Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Do Public Servants have to give their name?
Options
Comments
-
It's a person. Part of her job.Ray Palmer wrote: »That's really interesting. Trusting OCR to read a mobile correctly or is that somebody manually reading the number and then sending a text?
All documents are scanned. Everything. Just that they are sorted into piles. Some for processing. Some for return.So nobody scans the document unless there are errors?A day or two to process is impressive too.
I didn't say a day or two to process. I said they are looked through within a day or two. Anything that can be processed is then sent for scanning and processing. Anything that has items missing is sent for scanning and then returned to staff to be sent back with a letter advising we need more information/claim form not signed/etc. However, again with Financial regulation, we have a definitive amount of time to deal with a claim.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.
Hmmm, must be why we are expanding so? Wasteful and expensive? To make sure our customers know where they stand with their claims? Much better to spend all day answering calls about where or what status a claim is at?
If people knew that there was something missing surely that is fairer?
If you're talking about 8 to 10 months to process a claim, how is a person meant to know that a claim has been received? Or should they wait for a year and then ask only to be told it wasn't signed and they have to start from scratch?
Since when is keeping people informed a bad thing. It wouldn't be acceptable from ANY other sector so why from PS?0 -
Ray Palmer wrote: »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.
You said
so the clarification is warranted.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.
But in a lot of sectors it's pretty standard to give your name. I can't actually recall ever dealing with a company where I wasn't given the persons name and that's without even asking for it. I thought it was pretty standard practice that the person knows who they are speaking to, both from my own professional experience and personal experience as a consumer.0 -
Since when is keeping people informed a bad thing. It wouldn't be acceptable from ANY other sector so why from PS?
I think it's because any other sector can define what they are/aren't providing. Public Service can't do that. They're expected to meet everybody's expectations, even if it's stated clearly that certain criteria have to be met. You then have many, many cases where PS staff have to deal with queries that really shouldn't have to be dealt with at all, due to public expectation of what the PS should provide. PS aren't dealing in selling products, they're dealing with peoples lives and how they live them.
Edit : Not that I think it isn't frustrating when something isn't done by the way! : ). My pay is at the mercy of a government dept, so I always make sure I have copies of anything I've sent in, record phone conversation times and what was said etc0 -
I think it's because any other sector can define what they are/aren't providing. Public Service can't do that. They're expected to meet everybody's expectations, even if it's stated clearly that certain criteria have to be met. You then have many, many cases where PS staff have to deal with queries that really shouldn't have to be dealt with at all, due to public expectation of what the PS should provide. PS aren't dealing in selling products, they're dealing with peoples lives and how they live them.
Well that's not really true. The majority of cases have set criteria in terms of income limits etc. There are a few where a "call" is made (such as illness or disability benefit) but for a lot of claims there is a cut off and if you're above it, you're not eligible.
I work in health insurance so it's similar enough with people needing treatment which isn't covered. We aren't telling them that they don't need the treatment, just that the criteria aren't met. A lot of people expect things to be covered and a lot of my day is spent explaining why it's not. That is also why calls are recorded and monitored. So that if someone feels they were misdirected, the call can be listened to.
I think the problem is that when people are claiming benefits, it's seen that they are being done a "favour". Because a person buys a product from us, we are viewing them as a customer and that they are keeping our company going and we need to keep them happy.
However in the PS, the "cost" is thrust upon us and when it comes time to claim, there is a certain "you are getting something for nothing" attitude. Like we are being done a favour by the person picking up the phone.
This attitude of "we don't have to do this for you" is rife and it's poor practice imo. It's like it's being seen as a favour to simply process a claim or answer a phone.0 -
Yes that is wastefulIt's a person. Part of her job.
So some documents are scanned twice if there is an error? Seems wastefulAll documents are scanned. Everything. Just that they are sorted into piles. Some for processing. Some for return.
A costly method compared to othersI didn't say a day or two to process. I said they are looked through within a day or two. Anything that can be processed is then sent for scanning and processing. Anything that has items missing is sent for scanning and then returned to staff to be sent back with a letter advising we need more information/claim form not signed/etc. However, again with Financial regulation, we have a definitive amount of time to deal with a claim.
Just because your company is expanding doesn't mean it doesn't have wasteful expensive practices. I have seen massive waste in lots of companies expanding and making money. There is a element of call handling here. You get 100 calls anyway and can handle 100 calls. Improve the system and you only get 50 calls so have capacity for 50 more. All seems reasonable and how people expect it to work. The reality is you get 200 call and can only deal with 100. If the 200 calls increases it makes no difference as you only handle a 100 anyway. This is not unique to PS.Hmmm, must be why we are expanding so? Wasteful and expensive? To make sure our customers know where they stand with their claims? Much better to spend all day answering calls about where or what status a claim is at?If people knew that there was something missing surely that is fairer?
