CSRs have time limits for calls or get fired.

As I've said many times. I have one point of information on what the
restrictions are for CSRs.
At http://www.sprintpcs-sucks.org/emplo...yee_email.html
one former employee says if CSRs average call time is over 5:19 they get
fired. Others have posted here saying they've heard that also. All I've
heard from "O" is complaints about the web site where that is posted.
Certainly it could be exagerated sour grapes, that why I ask him to tell
us the truth if its wrong. I have no authoritative definitive statement
to the contrary, so after 3 days now I must believe it.

FLAME ON

PUT UP OR SHUT UP
5:19 is a CSRs limit

FLAME OFF

Further it explains all the bad things that happen when when calls *2.

Lies
Rushing the call
Promsing things that are never recorded on account
Refusing to escalate
Transfering to unrelated departments
Transfering to a colleague
Multiple calls to *2 to resolve a problem
Hanging up
Disconnecting
Good interactions with CSRs when a short sweet question is asked.

I was always taught to believe the simplest explanation for things.
The requirement to keep calls short explains things. Sprint employees
vague denial, denouncing the web site or insulting me does not explain
bad CSR behavior.

Phillipe <pfilm@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<pfilm-270422.06465123082003@news02.west.earthlink.net>:
>
>
> As I've said many times. I have one point of information on what the
> restrictions are for CSRs.
> At http://www.sprintpcs-sucks.org/emplo...yee_email.html
> one former employee says if CSRs average call time is over 5:19 they get
> fired. Others have posted here saying they've heard that also. All I've
> heard from "O" is complaints about the web site where that is posted.
> Certainly it could be exagerated sour grapes, that why I ask him to tell
> us the truth if its wrong. I have no authoritative definitive statement
> to the contrary, so after 3 days now I must believe it.

And like I said, you think that what less than 1% of all Sprint PCS
employees, who are posting on an anti-SprintPCS site is gospel. Now,
can you prove that they are actual employees posting, and not just
possed off customers who think they were wronged?

In the stores, I do not have a time limit to work on phones, if I spend
45 minutes on a phone, noone thinks any different.

>Further it explains all the bad things that happen when when calls *2.
>Lies

OK, some people will lie to get you off the phone, but then again, I
think they're in that 1% that are disgruntled and post on your favorite
of all web sites (hmm, are you getting kickbacks from promoting that
site so much?). Customer service call centers for ALL companies have
that, and do not want it, and try to weed out those who do lie. Again,
you're letting less than 1% speak for the entire country.

You still haven't shown where the Sprint PCS employees, who post on this
message board (alt.cellular.sprintPCS) have lied WITHOUT twisting our
words around, or putting words into our mouths.

I am so glad I don't deal with people like you every day.

If you're so unhappy, pay the ETF and leave. Sprint PCS doesn't need
your sorry-ass motonous whining every minute.

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

In article <vkepkej5l6h5b@corp.supernews.com>,
pcsguy@bellsouthNOSPAM.net (SprintPCS Tech) wrote:

> Phillipe <pfilm@yahoo.com> wrote in article
> <pfilm-270422.06465123082003@news02.west.earthlink.net>:
> >
> >
> > As I've said many times. I have one point of information on what the
> > restrictions are for CSRs.
> > At http://www.sprintpcs-sucks.org/emplo...yee_email.html
> > one former employee says if CSRs average call time is over 5:19 they get
> > fired. Others have posted here saying they've heard that also. All I've
> > heard from "O" is complaints about the web site where that is posted.
> > Certainly it could be exagerated sour grapes, that why I ask him to tell
> > us the truth if its wrong. I have no authoritative definitive statement
> > to the contrary, so after 3 days now I must believe it.

FLAME ON

PUT UP OR SHUT UP
5:19 is a CSRs limit

FLAME OFF

Further it explains all the bad things that happen when when calls *2.

