Do Public Servants have to give their name?

chopper6 · 14-08-2013 1:39pm

A lot of people ring the wrong department and start off by ranting and raving anyway...a bit of politenesss goes a long way and i certainly wouldnt be giving my name out to somebody who's giving me a load of verbal.

Dostoevsky · 14-08-2013 1:49pm

true-or-false wrote: »

But I am not going to give my name out on the phone to an irate customer who is looking to form a vendetta against me just because they don't like the truth.

But if it's "the truth", or more pertinently the factual reality, you have nothing to fear by giving your name. Nothing. I suspect employees don't like giving their names because they have not done their jobs correctly by knowing the required information, and are therefore waffling when they give answers over the phone. They should be held to account for the information they provide as part of their job. Getting their name is the most obvious way to ensure this accountability.

Zulu · 14-08-2013 1:53pm

joe swanson wrote: »

Pay peanuts - get monkeys.

This is the result of cuts upon cuts.

Dear, oh dear. This might be true if only for one little fact: there were no mandatory redundancies! It's the same people who were working there during the years of benchmarking that work there now. You know, before the cuts.

The only "monkeys" are the people who think this behaviour is acceptable.

Ray Palmer · 14-08-2013 1:58pm

Lofty123 wrote: »

The faceless people I am referring to are those that make arbitrary decisions without communicating them in writing with a signature.

The reason for this is simple, no person issues the letter. It is an automated system where rules are set and letters are issued. Don't respond and the system automatically cuts you off. No human intervention. It isn't arbitrary, match the criteria and a letter is sent don't respond and you are cut off. People have problems with strict rules and try to get wiggle room.

You are suggesting it just randomly happens which isn't the case. I already pointed out that failure to fill out forms is the biggest reason for things getting "lost". Where as an insurance company may send you a letter saying you didn't fill out the form correctly (at a massive cost to them) the public services don't(due to massive cost).

Ray Palmer · 14-08-2013 2:03pm

Dostoevsky wrote: »

But if it's "the truth", or more pertinently the factual reality, you have nothing to fear by giving your name. Nothing. I suspect employees don't like giving their names because they have not done their jobs correctly by knowing the required information, and are therefore waffling when they give answers over the phone. They should be held to account for the information they provide as part of their job. Getting their name is the most obvious way to ensure this accountability.

People come into social welfare offices shouting out names and threatening them all the time. Officers and their cars have been attacked. Attacked in the streets is common enough too. I know several people who avoid shopping anywhere near the area they work in due to attacks and threats.

Would you give your name out in those circumstances?

runawaybishop · 14-08-2013 2:04pm

Dostoevsky wrote: »

But if it's "the truth", or more pertinently the factual reality, you have nothing to fear by giving your name. Nothing. I suspect employees don't like giving their names because they have not done their jobs correctly by knowing the required information, and are therefore waffling when they give answers over the phone. They should be held to account for the information they provide as part of their job. Getting their name is the most obvious way to ensure this accountability.

I suspect employees don't like giving out their names so idiots don't hound them by ringing up and demanding to speak to XX because they mistakenly think XX handles them exclusively.

relax carry on · 14-08-2013 2:12pm

I work in the public sector where I am public facing and must provide my full name and contact info otherwise the "clients" would never have their cases resolved.
Oddly, in one of my last private sector jobs, it was policy not to provide your real name. The names kept changing. Made it a bit of an odd place to work but the occasional death threat from clients kept it interesting.

Plazaman · 14-08-2013 2:18pm

runawaybishop wrote: »

I suspect employees don't like giving out their names so idiots don't hound them by ringing up and demanding to speak to XX because they mistakenly think XX handles them exclusively.

Exactly, the person you initially contact is mainly just a phone jockey and nothing to do with making a decision on the claim at all.

But the irony of a caller insisting on speaking with the person who decides the claim (and I have had experience with this) whilst expecting a speedy decision to be made. However the person making decisions cannot do this because they spend all their time on the phone listening to rants about the time it takes to process claims. Vicious circle. This is why the majority of Government Depts and places like Insurance Companies etc have phone banks so staff not involved with claim decisions can read the status of a claim and pass the information to the customer or get that information and ring them back.

However I agree that there is totally no call for rudeness, but just like profiling the type of people who call Joe Duffy, I can tell that that particular civil servant was indeed called Mary, has worked there 22 years and is frustrated as the job is ever changing and she can't keep up and her 2010 Nissan Micra is giving her gip as well cause she nevers goes higher than 3rd gear when driving.