If you're talking about 8 to 10 months to process a claim, how is a person meant to know that a claim has been received? Or should they wait for a year and then ask only to be told it wasn't signed and they have to start from scratch?
As I pointed out people send in documents and forms with no way to identify them easily or uniquely. Is it fair that people who filled out their forms are delayed due to somebody else not paying attention? People on allowance in DSP have lots of free time and have to go to the offices regularly. Very easy to find out where your claim is on those visits.
It isn't unique to PS and many private companies do the same. Some replacement of systems are now there so you can check your processing on line. This will probably be introduced in the PS in time combined with the SAFE cards once it is completeSince when is keeping people informed a bad thing. It wouldn't be acceptable from ANY other sector so why from PS?0 -
Advertisement
-
Ray Palmer wrote: »Yes that is wasteful
So some documents are scanned twice if there is an error? Seems wasteful
Where did I say that? Claims are recieved and reviewed. Two piles. One for processing, one for return. Each batch is scanned once. From scanning batch one goes to processing and batch two is returned to sender with a letter. That way if it gets lost in the post, we have a scanned copy. ya know, to make it EASIER for the person to claim rather than ten times harder.
Depends on the business model. If you're going to ignore the phones and incoming emails from people with queries about their claims then I guess it could be seen as costly.A costly method compared to others
If you're going to deal with queries then minimising them makes sense. If you're not then you can expect more angry complaints and more calls. It seems customer service isn't a priority in PS so I suppose they don't really mind if people are confused and angry.Just because your company is expanding doesn't mean it doesn't have wasteful expensive practices. I have seen massive waste in lots of companies expanding and making money. There is a element of call handling here. You get 100 calls anyway and can handle 100 calls. Improve the system and you only get 50 calls so have capacity for 50 more. All seems reasonable and how people expect it to work. The reality is you get 200 call and can only deal with 100. If the 200 calls increases it makes no difference as you only handle a 100 anyway. This is not unique to PS.
Again though, there are still ways and means to handle complaints and queries. Ignoring them or dismissing them isn't best practice, public or private sector. And there is huge waste in the PS also.As I pointed out people send in documents and forms with no way to identify them easily or uniquely. Is it fair that people who filled out their forms are delayed due to somebody else not paying attention? People on allowance in DSP have lots of free time and have to go to the offices regularly. Very easy to find out where your claim is on those visits.
Obviously if there is no name/address/PPS number/phone number or any identifying features on the claim then it's not reasonable to expect someone to process it. And while I appreciate it can happen, I don't think it's common.
More common is someone attaching a payslip instead of a P60 or forgetting to sign a section of the form.
Rather than binning it or ignoring it, send a letter back with it saying "you need to sign the form".
You seem to think the only people claiming anything have "loads of free time". Which pretty much sums uo the attitude in the PS to the people who claim. Many claimants work full time or have children or are carers. They may have disabilities.
There is no thought for them and how to make the process easier on the person who is or has been paying for the service of the PS. It's more an attitude that the PS are doing them some big favour, simply by doing their job.
Anyway, back to the original topic, I think giving a name should be mandatory if asked. Or at least an identifying number so that a staff members call can be tracked.0 -
By all means ignore the fact knowing the persons name is of no use as they will not be processing your claim. Ignore the fact that such information could put the person under threat.Anyway, back to the original topic, I think giving a name should be mandatory if asked. Or at least an identifying number so that a staff members call can be tracked.
Expecting the same service from the PS as a private company making a profit from it's customers is just somewhat foolish.
You realise the PS lost employees and deals with more people than it did before. People coming into the offices are often very aggressive. I wouldn't do the job myself. Not many private employees dealing with claims have to carry an emergency response alarm when doing their job. They also don't deal with sexual offenders, junkies, recently released criminals etc... Often in small offices where if you were attacked you might not be found for a while.
Lovely job and they are all just waster really:rolleyes:0 -
Ray Palmer wrote: »By all means ignore the fact knowing the persons name is of no use as they will not be processing your claim. Ignore the fact that such information could put the person under threat.
It might be of no use other than for record keeping and putting in an appeal. As in "on 14 Aug 2013, I spoke to john who told me my medical card was denied". Or because if the woman in the op was rude the ops daughter has the right to complain about the way the call was handled.