Lies
Rushing the call
Promsing things that are never recorded on account
Refusing to escalate
Transfering to unrelated departments
Transfering to a colleague
Multiple calls to *2 to resolve a problem
Hanging up
Disconnecting
Good interactions with CSRs when a short sweet question is asked.

I was always taught to believe the simplest explanation for things.
The requirement to keep calls short explains things. Sprint employees
vague denial, denouncing the web site or insulting me does not explain
bad CSR behavior.

>
> And like I said, you think that what less than 1% of all Sprint PCS
> employees, who are posting on an anti-SprintPCS site is gospel. Now,
> can you prove that they are actual employees posting, and not just
> possed off customers who think they were wronged?

For the ninth time, if what was posted there is wrong, prove different.


>
> In the stores, I do not have a time limit to work on phones, if I spend
> 45 minutes on a phone, noone thinks any different.
>
> >Further it explains all the bad things that happen when when calls *2.
> >Lies
>
> OK, some people will lie to get you off the phone,


Thats the complaint ! And the only reason someone has to lie is because
of the time limit.

> but then again, I
> think they're in that 1% that are disgruntled and post on your favorite
> of all web sites (hmm, are you getting kickbacks from promoting that
> site so much?). Customer service call centers for ALL companies have
> that, and do not want it, and try to weed out those who do lie. Again,
> you're letting less than 1% speak for the entire country.

BUT APPPARENTLY ITS TRUE since you dont offer evidence to contrary.


>
> You still haven't shown where the Sprint PCS employees, who post on this
> message board (alt.cellular.sprintPCS) have lied WITHOUT twisting our
> words around, or putting words into our mouths.

Change the subject.

>
> I am so glad I don't deal with people like you every day.
>
> If you're so unhappy, pay the ETF and leave. Sprint PCS doesn't need
> your sorry-ass motonous whining every minute.

Go ahead insult me. Don't like the message, insult the messenger.
But the time limit for CSRs remains and explains things.


>
> [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

<<BUT APPPARENTLY ITS TRUE since you dont offer evidence to contrary. >>

So what?? If you feel like you've made your point, why keep bringing
this up every single day multiple times?

<<Go ahead insult me. Don't like the message, insult the messenger. But
the time limit for CSRs remains and explains things. >>

People only insult the messenger because he *inisists* on posting the
same rants day in and day out. It becomes very tiring. In fact, you've
said that little "insult the messenger" line about five time now. Like
I said above, if you think you've made your point, move on. Why keep
harping on it?

"Phillipe" <pfilm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
newsfilm-270422.06465123082003@news02.west.earthlink.net...
>
>
> As I've said many times. I have one point of information on what the
> restrictions are for CSRs.
> At http://www.sprintpcs-sucks.org/emplo...yee_email.html
> one former employee says if CSRs average call time is over 5:19 they get
> fired. Others have posted here saying they've heard that also. All I've
> heard from "O" is complaints about the web site where that is posted.
> Certainly it could be exagerated sour grapes, that why I ask him to tell
> us the truth if its wrong. I have no authoritative definitive statement
> to the contrary, so after 3 days now I must believe it.
>
> FLAME ON
>
> PUT UP OR SHUT UP
> 5:19 is a CSRs limit
>
> FLAME OFF

Phillippe, all you have proven so far is that you are nothing but a troll,
and an very pissant insignificant one at that .. You keep hanging your hat
on the above URL, and to alleged former SPCS employees quotes, where their
posts are not dated, nor signed with their names ... That's hardly reputable
material to reference ...

You know that SPCS employees can not release internal information, yet you
keep persisting for the information. Let me ask you something ... what gives
you the right to know that information in the first place? No reason at all
....