Dostoevsky · 14-08-2013 2:34pm

Aitana Straight Graveyard wrote: »

It's unacceptable for you to demand personal details from employees. A first name will suffice.

For the security of the employee, they are not obliged to give you their second name. If you lack cognitive capacity and are unable to use the other information available to you to identify the person you are dealing with, then that's your problem.

This part is complete bullshít;

Clearly, this is incorrect. Have you thought that maybe there are other reasons?

Generally, when a customer asks for details prior to the conversation, I find them to be obnoxious and ignorant. They tend to be argumentative and have a self entitled way about them. Whoever came up with "the customer is always right" is an idiot. Generally, customers haven't a clue what they are talking about and make ridiculous demands. Of course, this depends largely on the industry.

In fairness, perhaps you should have nothing to do with public service if you're going to be so paranoid about the intentions of members of the public? A request for the name of the person one is talking to is translated into a "demand" in your evidently hostile and confrontational mindset.

I always ask for details "prior to a conversation" if by details you mean the name of the person to whom I'm speaking. Most people, however, just answer the phone with their company/section name, and then their own name. Simple. That this is a big deal to you is not a good omen for your public service attitude.

Furthermore, if there are three Marys in a section, the obvious thing is to then ask which of the Marys are you talking to. Most employees then will just give you a surname. They do, after all, have the customer's name (and often PPS number). Should the customer be paranoid? It's not a conspiracy so please chill.

Dravokivich · 14-08-2013 2:42pm

Dostoevsky wrote: »

But if it's "the truth", or more pertinently the factual reality, you have nothing to fear by giving your name. Nothing. I suspect employees don't like giving their names because they have not done their jobs correctly by knowing the required information, and are therefore waffling when they give answers over the phone. They should be held to account for the information they provide as part of their job. Getting their name is the most obvious way to ensure this accountability.

Giving their name makes them an entity. This should not be the case. The department they work for is the entity. They're just working on behalf of it. They are not it.

It's not a matter of truth or intent to deceive. It's about cutting out the "He Said/She Said," element that will always come up when people give into giving a full name. It makes them a target, it makes them representitive. They become what is perceived as the Department. Which is exactly how the OP is viewing this person who was unfortunate enough to do their job.

Dostoevsky wrote: »

In fairness, perhaps you should have nothing to do with public service if you're going to be so paranoid about the intentions of members of the public? A request for the name of the person one is talking to is translated into a "demand" in your evidently hostile and confrontational mindset.

I always ask for details "prior to a conversation" if by details you mean the name of the person to whom I'm speaking. Most people, however, just answer the phone with their company/section name, and then their own name. Simple. That this is a big deal to you is not a good omen for your public service attitude.

Furthermore, if there are three Marys in a section, the obvious thing is to then ask which of the Marys are you talking to. Most employees then will just give you a surname. They do, after all, have the customer's name (and often PPS number). Should the customer be paranoid? It's not a conspiracy so please chill.

1) Where I work, for any of the public user bases it's actually company policy that the call taker are not to provide their full name.
2) With minimal information such as when a call took place, it's very easy to investigate from there who was involved and how they may have affected the call, along with determining any appropriate actions to take place. 3 Mary's can be eliminated to 1.

Penny Dreadful · 14-08-2013 2:43pm

Lofty123 wrote: »

does anyone know if a Public Servant from a government Department is obliged to give their name if asked?

My daughter was on the phone to the Medical Card Appeals Section of the HSE today. Her medical card has been withdrawn. She was not informed, and only discovered this when she went to collect a prescription at her local pharmacy.

She wanted to send documentation in support of her appeal. The lady she spoke to was rude and unhelpful. (this seems to be becoming commonplace when dealing with "Public Servants")
When asked for her name she refused to give it, saying "we get far too many appeals now to be giving our names to people". If we wanted to lodge a complaint about her rudeness how could we do so if we didn't have the name of the person?
My daughter was advised to fax the documents to them.. Fax, in 2013???
After some discussion, she managed to get an email address for the department. In my experience if you are dealing with a department rather than a person documents tend to get "lost" or "not received"

Surely you have some rights in this situation? Who made the decision to rescind her medical card? Why was she not informed in writing, with said persons signature?

Mary Harney created the HSE to hide behind. It would appear that the employees are now doing the same.:mad:

Public service systems haven't been well maintained across the wider service so the fax option may be the only one open to them.
What is wrong with using a fax whether its 2013 or not?

ash23 · 14-08-2013 2:49pm

I've worked in customer service for years and I cannot believe that someone working in a job where they need to speak to customers or clients would refuse to give at least their first name.