If the threat you are talking about is the threat of a complaint then that is absurd. A person has the right to complain about the manner in which their query is dealt with. Ps are not above being complained about.
If your talk of threat is about a real physical threat, first name only is anonymous enough and anyone making threats of that nature should be reported to the garda. After all, when a person calls they give their pps number.Expecting the same service from the PS as a private company making a profit from it's customers is just somewhat foolish.
Expecting someone to do their job is foolish? To give their first name and be polite? Do we really expect so little of those working in the ps?You realise the PS lost employees and deals with more people than it did before. People coming into the offices are often very aggressive. I wouldn't do the job myself. Not many private employees dealing with claims have to carry an emergency response alarm when doing their job. They also don't deal with sexual offenders, junkies, recently released criminals etc... Often in small offices where if you were attacked you might not be found for a while.
Lovely job and they are all just waster really:rolleyes:
Ah look, we're ttalking about speaking to someone in a decentralised office who deals with calls here. Get over yourself. Plenty of ps workers never see a sinner.0 -
This is a hugely important point. Often (although I'm not with DSP) I get customers giving me all sorts of abuse, because I've told them that they haven't filled out their form correctly. I get other customers who bring in the information they've been clearly asked for, and those customers can make my week, just because I'm so used to the difficult ones. It's a lot easier to help someone, when they'll actually listen to your advice.I've also been on social welfare, and have never had any hassle with the welfare office either. I record any information they give me, pay attention to any correspondence I receive from them, and everything's fine.
Her entitlement isn't in question - you were initially enquiring about public servants providing names because your daughter had to deal with someone who allegedly seems out to get her and ruin her life for no good reason. No one knows enough about her circumstances to say whether she's entitled or not. However a lot of people are pointing out that her not being entitled doesn't mean that shooting the messenger is going to change things.No explanation, just "computer says no" type response and a request for further documentation.
I shall sign off now, to many "outraged taxpayers" questioning her entitlement without knowing any of the background or details, which I don't intend to post on here.
As I've said, I'm more than happy to give out my name to someone who's looking for a contact where I work. I'm not happy to give my name out to someone who seems like they're out for blood. And yes, I'm at the stage in my job where I can easily tell the difference. And yes, I do have something to fear in those cases, regardless of whether the information I've given is correct or not. I live a very short distance from where I work, and I have been threatened many times, and I have had people threaten to hurt/steal from my parents as well. People often do not like the truth, as can be seen from the OP. She didn't post to complain that her daughter should be entitled to a medical card, she posted to personally complain about the employee who delivered the news, as she clearly sees the two issues (her daughter not having a medical card being one, and the employee being an incompetent bitch being the other) as being one and the same. If anything suggests that people should be entitled to withhold their name when they want to, it's this thread itself.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.0 -
Is that the one that you use in the States?0 -
Advertisement
-
i hear Petersons in Dunlaoghaire repair them, (or it may be covered by warranty)
I rang them about a broken torch but the girl that answered the phone was rude and wouldn't give her name.
Had to fax the owner in the end but he wouldn't do anything cos I spelled Petersens with a small "p"0 -
Given the very high level of functional illiteracy in Ireland, this smacks of elitism and hardly good service.Ray Palmer wrote: »The amount of incomplete documentation that comes in is amazing. People send in doctors letters without their PPSN like people are going to fill out the forms for them after figuring out what their PPSN is. I would say the vast majority of lost application fall into that category. They are just dumped as far as I know, the theory being simple fill out the form to apply if you don't you will apply correctly the next time and be in touch.0 -
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?
There is a difference in between giving a first name and a full name.
For example I worked in 11850 years ago. Our opening line was "Welcome to 1150, [name] speaking, how may I help you?" .... That's professional, right?
But tell me why should I give my full name when someone asks over the phone?0 -
When was the last Civil Servant actually fired? Anyone know?
My buddy was literally on the absolute verge of being fired, when he made an agreement with his manager that he'd hand in his notice for 4 weeks paid leave along with the rest of his holiday entitlements. He was in Australia a week later, he had been planning to go anyway, but wasn't gonna give notice.... His first 3 weeks there were VERY well paid.0 -
I don't deal with people on the phone if they don't give their full names. I give my name to whoever asks on the phone.....but some people don't. I've often encountered people who ring me representing different companies asking all sorts and refuse to give their names. I just hang up. Similarly, if I'm the one doing the ringing and the person on the other end wont give their name, I hang up and keep calling until I get somebody who will.