Bob ::Hoping someone replies to this so that Phillippe will see my
comments.::

"Bob Smith" <usirsclt_NoSpam_@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:5EL1b.582$jY2.258@newsread1.news.atl.earthlin k.net:

>
> "Phillipe" <pfilm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> newsfilm-270422.06465123082003@news02.west.earthlink.net...
>>
>>
>> As I've said many times. I have one point of information on what the
>> restrictions are for CSRs.
>> At http://www.sprintpcs-sucks.org/emplo...yee_email.html
>> one former employee says if CSRs average call time is over 5:19 they
>> get fired. Others have posted here saying they've heard that also. All
>> I've heard from "O" is complaints about the web site where that is
>> posted. Certainly it could be exagerated sour grapes, that why I ask
>> him to tell us the truth if its wrong. I have no authoritative
>> definitive statement to the contrary, so after 3 days now I must
>> believe it.
>>
>> FLAME ON
>>
>> PUT UP OR SHUT UP
>> 5:19 is a CSRs limit
>>
>> FLAME OFF
>
> Phillippe, all you have proven so far is that you are nothing but a
> troll, and an very pissant insignificant one at that .. You keep hanging
> your hat on the above URL, and to alleged former SPCS employees quotes,
> where their posts are not dated, nor signed with their names ... That's
> hardly reputable material to reference ...
>
> You know that SPCS employees can not release internal information, yet
> you keep persisting for the information. Let me ask you something ...
> what gives you the right to know that information in the first place? No
> reason at all ...
>
> Bob ::Hoping someone replies to this so that Phillippe will see my
> comments.::

Consider it done.

Howard

--
Minister of All Things Digital & Electronic, and Holder of Past Knowledge
stile99@email.com Cabal# 24601-fnord | Sleep is irrelevant.
I speak for no one but myself, and |Caffeine will be assimilated.
no one else speaks for me. O- | Decaf is futile.

In article <Xns93E06DB4FB62Estile@129.250.170.81>,
Howard Wilson II <stile99@email.com.> wrote:

> "Bob Smith" <usirsclt_NoSpam_@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:5EL1b.582$jY2.258@newsread1.news.atl.earthlin k.net:
>
> >
> > "Phillipe" <pfilm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > newsfilm-270422.06465123082003@news02.west.earthlink.net...
> >>
> >>
> >> As I've said many times. I have one point of information on what the
> >> restrictions are for CSRs.
> >> At http://www.sprintpcs-sucks.org/emplo...yee_email.html
> >> one former employee says if CSRs average call time is over 5:19 they
> >> get fired. Others have posted here saying they've heard that also. All
> >> I've heard from "O" is complaints about the web site where that is
> >> posted. Certainly it could be exagerated sour grapes, that why I ask
> >> him to tell us the truth if its wrong. I have no authoritative
> >> definitive statement to the contrary, so after 3 days now I must
> >> believe it.
> >>
> >> FLAME ON
> >>
> >> PUT UP OR SHUT UP
> >> 5:19 is a CSRs limit
> >>
> >> FLAME OFF
> >
> > Phillippe, all you have proven so far is that you are nothing but a
> > troll, and an very pissant insignificant one at that .. You keep hanging
> > your hat on the above URL, and to alleged former SPCS employees quotes,
> > where their posts are not dated, nor signed with their names ... That's
> > hardly reputable material to reference ...


Doesn't make it untrue, and nobody from SPRINT has presented evidence to
the contrary.
> >
> > You know that SPCS employees can not release internal information, yet
> > you keep persisting for the information. Let me ask you something ...
> > what gives you the right to know that information in the first place? No
> > reason at all ...


I believe I have the right information because it explains the behavior
of the CSRs.

Lies
Rushing the call
Promsing things that are never recorded on account
Refusing to escalate
Transfering to unrelated departments
Transfering to a colleague
Multiple calls to *2 to resolve a problem
Hanging up
Disconnecting
Good interactions with CSRs when a short sweet question is asked.

I was always taught to believe the simplest explanation for things.
The requirement to keep calls short explains things. Sprint employees
vague denial, denouncing the web site or insulting me does not explain
bad CSR behavior.

