Do Public Servants have to give their name?

ash23

Ray Palmer wrote: »

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?

Oh my god! You are being ridiculous!

Ok, few weeks ago I called revenue because my PAYE is a lot less than I was paying last year. I spoke to a lady who had a look and said all my tax credits seem to be in order and talked me through their calculations.
I asked her for her name and she gave her first name which I wrote in my diary along with the time and date of the call.

She was giving me advice. I was noting who gave me the advice and when, just on the off-chance that she was totally misinforming me and I'd end up with a massive tax bill at the end of the year.

I called the FIS office a couple of weeks ago because of a letter I got from them and spoke to a lady who advised me what I needed to do (it was regarding another claim I had for another benefit and the renewal of my FIS). She advised me what I need to do and what forms I need to fill in when the decision is made on my other claim. She told me where to send it and she gave me her name. I noted the information I was given.

It's not the MI5 that these people are working in. They do give advice and people are perfectly within their rights to expect that a person who is advising them would also give their name.

d9oiu2wk07blr5

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.

Oh so the point of public servants not giving their full name is because they believe that the only reasons claimants may be asking for their name is in order to complain....gotta :rolleyes:! Are public servants not taught de-escalation techniques, and if there's no substance to a complaint, what are public servants actually so afraid of?

Ray Palmer

ash23 wrote: »

Oh my god! You are being ridiculous!

Ok, few weeks ago I called revenue because my PAYE is a lot less than I was paying last year. I spoke to a lady who had a look and said all my tax credits seem to be in order and talked me through their calculations.
I asked her for her name and she gave her first name which I wrote in my diary along with the time and date of the call.

She was giving me advice. I was noting who gave me the advice and when, just on the off-chance that she was totally misinforming me and I'd end up with a massive tax bill at the end of the year. .

Won't make any difference having her name. It is in your head that it will. You are wholly responsible for your own tax no matter what.

The thread was about a complaint about DSP about a specific complaint. They have a valid reason to withhold their name whether you think it is or not. The person on the phone was not being asked to give information but sort out somebody problem.

You are expanding and making up scenario that don't apply. That is a ridiculous and not relevant.

Kirby

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

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.

You know what they say about people who assume?

You couldn't be more wrong. Every job I've had involved dealing with the public. In person, over the phone and by email. And in each instance, I gave my name because it's expected and common courtesy.

I'm sorry if you don't "see the need for it" but that's your issue. I've explained exactly why it's necessary. For the same reason that people act like complete morons on the internet when they are normally "sound" in real life. It's anonymity. It gives people the freedom to act like an idiot because there is zero consequences.

A lad beside me in a customer support centre called a client a "fag". There were over a hundred people in the office and when the pretty irate customer complained, they weren't able to figure out who had said it because he never gave his name and the extension was connected to six phones. That's real life experience of anonymity in action....not pie in the sky keyboard warrior talk from the likes of yourself.

When you give out your name, you are accountable for what you say, and what you do. And that's why it should be demanded.

Ray Palmer

Kaliyah Tender Playwright wrote: »

Oh so the point of public servants not giving their full name is because they believe that the only reasons claimants may be asking for their name is in order to complain....gotta :rolleyes:! Are public servants not taught de-escalation techniques, and if there's no substance to a complaint, what are public servants actually so afraid of?

Violence.

You don't seem to be aware how often they are threatened in DSP

ash23

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Violence.

You don't seem to be aware how often they are threatened in DSP

How real is that threat though? I mean, I work in a call centre and I've been threatened. But what does the person actually know about me? They know where I'm located but sure, that's usually miles from them. They know my first name. Big whoop.

I've been threatened when I worked in shops and I still wore a name tag. Some of the most threatened people in the PS are nurses and doctors and porters.....yet they all wear ID and introduce themselves.

Also I find this laughable

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Won't make any difference having her name. It is in your head that it will. You are wholly responsible for your own tax no matter what.

The thread was about a complaint about DSP about a specific complaint. They have a valid reason to withhold their name whether you think it is or not. The person on the phone was not being asked to give information but sort out somebody problem.

You are expanding and making up scenario that don't apply. That is a ridiculous and not relevant.

when you also posted this

Ray Palmer wrote: »

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:

Either we are talking in general terms about the PS or we are talking about the medical card office which is a call centre environment where employees don't even see a person they are dealing with never mind dealing with sexual offenders, junkies etc.

Make up your mind and get back to me when you know what point you're trying to make.

d9oiu2wk07blr5

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Violence.