It's seriously unprofessional not to give your name.

If someone wants to make a complaint about me, I give them my full name, title and my supervisors name and title. I give them the complaints procedure and explain to them how they would make a complaint.

If we then refuse to uphold a complaint or appeal, we issue them with a letter which contains the details of the ombudsman if they wish to pursue that complaint.

It's totally incomprehensible the way some places operate. Both public and private.
But appeals and complaint procedures should be laid down and issued to the customer if requested. And of course some sort of identifying detail should be given about a person to whom you are speaking. Be that an employee number or a first name.
But a customer shouldn't have to play "guess the employee" when they are trying to explain a timeline or train of events in terms of an appeal or complaint.

Larbre34 · 14-08-2013 2:50pm

OP wants to lodge a complaint about 'rude and unhelpful' because the only thing they would have seen as 'polite and helpful' would have been the immediate and unambiguous restoration of said medical card without further delay.

People think they are the only ones in the World with problems when they get on a phone, meanwhile an office of 30 or 40 people are dealing with perhaps 15-20,000 cases which can be called up on a screen for any of them to review. Asking for a specific name is a waste of everyones time and official complaints procedures are so abused by the very people they are supposed to protect, that the people in the office spend all their time dealing with the distractions and not the actual business of substance of the queries.

The nature of business and interaction has become a call centre culture, which is hugely problematic, but dont say you wouldnt get the same treatment from every bank, insurance company, power company, phone company, online business you might deal with - just because you dont get a desirable outcome doesnt mean they havent done their job.

Dostoevsky · 14-08-2013 2:51pm

runawaybishop wrote: »

I suspect employees don't like giving out their names so idiots don't hound them by ringing up and demanding to speak to XX because they mistakenly think XX handles them exclusively.

Or that XX is familiar with their case and they are sick and tired of going through their case with somebody new each time so they want to deal with a single person to prevent going back to scratch each time they call?

Clarehobo · 14-08-2013 2:51pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The reason for this is simple, no person issues the letter. It is an automated system where rules are set and letters are issued. Don't respond and the system automatically cuts you off. No human intervention. It isn't arbitrary, match the criteria and a letter is sent don't respond and you are cut off. People have problems with strict rules and try to get wiggle room.

You are suggesting it just randomly happens which isn't the case. I already pointed out that failure to fill out forms is the biggest reason for things getting "lost". Where as an insurance company may send you a letter saying you didn't fill out the form correctly (at a massive cost to them) the public services don't(due to massive cost).

Just one observation - you say it costs too much to inform people they have filled out a form incorrectly.
The Public Service has the use of modern technology: what is the harm in sending out emails to people from an anonymous mailbox with a scanned copy of the form indicating what was filled out wrong and get them to submit a new form.
Also, placing a disclaimer on all forms that unless an email address is provided, you will not be informed if the form has been rejected and that if you have not heard from the dept in x amount of days, then contact the relevant section.
Saves on postage and frustrated, irate people.

Dostoevsky · 14-08-2013 2:56pm

ash23 wrote: »

I've worked in customer service for years and I cannot believe that someone working in a job where they need to speak to customers or clients would refuse to give at least their first name.

It's seriously unprofessional not to give your name.

If someone wants to make a complaint about me, I give them my full name, title and my supervisors name and title. I give them the complaints procedure and explain to them how they would make a complaint.

If we then refuse to uphold a complaint or appeal, we issue them with a letter which contains the details of the ombudsman if they wish to pursue that complaint.

It's totally incomprehensible the way some places operate. Both public and private.
But appeals and complaint procedures should be laid down and issued to the customer if requested. And of course some sort of identifying detail should be given about a person to whom you are speaking. Be that an employee number or a first name.
But a customer shouldn't have to play "guess the employee"

This. Basic professionalism, along with open and transparent governance in this democracy.

OldNotWIse · 14-08-2013 2:56pm

Larbre34 wrote: »

OP wants to lodge a complaint about 'rude and unhelpful' because the only thing they would have seen as 'polite and helpful' would have been the immediate and unambiguous restoration of said medical card without further delay.

People think they are the only ones in the World with problems when they get on a phone, meanwhile an office of 30 or 40 people are dealing with perhaps 15-20,000 cases which can be called up on a screen for any of them to review. Asking for a specific name is a waste of everyones time and official complaints procedures are so abused by the very people they are supposed to protect, that the people in the office spend all their time dealing with the distractions and not the actual business of substance of the queries.