> >
> > Bob ::Hoping someone replies to this so that Phillippe will see my
> > comments.::
>
> Consider it done.
>
> Howard

Add Smith's buddy to my KILL file

In article <28806-3F477C5F-7@storefull-2336.public.lawson.webtv.net>,
popsensation@webtv.net (Eric) wrote:

> <<BUT APPPARENTLY ITS TRUE since you dont offer evidence to contrary. >>
>
> So what?? If you feel like you've made your point, why keep bringing
> this up every single day multiple times?
>
> <<Go ahead insult me. Don't like the message, insult the messenger. But
> the time limit for CSRs remains and explains things. >>
>
> People only insult the messenger because he *inisists* on posting the
> same rants day in and day out. It becomes very tiring. In fact, you've
> said that little "insult the messenger" line about five time now. Like
> I said above, if you think you've made your point, move on. Why keep
> harping on it?

But it explains EVERYTHING:

Lies
Rushing the call
Promsing things that are never recorded on account
Refusing to escalate
Transfering to unrelated departments
Transfering to a colleague
Multiple calls to *2 to resolve a problem
Hanging up
Disconnecting
Good interactions with CSRs when a short sweet question is asked.

I was always taught to believe the simplest explanation for things.
The requirement to keep calls short explains things. Sprint employees
vague denial, denouncing the web site or insulting me does not explain
bad CSR behavior.

"Phillipe" <pfilm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
newsfilm-4C72A8.08495623082003@news02.west.earthlink.net...
> BUT APPPARENTLY ITS TRUE since you dont offer evidence to contrary.

The source you cited has no credibility at all, as anyone can post anything
they want anonymously. As such, the web page is not really even the source.
The source is a mystery complaint with no name attached.

Maybe you are right, I have no evidence one way or another, but the burden
of proof is still on you. You don't win an argument by pointing at any
shady source you find and saying "prove it isn't true." If you want to make
an assertion about something, you need to offer evidence rather than
anonymous blabber. People are not going to arrange a congressional
investigation to prove that every damned thing everyone says on usenet isn't
true.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/2003

"Phillipe" <pfilm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
newsfilm-C7E59E.11291023082003@news02.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <Xns93E06DB4FB62Estile@129.250.170.81>,
> Howard Wilson II <stile99@email.com.> wrote:
>
> > "Bob Smith" <usirsclt_NoSpam_@earthlink.net> wrote in
> > news:5EL1b.582$jY2.258@newsread1.news.atl.earthlin k.net:
> >
> > >
> > > "Phillipe" <pfilm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > newsfilm-270422.06465123082003@news02.west.earthlink.net...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> As I've said many times. I have one point of information on what the
> > >> restrictions are for CSRs.
> > >> At http://www.sprintpcs-sucks.org/emplo...yee_email.html
> > >> one former employee says if CSRs average call time is over 5:19 they
> > >> get fired. Others have posted here saying they've heard that also.
All
> > >> I've heard from "O" is complaints about the web site where that is
> > >> posted. Certainly it could be exagerated sour grapes, that why I ask
> > >> him to tell us the truth if its wrong. I have no authoritative
> > >> definitive statement to the contrary, so after 3 days now I must
> > >> believe it.
> > >>
> > >> FLAME ON
> > >>
> > >> PUT UP OR SHUT UP
> > >> 5:19 is a CSRs limit
> > >>
> > >> FLAME OFF
> > >
> > > Phillippe, all you have proven so far is that you are nothing but a
> > > troll, and an very pissant insignificant one at that .. You keep
hanging
> > > your hat on the above URL, and to alleged former SPCS employees
quotes,
> > > where their posts are not dated, nor signed with their names ...
That's
> > > hardly reputable material to reference ...
>
>
> Doesn't make it untrue, and nobody from SPRINT has presented evidence to
> the contrary.
> > >
> > > You know that SPCS employees can not release internal information, yet
> > > you keep persisting for the information. Let me ask you something ...
> > > what gives you the right to know that information in the first place?
No
> > > reason at all ...
>
>
> I believe I have the right information because it explains the behavior
> of the CSRs.
>
> Lies
> Rushing the call
> Promsing things that are never recorded on account
> Refusing to escalate
> Transfering to unrelated departments
> Transfering to a colleague
> Multiple calls to *2 to resolve a problem
> Hanging up
> Disconnecting
> Good interactions with CSRs when a short sweet question is asked.
>
> I was always taught to believe the simplest explanation for things.
> The requirement to keep calls short explains things. Sprint employees
> vague denial, denouncing the web site or insulting me does not explain
> bad CSR behavior.
>
> > >
> > > Bob ::Hoping someone replies to this so that Phillippe will see my
> > > comments.::
> >
> > Consider it done.
> >
> > Howard
>
> Add Smith's buddy to my KILL file