If people don't give their names, there is a reason. And it's not for "safety against nutters" as has been suggested. It's so they can act the bollox and get away with it.
They are hiding behind the anonymity of being a faceless person on the other end of the line. This enables them to say and act however they please and know that there won't be any blowback on them. Once they give out a name, they are accountable for what information they give out. This is the way it should be.
I'm not sure what the legalities behind Civil Servants not giving out their names OP........ but in future just don't deal with people if they don't give their names. They clearly have no confidence in what they are about to tell you anyway.0 -
B.A._Baracus wrote: »There is a difference in between giving a first name and a full name.
For example I worked in 11850 years ago. Our opening line was "Welcome to 1150, [name] speaking, how may I help you?" .... That's professional, right?
But tell me why should I give my full name when someone asks over the phone?
I did say first name or staff number if safety is an issue. Although, surely anyone working in an office has to sign letters and emails with their full name so I don't see the problem giving it over the phone.
When I give the company address I'll often get people asking me if that's where im from it where I live. People ask me if I have kids etc. Sometimes it's friendly and sometimes it's not. I decline to answer. But if someone states they aren't happy with what I am telling them or they think I'm being rude and want ti complain I give them my name. I have nothing to hide because I do my job. Im not perfect but im not incompetent either.
If people in the PS are worried about being accused unfairly then they should demand calls be recorded. It's there to protect the staff and the customer and makes complaints much easier to resolve.
Answering the phone with your first name in an office setting is good (and normal) practice.0 -
Carawaystick wrote: »Given the very high level of functional illiteracy in Ireland, this smacks of elitism and hardly good service.
There are assistants for people with literacy issues. To say it is elitism is crazy. If you need help use the service.0 -
If they ask for your name and you think they're gonna compain about you...give them the name of someone you don't like. Simple.
Also, at a basic level. Someone calling and asking who they are speaking to? Eh...you called me :P0 -
The person on the phone is not dealing with your claim the person who sends the letter is.I did say first name or staff number if safety is an issue. Although, surely anyone working in an office has to sign letters and emails with their full name so I don't see the problem giving it over the phone.
What use is the name of the person who answers the phone? They don't have any effect on your claim.0 -
Ray Palmer wrote: »The person on the phone is not dealing with your claim the person who sends the letter is.
What use is the name of the person who answers the phone? They don't have any effect on your claim.
The person on the phone is dealing with your query though. There is always a person higher in command but that doesn't absolve the groundfloor staff of their responsibility either. If someones job is to answer the phone and deal with queries about claims, then that is what they should do.
What use is the name? I've said a number of times why a person might want a name. Record keeping, to put in a detailed appeal with the times and dates and details of calls they made and information they were given. If they are told something then they might want to note the name of the person who gave them the information.
If the person they are dealing with is rude they might wish to complain about their professional conduct.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
The person on the phone is dealing with your query though. There is always a person higher in command but that doesn't absolve the groundfloor staff of their responsibility either. If someones job is to answer the phone and deal with queries about claims, then that is what they should do.
What use is the name? I've said a number of times why a person might want a name. Record keeping, to put in a detailed appeal with the times and dates and details of calls they made and information they were given. If they are told something then they might want to note the name of the person who gave them the information.
If the person they are dealing with is rude they might wish to complain about their professional conduct.
Calls are recorded in most (if not all) public offices and so simply recording the time of the call would allow you to make a complaint.0 -
What do you need their full name for?I don't deal with people on the phone if they don't give their full names.
Oh but it is. Saying it isn't doesn't change that. I assume you've never been in a job dealing with the public over the phone.If people don't give their names, there is a reason. And it's not for "safety against nutters" as has been suggested.
No, you assume it is.It's so they can act the bollox and get away with it.
Most of the time, people on the phones are not "out to get" those who call. This is just a paranoid, self-centred notion apropos nothing. Most of the time, people on the phones would prefer to be as helpful as possible, often for a fecking quiet life. It's not actually enjoyable having to give aggressive callers answers they don't want to hear, and is far more preferential to be able to make them happy and thus end the grief.
If a person is asked their full name for a good reason, they should give it. If the caller just wants it purely for the sake of being hostile and "keeping them in their place"... sorry, not a good enough reason. There is often no actual real need for it.0 -
RobbieTheRobber wrote: »Calls are recorded in most (if not all) public offices and so simply recording the time of the call would allow you to make a complaint.
So why not just give a first name also? I know when my supervisor is looking for a call it's makes his job about 6 times easier if he knows which of our calls he is looking for.
