computer for two hours.”
“Why is that the policy?”
“I really don’t know. I’ve wondered myself.”
“Oh. Well, do you know who I should ask?”
“You might try Joe Shmoe.”
“thanks, I will.”
My blood pressure remains stable throughout exchange #2, and I have no way of knowing whether I’m being lied to or not, so it doesn’t faze me.
God bless you, your children, your children’s children, your dog, your boat, and your lottery ticket.
If it weren’t for the folks who asked “Why?” we’d probably still be fumbling around in caves.
Oh fer krist’s sake, you knew the goddamn answer before you asked the question, and if you didn’t know you would have known if you’d given it thirty seconds of thought before reverting to your natural state of self-deluded, self-righteous indignation.
It’s not because you’re not listening that you’re a bitch.
Oh, right.
Think outside your little peanut head for a minute and take it from the other person’s point of view.
Suppose I work at a library and I shelve books and archive things and sign people up for computers, and the head honchos of the library (or libraries) have told us that the computers are for one hour usage at a time. We have been told that this discourages people from hogging the computers, and last week someone told me that we would shortly be enforcing that policy more strictly.
So you come up. You’ve had your one hour. In fact, you have had two. I tell you that I’m sorry but you can’t have a computer as you’ve already reached your limit. You want to know the name of the person who set the policy.
If I am truthful I will give you the name of my supervisor. You will then ask to see him. Guess what happens to me? I get chewed out by both you AND my supervisor.
If I stonewall and say “Sorry, but you’ve reached your limit,” I may make you annoyed but I will have saved myself a chewing out by my supervisor. All in all, my supervisor doesn’t want to be bothered by the likes of you, whining about the FREE use of a computer. My supervisor wants to live a pleasant untroubled life and never have to learn of your existence. (Something I would like to have as well.)
Part of my job is insulating my supervisor from hearing the whining of the public about the limited use of a free resource. Perhaps you should be grateful for the time you get with Lexus FOR FREE and shut up about whether or not you get to take your fruitless research to the next level of uselessness.
Damn. I wish I had Lexus for free for two hours a day.
I love you.
Ha!!! Remembering her attitude in her attourney threads, about her constant badgering of lawyers and why they wouldn’t give her what she wanted, I highly, HIGHLY doubt she IS one of those few. I’m guessing she fits your first description to a tee. At least, the way she has described her behavior previously has.
If progress were up to people like you, you’d still be fighting a divorce judgment with some Neanderthal named Oog over who got to keep the mammoth bones.
The difference is that it’s Uzi’s to improve policy at her company so as to make it more profitable and efficient. It’s not your job to set policy at the library.
As someone who talks about how intelligent she is, you sure are having a hard time with this very simple concept.
It was a pretty dumb question to be asking, in all honesty. Unless, of course, you were looking to pick a fight. Because grilling the guy working the desk about the why’s and wherefore’s ain’t gonna get you what you want. Not in that situation, not in any situation. In no place on the planet is the peon at the counter going to say, “Oh golly, that is a stupid pointless policy! Here, let me give you whatever you want.” Because the counter peon doesn’t have the power and authority to flout those rules without some pretty severe negative consequences. You are NOT worth that kind of hassle for them.
You say you’ve had customer service experience in the company you run where you get to set the policy like it’s any way at all similar to being a powerless cog in someone else’s machine. It’s not, let me assure you. The phrase “I don’t make the rules, I just get fired for not following them,” is a service industry standard for a reason.
Yep. Try bending the rules to make a customer happy in any job where there’s more than one layer of administration above you.
Not worth it. Especially not for someone who looks like they’re itching for a fight, which I assure you is what you appear to be, when you ask the same question multiple times in a row and have already received the answer, multiple times.
Unless your supervisor is Barack Obama or the Queen of England, I think your perception of a supervisor’s function is a bit skewed. I have been a supervisor and I have been supervised, and my experience of supervisors is that their job is to step in to solve the problem when it goes beyond the ability of the minimum-wage worker on the front lines. By the time you’ve reached the “my job is to insulate” level, you’re no longer dealing with the general public. Obama’s secretary isn’t turning down requests from Joe Sixpack to explain the national debt.
I wish I did, too, but then I’d really hate going back to my toyota.
Your obsession with the idea that this is “free” is a bit misguided, at least in reference to me:
I’ve been paying said fees. So perhaps if YOU were to use the library, it would be free.
By the way…what is it you find so incredibly horrible about asking about the policy to begin with? Why are you reacting as though I’d berated the poor clerk for half an hour? I’m guessing you have a gig where people give you a hard time a lot. But really, there’s nothing inherently bad about wanting to know why things are the way they are, especially if you don’t, and I didn’t, get shitty and abusive with the people you are addressing.
Calm down.
Where do these inventions come from? Brief conversations with different lawyers doesn’t equal “constant badgering” of anyone. Lawyer 3 has no clue what conversation I had with Lawyer 1, and the conversations I had with all of them were respectful and relatively brief. Constant badgering of anyone about anything is a very poor strategy for getting what you want.
It’s one thing to dislike me for who I genuinely am, for the things I actually say and do, I don’t a big a problem with that; I take responsibility for who I am and it comes with the territory. The problem occurs when reality-based dislike manifests as snark that becomes assumptions asserted as facts that morphs into detailed scenarios that are entirely invented which are then tossed around and treated as truth.
If you need to make things up to bitch and snark about, perhaps your hostility doesn’t have quite the legitimate basis you imagine. And if your hostility is well-founded, then you shouldn’t need to make things up to bitch about.
I disagree. Asking a question is not, no matter how many people claim otherwise, the same thing as making a big stink, demanding changes on the spot, abusing the clerk, and pressuring him to break them just for me.
I said that was my current experience, not my only experience. I’ve been on the front lines as a peon many times - it’s hard to imagine how anyone who has worked for a living could have avoided it.
And no one ever encouraged me to robotically repeat myself to customers or say the same thing in different ways, as though they didn’t understand it the first time. Then again, I havent’ been in customer service for someone else in the last 15 years, maybe the whole thing has changed somehow.
I can assure you that things are very different now, and several people in this thread (myself included) have explained the reality of working in customer service jobs these days, and why the staff have to default to repeating the Approved Information over and over again. If you’re lucky, you might occasionally run across someone like myself, who will tell you “look, that’s all the information I’ve got, that’s all the information I can give you, and it’s not worth my job to go into any more detail. Sorry”, but don’t count on it.
When managers delegate certain tasks to their subordinates they expect the situation to be handled there, and only on rare and exceptional occasions do they expect it to be referred up the chain. In that sense any customer associate is expected to handle the customers and insulate their superiors. And you, sugartits, are not an exceptional case at all – asking to speak to the manager about a clear and reasonable policy is NOT an exceptional case.
True…I could never spell Lexis. Although I never had a problem spelling “obnoxious stubborn twat” however.
Do you have any conception of how much Lexis costs? Your library fees and taxes are laughable comparatively. Be grateful for what you have.
I have been sitting here laughing at you. If you think I’ve been abusive your little pampered ass obviously hasn’t interacted with the public much 
I’ve always found the word twat just too goofy to be rude. But I take it as it’s meant, of course.
How does this fucking relate to anything I said.
My house , my rules, {within legal limits}
My store, my rules, {same}
A public building would be different in that all tax payers can realistically claim to have a stake in it. Still, their are policies and procedure. I help pay for the fire department but I don’t get to set policy. I can make an effort to change policies through the proper channels. Complaining to a fireman probably won’t do it.