Yet you still replied to Bob's words. Did you want to see them or not? You
plonk Howard for bringing them to you, but reply anyway?


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/2003

"Phillipe" <pfilm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
newsfilm-11D3C2.11321923082003@news02.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <28806-3F477C5F-7@storefull-2336.public.lawson.webtv.net>,
> popsensation@webtv.net (Eric) wrote:
>
> > <<BUT APPPARENTLY ITS TRUE since you dont offer evidence to contrary. >>
> >
> > So what?? If you feel like you've made your point, why keep bringing
> > this up every single day multiple times?
> >
> > <<Go ahead insult me. Don't like the message, insult the messenger. But
> > the time limit for CSRs remains and explains things. >>
> >
> > People only insult the messenger because he *inisists* on posting the
> > same rants day in and day out. It becomes very tiring. In fact, you've
> > said that little "insult the messenger" line about five time now. Like
> > I said above, if you think you've made your point, move on. Why keep
> > harping on it?
>
> But it explains EVERYTHING:

It sure does, but that's not proof that it's true.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/2003

You sure seem hung up on this number.

It looks like 5:19 is an AVERAGE, not a limit.

I've called CS many times, and managed to get all my problems
solved in well under 5 minutes. My guess is that the AVERAGE call is
only 2 or 3 minutes long, and the rare long one will raise a CSR's
AVERAGE, but only the very slow or wordy would have any problem keeping
their AVERAGE ( a word you perhaps don't understand) under 5 minutes.

There isn't a company in the world running a phone center that
doesn't keep statistics and have standards and quotas and rules. Why
does this surprise you so? Why are you so upset with what seems like a
reasonable AVERAGE?

Time to get over your obsession and move on.

Chris

"Phillipe" >

I was always taught to believe the simplest explanation for things.


That would explain why you sound like a believer in the
Flat Earth Society.

Life isn't always simple.

Chris

<<But it explains EVERYTHING>>

It would explain a lot, and you have a valid arguement. But I just
don't understand your need to harp on it and post about it every day.
If you believe you are right, then so be it. Do you have to have
someone say "Yes, you are indeed correct" before you let it go? There
is strong evidence to support your theory, and pre-Christmas 2002, I
would have agreed with it. But personally, I have experienced nothing
to back up your claims.... but others may have, as you may have as well.

Bottom line is that you believe you are right, and no one can dispute
your personal customer service experiences. So why continue to force
the issue?

Eric

"Howard Wilson II" <stile99@email.com.> wrote in message
news:Xns93E06DB4FB62Estile@129.250.170.81...
> "Bob Smith" <usirsclt_NoSpam_@earthlink.net> wrote in

<snipped>

> > Bob ::Hoping someone replies to this so that Phillippe will see my
> > comments.::
>
> Consider it done.
>
> Howard

Thanks Howard ... . I just read Phillippe's reply. What a joke!

Bob