If you've a department of 50 people and half of them are on calls at any given time and half of those can be identified by gender.....that's still 12 calls a supervisor has to listen to in order to find the correct call.0 -
true-or-false wrote: »Why should she have to give you her name? People in her position probably get threatened with complaints and much worse every day. It would be unwise to give people her personal information.
?
She should give her name so that if the person she is dealing is given wrong information and appeals, the person responsible can be identified and corrective action taken. many public servants are not properly trained for their jobs and give people wrong information and then hide behind anonymity. Someone complains that they were told something wrong on the phone. It might have been one of 10 people. All of them say "it wasn't me". When John Boland was Minister for the Public Service in the 1980s, he made it mandatory for all public servants to give their names." At that time every tax inspector had the same name. Nobody knew who had decided what.0 -
She should give her name so that if the person she is dealing is given wrong information and appeals, the person responsible can be identified and corrective action taken.
I think this is where people are getting the facts wrong. The person on the phone can't do anything for you. The information they provide can't really effect your claim in any way. They pretty much tell you that you need to fill out the form and attach the correct documents and then it will be assessed.
The person on the phone isn't in any way going to effect your claim. I really can't think of what "wrong" information they can give that is any use on an appeal. They generally are going to direct you to the website and where to get the form. Other than that they may tell you your form has not been completed or received.
The only point of the name seems to be to complain.0 -
Ray Palmer wrote: »I think this is where people are getting the facts wrong. The person on the phone can't do anything for you. The information they provide can't really effect your claim in any way. They pretty much tell you that you need to fill out the form and attach the correct documents and then it will be assessed.
The person on the phone isn't in any way going to effect your claim. I really can't think of what "wrong" information they can give that is any use on an appeal. They generally are going to direct you to the website and where to get the form. Other than that they may tell you your form has not been completed or received.
The only point of the name seems to be to complain.
Well that's not true. If I ring and ask "do I need to send original payslip" and am told no but then my claim is returned because I sent copies. Or if I ask for an update and am told it was never received. Or if I call and ask why my medical card has been rescinded and am told there is nothing I can do about it.....I might need the name of the person I was speaking to.
What you are saying is that ps workers who answer the phone provide no information and basically do nothing and can tell a person nothing of importance or relevance which simply isn't true.0 -
Are you aware of any of those things happening yourself? It all sound completely made up and hypothetical.Well that's not true. If I ring and ask "do I need to send original payslip" and am told no but then my claim is returned because I sent copies. Or if I ask for an update and am told it was never received. Or if I call and ask why my medical card has been rescinded and am told there is nothing I can do about it.....I might need the name of the person I was speaking to.
You seem to think that somebody can solve all your problems over the phone. What can they do if they never received the forms? Nobody is going to tell you that there is nothing you can do about a rescinded medical card. They may tell you that you are no longer considered eligible or you never replied to a communication. You can apply againWhat you are saying is that ps workers who answer the phone provide no information and basically do nothing and can tell a person nothing of importance or relevance which simply isn't true.
No I am saying they provide information by pointing you in the direction of where you need to go. They often send out the forms needed with the information required.0 -
Ray Palmer wrote: »Are you aware of any of those things happening yourself? It all sound completely made up and hypothetical.
You seem to think that somebody can solve all your problems over the phone. What can they do if they never received the forms? Nobody is going to tell you that there is nothing you can do about a rescinded medical card. They may tell you that you are no longer considered eligible or you never replied to a communication. You can apply again
I've called various public service numbers over the years with various queries. Tax, family income supplement, disability, illness benefit etc etc. Not always about a claim I have in, sometimes I have a query about a form I am sending in or about what I need to send with it or how I need to apply. I've had questions about tax credits or cut off limits. About whether the limits are gross or net. Thankfully the people I've spoken to have, for the most part, given their name (without having to be asked) and been very helpful.
As above.No I am saying they provide information by pointing you in the direction of where you need to go. They often send out the forms needed with the information required.
Sometimes it's just a simple question. And it's their job to answer it.0 -
Advertisement
-
I've called various public service numbers over the years with various queries. Tax, family income supplement, disability, illness benefit etc etc. Not always about a claim I have in, sometimes I have a query about a form I am sending in or about what I need to send with it or how I need to apply. I've had questions about tax credits or cut off limits. About whether the limits are gross or net. Thankfully the people I've spoken to have, for the most part, given their name (without having to be asked) and been very helpful.
So the answer is yes completely made up. The PS did their jobs and having their name is of no advantage to you. So what is your point on insisting on the name and how does it help?0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement