• Replies 9 replies
  • Subscribers 79 subscribers
  • Views 8849 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
Hints and tips
  • To quote someone's message, first select/highlight the relevant text, and then use the Quote button that appears
  • To "mention" someone, type @ followed by the start of the forum name, and choose from the list; that person will get a notification of being mentioned

Having difficulties in a call centre 3.5 years into the job

AdelSharon

I am looking to get some opinions/support. I have been working in customer service for a big baank for a few years now. I disclosed when I started my role that I have Aspergers (formally diagnosed), sleep apnoea. Connected to the Autism I have sensory issues and also am very prone to feeling stressed and anxious.

The job I do is one that I feel that I excel in all areas except pretty much one - Call handle time! I have 450 seconds to deal with affluent customers who call the bank with multiple queries. We are trgeted on this as well as 15 other targets, however if I was to hit every other target but not my AHT I get in trouble.

I struggle with my communication in the sense that it is not always efficient. I can go around the houses quite a lot which of cause is symptomatic of having autism for me. This is a constant cause for me to go over target. Some months if I am having a good month I can be closer to my target but I have only hit the target a few times ad that was because I was assigned an easier call queue. 

The bank have put some adjustments in place for me - they have increased my target from 450 seconds to 500 seconds. I alo sit in a corner seat with nobody behind me because I struggle with hearing specific conversations. I believe that they have tried to be helpful

BUT

My manager says a lot of things that I think if they were said to somebody else with a different diability they could be done for discrimination. 

I have had a difficult year, I have had my 3rd child, I have had bouts of work related stress because targets and expectations changed and was difficult for me to adjust. So much emphasis is put on delivering a 'satisfactory performance'. 

So I am currently 300+ seconds over my call target but there are no other major faults with my work, I am never rude to customers - except one customer who apprantly I was wrong to tell her that the reason I couldnt deal with her enquiry quickly is because she kept interrupting me constantly - the quality of my work can not be faulted generally. But because my calls are longer its had side effects of me going to breaks/lunches late etc. 

I am trying to do everything that I can to imprrove my performance but talk time is hard to bring down. I keep being told 'dont overexplain things, dont go around the houses, try not to be too analytical, do only what the customer is asking you to do, etc.

It really gets me angry because I listen to all the feedback and  try to do whaat they ask but I end up slipping back to overexplainng etc I just cant keep it brief. I keep being told 'you need to find a way around it' etc. I havent had any coaching for ages until this week when they decide to ay Ive had calls which are too long and therefore not helpful to the customer. 

Now Im in a situation where they are basically asking me not to have autism and do my job. By them telling me not to go around the houses among other things are they being discriminatve and inconsiderate to my condition? Ive said before that the adjustment they gave me isnt enough because it does not take into account that I can have days where my head is cloudy for no identifiable reason, and I will aturally be slower. They just epect me to be a robot but they are trying to insinuate that I m baically not capable of doing the job consisstently. How can       they say that after 3.5 years in the job just now? 

Do I have any grounds to say that they are discriminating against me?

Sorry this is so long but hard to think how to shorten it down.

Apologies,
Adel

Parents
  • Former Member
    Former Member

    I don't want to argue and I try and avoid telling people that they are wrong as this is irritating and will just lead to a fight. It is normal, on this forum for people to take categorical black and white stances and also it is also normal for there to be some pedantic nit-picking and perhaps condescending behaviour and less than diplomatic approaches to questions. I'm sorry if my approach is irritating - I'm sure it is! My heart is in the right place and Indieman's heart is also, but we all suffer from autism and that explains a good deal of this bluntness and our tendency to pick a fight!

    Indieman, you keep making statements as if

    a) we were in possession of all of the facts

    b) the law worked neatly in a black and white way

    I'm afraid that I am aware that I don't think we know all there is to know about Adel's case, I don't think we know what has really changed in the 3.5 years since she(?) started this job.

    The legal system pays people to work out what justice is in individual cases. They will look for anything that makes this case different to cases that you may have come across previously. In this case it is clear that things have changed since the job was taken. Perhaps standards have changed, perhaps Adel's performance has changed, perhaps the manager has been replaced, perhaps there is more pressure on performce from higher up. There are lots of possibilities and there are opportunites to make a case for Adel that uses this information that we don't have.

    A union rep should be able to provide safe advice and I think you are absolutely right to urge caution about admitting that Adel is unable to do the job. Any rep should then refer up to the full time officials that are paid to help individuals in their individual circumstances. Unions have a major role in defending individuals like Adel but the system only works if the right people are in possession of all of the facts. It seems to me that there is a danger that your categorical advice might close off avenues that should be left open for experts to explore.

    Financial firms have different obligations to most other firms in requiring firms to check their staff in greater detail when taking up references. I'm not an expert in this but a brief search turns up www.handbook.fca.org.uk/.../15.html which lays out particular guidance that might apply to this individual. References have to based on facts - but a manager's opinion about an individual's performance may not be considered a fact, it may just be an opinion, and banks' HR departments are keenly aware of this distinction. One important fact in a case such as this might be whether a competence procedure is actually underway and whether a person has been issued with a personal development plan.

    I am aware that neither of us are lawyers and that there are limits to what we know. My experience suggests that there are more options available to management to make a job work or to gracefully allow people to find positions that suit them better without resorting to the procedural competence and behaviour routes that are common in call centres nowadays.

Reply
  • Former Member
    Former Member

    I don't want to argue and I try and avoid telling people that they are wrong as this is irritating and will just lead to a fight. It is normal, on this forum for people to take categorical black and white stances and also it is also normal for there to be some pedantic nit-picking and perhaps condescending behaviour and less than diplomatic approaches to questions. I'm sorry if my approach is irritating - I'm sure it is! My heart is in the right place and Indieman's heart is also, but we all suffer from autism and that explains a good deal of this bluntness and our tendency to pick a fight!

    Indieman, you keep making statements as if

    a) we were in possession of all of the facts

    b) the law worked neatly in a black and white way

    I'm afraid that I am aware that I don't think we know all there is to know about Adel's case, I don't think we know what has really changed in the 3.5 years since she(?) started this job.

    The legal system pays people to work out what justice is in individual cases. They will look for anything that makes this case different to cases that you may have come across previously. In this case it is clear that things have changed since the job was taken. Perhaps standards have changed, perhaps Adel's performance has changed, perhaps the manager has been replaced, perhaps there is more pressure on performce from higher up. There are lots of possibilities and there are opportunites to make a case for Adel that uses this information that we don't have.

    A union rep should be able to provide safe advice and I think you are absolutely right to urge caution about admitting that Adel is unable to do the job. Any rep should then refer up to the full time officials that are paid to help individuals in their individual circumstances. Unions have a major role in defending individuals like Adel but the system only works if the right people are in possession of all of the facts. It seems to me that there is a danger that your categorical advice might close off avenues that should be left open for experts to explore.

    Financial firms have different obligations to most other firms in requiring firms to check their staff in greater detail when taking up references. I'm not an expert in this but a brief search turns up www.handbook.fca.org.uk/.../15.html which lays out particular guidance that might apply to this individual. References have to based on facts - but a manager's opinion about an individual's performance may not be considered a fact, it may just be an opinion, and banks' HR departments are keenly aware of this distinction. One important fact in a case such as this might be whether a competence procedure is actually underway and whether a person has been issued with a personal development plan.

    I am aware that neither of us are lawyers and that there are limits to what we know. My experience suggests that there are more options available to management to make a job work or to gracefully allow people to find positions that suit them better without resorting to the procedural competence and behaviour routes that are common in call centres nowadays.

Children
No Data