You don't seem to be aware how often they are threatened in DSP

What, they're going to be attacked over the phone, and when they're in the front offices they're actually protected behind the security screens in most cases. Are you seriously suggesting that someone who refuses to give their name over the phone truly believes that the only reason the person may be asking them to identify themselves is because someone wants to make a complaint against them? Even if they do identify themselves, how likely is it that that person is going to treck in to some office god knows where to perpetrate violence on some individual that they don't even know what they look like? You do realise how paranoid that sounds? Like I said, DSP staff should be properly trained in managing the risk of violence in the workplace and it includes employing proper de-escalation techniques. Btw, they're not the only one's who are at risk of violence in the workplace, try frontline emergency services, and besides wearing name tags, we also identify ourselves if and when we're asked to do so.

Boombastic

The faceless public sector.

If you are confident you are doing you job properly, there is no reason not to give your name.

Oneiric 3

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Violence.

You don't seem to be aware how often they are threatened in DSP

Any threatening behavior shown to a public servant is usually triggered off by them showing a complete lack of respect to the person or persons they are dealing with.

Yes, public servants are obliged to give you their full name if you ask for it. That doesn't mean to say that they will, and if they don't, ask to speak to their superior.

guinnessdrinker

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Any threatening behavior shown to a public servant is usually triggered off by them showing a complete lack of respect to the person or persons they are dealing with.

How can you verify this assertion?

Femme_Fatale

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

How can you verify this assertion?

They can't.

Irrational people who threaten and attempt assault are the types who won't accept when the advisor is unable to give them what they want, and they pretend that the advisor is deliberately being unhelpful just... for no reason. It's an exceptionally paranoid and self absorbed way of thinking. If anything, when a customer is being psycho, an advisor would do anything to give them what they want, in order to end the harassment.

Oneiric 3

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

How can you verify this assertion?

Having worked in the CIC, it was my job to know these things.

Oneiric 3

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

They can't.

Irrational people who threaten and attempt assault are the types who won't accept when the advisor is unable to give them what they want, and they pretend that the advisor is deliberately being unhelpful just... for no reason. It's an exceptionally paranoid and self absorbed way of thinking. If anything, when a customer is being psycho, an advisor would do anything to give them what they want, in order to end the harassment.

It is more often than not the manner in which an 'adviser' tells somebody that their claim for whatever has not been accepted rather than the actual substances of what is being said that can drive people to lose their temper. And these people that do are very often left frustrated beforehand by a bad and dismissive service.

Femme_Fatale

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

It is more often than not the manner in which an 'adviser' tells somebody that their claim for whatever has not been accepted rather than the actual substances of what is being said that can drive people to lose their temper. And these people that do are were very often left frustrated beforehand by a bad and dismissive service.

And that's often because the customer is being obnoxious and aggressive in the first place and the advisor (no need for quote-marks) is having a difficult time staying chirpy.
You may be used to dealing with "I know my rights (not my responsibilities)" types but you can be sure you don't get the full story from them.

Not saying there aren't unhelpful advisors but they are a minority. Customer error and not wanting to hear the facts is not = poor service.

Oneiric 3

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

You may be used to dealing with "I know my rights (not my responsibilities)" types but you can be sure you don't get the full story from them.
.

Interesting statement from someone who is so quick to defend the public service..

todders

Fine if they refuse to give their surname, I can understand that.

However, I don't see any reason why someone would not give at least their first name when asked ( Public or Private sector)

If they refuse, they obviously know they are n the wrong, simple as

juanchoja

This may be late, but in case someone else Googles it like me, the answer is YES, they are required to give you their name, it's clearly stated in the Civil Service Code of Standards and Behaviour shown in Citizens Information https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/national_government/the_irish_government/the_civil_service.html, here is the link to the actual code, article 8.1:

8.1 Civil servants should:

always give their names to any member of the public with whom they are dealing, except where given a special exemption, for example, on security grounds and • ensure that members of the public are dealt with in a respectful manner. 

Aisling(",)

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119330358#Comment_119330358

"this may be late"....this thread is 9 years old I'm guessing it might be a bit late!

Civil Servants should give their name if requested.

Not sure if Public Servants have to, they may have different rules. (People who work for the HSE are Public Servants.

(Just realised its a resurfaced zombie thread).

Ray Palmer

Funny when 2 people entered a property, I manage, without permission and claimed they were Gardai I asked did they have to identify themselves. The response I got on the Gardai forum was "should" have identified themselves but don't actually have to. Code of conduct has no meaning. I rate that as a higher than some clerical officer not giving out their name over the phone.

New Home

Mod: The information requested by the op in 2013 has been given. Locking zombie thread.