Human people, isn't that an Oxymoron?
I ask to speak to the supervisor, but because as Orestes above has stated, it's not possible to speak to the supervisor, so instead I will continue speaking to the same level person. It is because you have requested to speak to their supervisor because you don't want to shout at them for something that isn't their fault, but are clearly irritated, will take you seriously/not want to piss you off too much. This is easy if you make it clear that you're annoyed but not so much with them because they are simply doing their job.

By supervisor I meant the person who's name is on the letter you've received but is mysteriously never in the office during office hours.
( fuck shit up the best you never had, Thu 8 Jul 2010, 22:40, 2 replies)

haha, you NEVER get to speak to the person on the letter!
and generally they ARE the ones that make up the policies and only care about increasing the profit margins and shafting people. that's their job and they never have to answer to it.

but you won't even be able to get within 3 levels of management of talking to them in their fucking glass office.
(orestes is shitting in the 1940s, Thu 8 Jul 2010, 22:54, closed)

Ahh, but if you find out their email address, you can spam them lots and lots and lots :)
Seriously though, I expect that you guys get a lot of shit from people who have gone over their overdraft limits and want someone else to blame for their own stupidity. I've done customer service type roles for too long to be an arsehole to the guys in the firing line and often have nice chats with them instead and they're more than happy to help me out.
( fuck shit up the best you never had, Thu 8 Jul 2010, 22:58, closed)

this is brilliant
and if i could give this information away over the phone without being fired i would.
(orestes is shitting in the 1940s, Thu 8 Jul 2010, 23:03, closed)

okay, one question answered. and i think orestes must've answered whilst i was typing.
now then, why does a supervisor probably deserve to be shouted at?
it's not like the supervisor determines policy. and what orestes reports pertains to where orestes works. although we all know there are similarities between organisations. i have always found that with BT/UU/Barclays/BG/HMRC when i ask to speak to a supervisor then there has been one there to speak to me.
I find it somewhat irritating to be offered a "call-back", which generally never happens...
supervisors are human people too.
( blaireau69 , the Cumbrian Travis Bickle., Thu 8 Jul 2010, 23:05, closed)

If you'll look at my reply properly, you'll see that I have termed 'supervisor' as the person who has signed the letter.
The very person responsible for making that policy. So if the company have gone against this policy and in doing so irritated me, I would rather give that particular person hell than the person on the end of the phone who is just doing their job.
( fuck shit up the best you never had, Thu 8 Jul 2010, 23:10, closed)

becky, i do respect you sufficiently to have read your post properly.
my point is this: you cannot imply that someone who signs off a letter is responsible for making the policy contained therein, that will be down to HR and LEGAL. a pro-forma letter from file is what they are signing.
am i not right there?
( blaireau69 , the Cumbrian Travis Bickle., Thu 8 Jul 2010, 23:22, closed)

this is correct
but it is normally drafted by the wanker who makes the policies. or more likely by an underling of the wanker that makes the policies because they're far too important to do something like typing a letter.
(orestes is shitting in the 1940s, Thu 8 Jul 2010, 23:28, closed)

as i said...
HR and LEGAL.
( blaireau69 , the Cumbrian Travis Bickle., Thu 8 Jul 2010, 23:30, closed)

i think i've realised you can't generalise between companies
HR's sole purpose at my work is hiring, firing and getting your wages wrong. legal will tell the policy makers that they can go ahead and levy these ridiculous charges that people complain about but they don't set the policy. person on letter does.

as i've found out elsewhere, it ain't the same everywhere.
(orestes is shitting in the 1940s, Thu 8 Jul 2010, 23:36, closed)

haha, you NEVER get to speak to the person on the letter! and generally they ARE the ones that make up the policies and only care about increasing the profit margins and shafting people. that's their job and they never have to answer to it.
From the mouths of proles (no offence). I'm pretty sure I can assume that they made the policy or had some part in forming it. I expect they were human people once.
( fuck shit up the best you never had, Thu 8 Jul 2010, 23:28, closed)

BULLSHIT!
policy comes from HR/LEGAL (or similar level, definitely not "supervisor", it is their job to "oversee" which is what supervisor means). it's not the job of HR to make direct contact with "us"if they can avoid it (£150/hr+) more to instruct the "lowlier ones"(£25/hr) to do such, and to act as a buffer.
I have almost always spoken to the signee of the letter when dealing with the bodies i mentioned in my previous reply and almost always found them to be more than reasonable.
after all, if they get caught being a cnut then they can be well busted.
at least in the real world.
( blaireau69 , the Cumbrian Travis Bickle., Thu 8 Jul 2010, 23:44, closed)

where you are, maybe
£25 an hour? do you shit gold bullion for a living?

i think my model is pretty much how it works in any bullshitty frontline bank/isp/utility company jobs. HR make more than we do but not THAT much.
(orestes is shitting in the 1940s, Thu 8 Jul 2010, 23:48, closed)

charge-out rate.
not Pay rate.
i was referring to out-sourced HR and Supervisory charge-out rates for private business. not banks maybe, but the real world. i.e. any U.K. based industry not massively subsidised by the government and employing fewer than 10 people (ie the largest per-capita sector in the employment market)
( blaireau69 , the Cumbrian Travis Bickle., Fri 9 Jul 2010, 0:06, closed)

Hmm
As a civil servant I often have to write to people, sending official notices and things. My own name and telephone number is at the bottom of those letters, but it doesn't mean I'm a supervisor and it certainly doesn't mean I was the policy maker.

Not sure how banks and other companies do it, but it might be similar?
( in vino veritas, Thu 8 Jul 2010, 23:28, closed)

good point
not all companies are like mine. it definitely is the person on the letter here, i suppose i just thought that was universal.
(orestes is shitting in the 1940s, Thu 8 Jul 2010, 23:32, closed)

Absolutely it's not the case for most companies. However, having spoken to the initial advisors and asked who the person is who signed their name, I've found more often than not, they are the decision makers

( fuck shit up the best you never had, Thu 8 Jul 2010, 23:41, closed)

there is a fundamental difference between "policy makers" and "decision makers" in both private and public sectors.
and a very important difference it is.
( blaireau69 , the Cumbrian Travis Bickle., Thu 8 Jul 2010, 23:47, closed)

Sorry B69 I forgot you need it spelt out for you. By decision makers I was implying those who have ultimate power and are able to create and change policy whenever they want to.
I won't forget this again.
( fuck shit up the best you never had, Fri 9 Jul 2010, 0:05, closed)

I don't need it spelt out to me.
I am 40 YOA (i.e. I have been in employment for 24 years off and on), the director of 2 companies and majority shareholder in 3 (all fairly new ventures and not making huge amounts of wonga yet).
I may not know more than everyone on this particular subject but i would suggest that it is more my area of specialty than yours.
you don't seem to understand/realise that policy comes from HR/LEGAL/DIRECTORS not Supervisors.
Policy Makers ultimately decide the parameters within which Decision Makers get to operate, based upon the framework that Companies House allows them to operate within. a legally defined framework.
At best Supervisors are Decision Makers. They work within the Structure handed down to them by the Policy Makers.
at worst Supervisors are glorified Policy Monkies.
( blaireau69 , the Cumbrian Travis Bickle., Fri 9 Jul 2010, 0:20, closed)

Just a theory, but maybe
you've worked or been part of companies that are small enough to have the same people doing multiple jobs. HR never decides policies beyond hiring or employee relations. As has been mentioned in a previous reply, HR exists to hire/fire, and be completely unable to tell you how much vacation time you've accumulated. This seems to be pretty standard in English speaking countries.

Legal tends to be responsible for determining whether a policy is, in fact, legal. They are also sometimes responsible for non-marketing PR (i.e. spin control).

Neither of these departments determine policy. Not unless key people from them also hold other positions, or whoever setup the company doesn't understand what these department labels mean.

If your long experience indicates otherwise, be advised that you've been part of a series of non-standard organizations and your impressions are different than the realities of the majority of people that work for companies larger than a food kiosk.
(Ejaculantern was caught desecrating pumpkins on, Sat 10 Jul 2010, 8:54, closed)

If I might stick my oar in again with my own example
I am a decision maker because I make decisions about what action is taken on individual cases. I must make those decisions in accordance with the law and with the organisation's policy, neither of which I determine.

The policy makers for my work do not see individual cases and may not actually have the skills or equipment to make the decisions. If you ring the JobCentre you won't get Iain Duncan Smith making a decision on your benefits.

A call centre supervisor may be a decision maker and may have more discretion and leeway than a normal operator, but they are unlikely to be a policy maker and won't be able to change the rules.
( in vino veritas, Fri 9 Jul 2010, 1:03, closed)

it certainly varies from place to place, although you will find that managers/supervisors are more invested in their job and more willing to internalise company policies. there are some that are far worse than any front line advisor but as i said before there are plenty of advisors on a trip with their shitty limited power and of course it does vary from person to person.

and yeah, it is irriating to not be put straight through to a manager but ;
a) often it can be sorted by the person you're speaking to and they just haven't been given the chance (this has happened to me loads) and
b) there are 8 managers and about 150 staff so if they talked to every person that demanded to be put through they wouldn't be able to do any managing.
(orestes is shitting in the 1940s, Thu 8 Jul 2010, 23:14, closed)