The nature of business and interaction has become a call centre culture, which is hugely problematic, but dont say you wouldnt get the same treatment from every bank, insurance company, power company, phone company, online business you might deal with - just because you dont get a desirable outcome doesnt mean they havent done their job.

This

I dont mind giving out my name but it's one of those things that really annoys me for no apparent reason, when people ask for it and then overuse it! You know the type, "thank you oldnotwise, now oldnotwise, can I ask you this oldnotwise?""

Shuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut uuuuuuuuuuuuuup! Knowing (and wearing out) my name does not make you special, and I will not treat you any more favourably than anyone else who does not know my name. In fact, when you use my name every second word, its like someone scraping their nails on a blackboard and its all I can think about

tupac_healy · 14-08-2013 2:57pm

I work in the public sector (duck!!!!!) & in a busy a&e none the less!!!

Ive been there 4-5 years now and never asked for my name, but if someone did I wouldnt give it....

I'd. Just say ask for the good lookin fella!!!!!

See! Sense of humour and all even with all the cuts!

runawaybishop · 14-08-2013 2:57pm

Dostoevsky wrote: »

Or that XX is familiar with their case and they are sick and tired of going through their case with somebody new each time so they want to deal with a single person to prevent going back to scratch each time they call?

And if that is not how the department operates? Because it isn't.

Dostoevsky · 14-08-2013 3:11pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

People come into social welfare offices shouting out names and threatening them all the time. Officers and their cars have been attacked. Attacked in the streets is common enough too. I know several people who avoid shopping anywhere near the area they work in due to attacks and threats.

Would you give your name out in those circumstances?

How often has this type of extreme scenario happened to the state's 300,000 public servants? Basing a general customer service policy for all citizens on extreme cases like this will never result in a good policy. It's akin to gardai being allowed to treat all citizens as hostile because they deal with a tiny minority of hostile citizens. Fortunately, this state does not have such a customer service policy and when I ring up my local Garda station the person on the phone will identify themselves. If not, I'll ask their name and they'll tell me. No bother. Natural. I've never encountered any paranoia on this fairly basic exchange between people.

B.A._Baracus · 14-08-2013 3:13pm

I would never give out my real name in a job. Be it a face-to-face job or even a telephone job.

The only possible way someone would want an employees name is to some how fuck with them.

Ray Palmer · 14-08-2013 3:32pm

Clarehobo wrote: »

Just one observation - you say it costs too much to inform people they have filled out a form incorrectly.
The Public Service has the use of modern technology: what is the harm in sending out emails to people from an anonymous mailbox with a scanned copy of the form indicating what was filled out wrong and get them to submit a new form.
Also, placing a disclaimer on all forms that unless an email address is provided, you will not be informed if the form has been rejected and that if you have not heard from the dept in x amount of days, then contact the relevant section.
Saves on postage and frustrated, irate people.

You don't understand how scanning works. They don't even scan a document not filled out correctly. The forms often are not returned with the required documentation or the documentation is returned without the form. Not sure who the documents are from.

There is a note on the forms say if the form is not filled in the claim will not be processed and they still send it in. There is a check list on some to verify you include all the documents and they still don't do it.

Some insurance companies don't even bother informing people now due to the costs. The harm is simply cost. You workout somebody's day at 10 minutes to process an application . If they take longer the person working is questioned. Are you going to risk your performance review because somebody didn't bother filling out their forms? Ultimately the delay and time wasting effects the person in question not everybody else. Seems reasonable really.

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

Public service systems haven't been well maintained across the wider service so the fax option may be the only one open to them.
What is wrong with using a fax whether its 2013 or not?

Public service systems are actually more up to date than many large private companies. Fax is used due to legal requirements. E-mails are not accepted as legal documents for most things.

ash23 · 14-08-2013 3:33pm

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

I would never give out my real name in a job. Be it a face-to-face job or even a telephone job.

The only possible way someone would want an employees name is to some how fuck with them.

Or so they can make note of the advice they were given?

Are calls to public service offices recorded and monitored or is quality something we just shouldn't expect because it's public service?

Zulu · 14-08-2013 3:35pm

As a professional I'd just like to point out that I've always answered the work phone as: "IT, Zulu speaking". I don't wait to be asked my name.

ash23 · 14-08-2013 3:39pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You don't understand how scanning works. They don't even scan a document not filled out correctly. The forms often are not returned with the required documentation or the documentation is returned without the form. Not sure who the documents are from.

There is a note on the forms say if the form is not filled in the claim will not be processed and they still send it in. There is a check list on some to verify you include all the documents and they still don't do it.

Some insurance companies don't even bother informing people now due to the costs. The harm is simply cost. You workout somebody's day at 10 minutes to process an application . If they take longer the person working is questioned. Are you going to risk your performance review because somebody didn't bother filling out their forms? Ultimately the delay and time wasting effects the person in question not everybody else. Seems reasonable really.

Public service systems are actually more up to date than many large private companies. Fax is used due to legal requirements. E-mails are not accepted as legal documents for most things.

I work in private sector, processing claims.
Claim comes in and text is sent saying it's been received (if mobile number is on the form). The form is checked within a day or two to make sure info is all there. If it's not, it's scanned and returned with a letter saying info is missing.

I think that not acknowledging the receipt of a complete or incomplete application will actually lead to more calls and emails querying the status of claims etc. because nobody knows if they filled it in properly or if it even made it in the post.

For example I made a claim for Disability allowance. I was told to send in the initial application and then send on the medical completed by GP. I got no acknowledgement of any receipt of either part of the claim. The processing time for DA is 8 to 11 months. So what do I do? Wait 12 months before I call, only to be told it was never received? Or do I call and ask after a month or so of hearing nothing?

Plus there's no "set" guidelines. When I used to apply for FIS I got an acknowledgement letter saying my claim would be processed. But you don't get anything for DA. But I'm meant to just know that?
It's a mess to be honest.

Ray Palmer · 14-08-2013 3:45pm

Dostoevsky wrote: »

How often has this type of extreme scenario happened to the state's 300,000 public servants? Basing a general customer service policy for all citizens on extreme cases like this will never result in a good policy.

Threats to DSP staff who deal with the public probably get a threat at least once a week from what I hear. Do you know how to distinguish which ones are real? Opportunity to do something maybe all they need to carry out a threat.

If they are on a run of cutting peoples' benefits they get much more threats and even put on extra security sometimes knowing a group has been targeted.

I have been with somebody who was threatened and followed when we were in a supermarket. Their crime was doing their job in DSP but the customer wasn't happy that their money was cut. If I hadn't been there she would have been extremely scared.

Private company don't allow their staff to identify themselves either. It is not uncommon or unique to civil servants. It is also pointless as the person you talk to has nothing to do with your claim and never will.

ash23 · 14-08-2013 3:53pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Private company don't allow their staff to identify themselves either. It is not uncommon or unique to civil servants. It is also pointless as the person you talk to has nothing to do with your claim and never will.

That is untrue. In insurance and banking, you must provide a customer with your business card which has your full name, title and contact information on it. It's all part of financial regulation.

All emails etc I send have to have my name and title and when I answer the phone I have to introduce myself. I'm not sure if the phone bit is financial regulation but the email etc is.

By law, we have to have a list of our advisors and their qualifications which is available to anyone who walks in off the street and asks for it.

mattjack · 14-08-2013 4:01pm

tupac_healy wrote: »

I work in the public sector (duck!!!!!) & in a busy a&e none the less!!!

Ive been there 4-5 years now and never asked for my name, but if someone did I wouldnt give it....

I'd. Just say ask for the good lookin fella!!!!!

See! Sense of humour and all even with all the cuts!

Shouldn't be too hard to find you with that name , Mr. Tupac Healy.

Ray Palmer · 14-08-2013 4:03pm

ash23 wrote: »

I work in private sector, processing claims.
Claim comes in and text is sent saying it's been received (if mobile number is on the form). The form is checked within a day or two to make sure info is all there. If it's not, it's scanned and returned with a letter saying info is missing.

.

That's really interesting. Trusting OCR to read a mobile correctly or is that somebody manually reading the number and then sending a text?

So nobody scans the document unless there are errors?

A day or two to process is impressive too.

I am a contractor who works in private, semi-private and state companies and have worked on lots of processing claim systems. Some scan all documents and then process them later. Others don't scan at all and stick with paper. Then other scan each case individually and process them.
All scanning requires manual intervention to read the writing as the system can't be sure.

Your description sounds very wasteful and expensive. DSP aren't going to do it and would be crazy to do it due to the volumes they deal with.

If people need and want the money they will send in the correct information.

Ray Palmer · 14-08-2013 4:05pm

ash23 wrote: »

That is untrue. .

Did I say all companies? To clarify some private companies do not allow their staff to give their real name over the phone to customers.

Do Public Servants have to give their name?

Comments