Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Sites | Writers | Advertise | My Orble | Login
Before beginning this article proper i must apologise for it being based around a list, the proliferation of lists in every aspect of the media annoys me as much as i am sure it does you. However in the case of describing why i hate working in a call centre i feel that a limited and well defined structure is the only thing that will stop this article becoming a boring rant. I must also stress that the five reasons i give are by no means the only reasons there are to hate working in a call centre and heartily encourage people to write articles adding to this list. If this article prevents just one person from having to go through the torment of call centre work i shall feel it is a job well done.


1. The General Public
By far and away the worst thing about working in the call centre is the fact that it is a job based entirely around dealing with the general public. The people you are dealing with generally fall into one of three equally annoying categories which, at the risk of alienating you by creating a sublist, i shall deal with separately. Firstly there are the aggressive customers. These are generally people who know exactly what they want when they ring you up and if you can't meet there exact demands become very annoyed about it. The worst is when the marketing department of your company advertises a product by saying prices from 150, there are usually about two products available at this price. The few weeks following the advertisement of this price are largely spent explaining to irate customers that there is no longer availability at that price, the majority of whom claim that this is false advertising. I sympathise with them, it is not false advertising but it certainly is misleading. Aggressive customers have different effects on different people, some people get upset, some return the aggression to an equal or greater extent, I simply find them tiresome, as i do the job in general. There is a worse kind of angry customers, the ones with a justified complaint to who you can offer no cancellation other than "it's not my fault". Terms and Conditions are tedious things that no one ever reads and working at a call centre you feel the effects of this. More than once i have been tempted to try and sign custumors up to the socialist cause, there is no better argument for it than the terms and conditions of companies in a capitalist society.


Secondly there are over friendly customers, i am not your mate and i don't want to talk about the weather.

Thirdly there are stupid customers who generally have a question which is either blindingly obvious, or a question that is easily answered by the internet, they have normally used the internet to find the phone number.

2. Call Structures
For those of you not familiar with the concept a call structure basically consists of a list (another bloody list) of things you have to do in a sales call. The problem is not that you have to do these things, in many calls they make perfect sense, the problem is that you are required to do them in every call on pain of death (that may be a tiny bit of an exaggeration, more accurate would be on pain of a stern talking to and some dissapointed looks). Even if it is as plain as day that a customer is not going to book anything you must try to overcome their objections. If a customer has stayed in a hotel 500 times you still have to give him two features and a you must always call a customer by their name at least twice, always, if you don't you will be shot.

3. Pretending the job is more fulfilling than it is
I work in a call centre, and no amount of team building exercises, barbeques or staff parties are going to change that. Neither is calling the call centre "the contact centre" or anything other than what it most patently is, a call centre. Don't try and make me enjoy my job, leave me to my boredom and misery.

4. The things the job drives you too
I recently wrote an article describing my three favourite games to waste time at work and this very nicely illustrates my point in this section. All three of these games are absolute rubbish. They have no merit other than making your brain feel slightly numb, at work though this is exactly what is needed. The internet is a great thing, however when all you to do all day is browse it endlessly you realise there is only about four websites you actually enjoy reading and that after an hour or so you are done with them. You then spend the rest of the day fruitlessly trying to find something on the internet interesting enough to pass the time but easy enough to survive constant interruption. This is a depressing task, having said this the random article option at Wikipedia is wonderful, wonderful thing.

5. Having to wear a headset like bloody britney spears all day
I bloody hate having to wear a headset all day, it makes me feel like a right twat.
112
Vote
   


Very Brief Rawls

April 21st 2008 23:17
Rawls argues that to decide what is just we must imagine what rules people designing a society would agree to live under, he calls the position the people designing these rules are in the original position. In the original position people must be behind a veil of ignorance, they must not now what position in society they hold otherwise their decision about what rules to accept will be based on this knowledge. The people Rawls is imagining in this scenario are self interested so if they are aware of their position in society they will simply to seek to maximize this position. Added to this argument is the idea that being behind a veil of ignorance helps to remove morally arbitrary characteristics from considerations about justice. Whether you are born male or female or black or white is morally arbitrary and should have no effect on our considerations of what is just.

John Rawls claims that in this position people would be ultra cautious and would follow a principle he calls maximin, by this he means that people would want to maximize the lowest positions in society, pick the option which has the best worst outcome. John Rawls claims the principles people would pick are an expansive set of liberties as compatible with the liberty of others. Equality of opportunity, and perhaps most controversially a principle which states that inequality is only just if it improves the position of the worst of people in society.

The principles of justice Rawls suggests will by no means be universally accepted, however the original position is an interesting and powerful thought experiment when it comes to discussing the nature of justice.
46
Vote
   


On Liberty

April 20th 2008 23:14
One of the interesting things about Mill's principle of Liberty is how he allies it with his belief in utilitarianism. The harm principle is one that i am sure to many people seems intuitively correct however there does seem to be some features of it which conflict with the idea of utilitarianism.

The two main conflicts i can see between the utilitarianism and the harm principle are that Mill claims that the fact that our actions offend people is not enough for them to be prohibited and that he does not accept paternalism. It seems clear that sometimes the offense caused by actions will outweigh the happiness gained by the actor who was permitted to perform them. How can it be claimed that a speech which offends a large group, for example, Christians, women or black people be deemed morally acceptable by a utilitarian ethic. It also seems clear that sometimes great suffering could be prevented by paternal intervention, stopping someone from becoming addicted to any kind of harmful substance seems to be an obvious example.

To understand why Mill doesn't see this conflicts as a problem we must understand that he is looking at how the harm principle will affect society over a long period of time. He believes that differing opinions and lifestyles are a progressive force for and will eventually lead to a better society and greater happiness. Offensive opinions may turn out to be correct, and if they are not they will encourage people to criticize and discuss why these opinions are incorrect, the same is true of the lifestyle choices that may have been prevented by paternal action.

The harm principle and utilitarianism do not conflict because differing lifestyles and opinions drive society to become more intelligent, more aware and, most importantly for a utilitarian, more happy.
43
Vote
   


Utilitarianism

April 18th 2008 23:12
Utilitarianism is a principle that claims the morally correct action is the one that maximizes happiness. The principle on a micro level suffers from a number of problems, it is difficult to calculate how our individual actions effect overall happiness and making this calculation for every decision would be self defeating, utilitarian conclusions often conflict with our normal moral intuitions and acting in a utilitarian way is too demanding on the individual, there is not enough room for self inetrest.

However utilitarianism is a useful tool for governments. If we accept that the purpose of a government is to look after the welfare of citizens then surely maximizing this welfare is what the government should look to do


[ Click here to read more ]
43
Vote
   


Moral Luck

April 17th 2008 23:10
Moral Luck is an idea brought to light by Thomas Nagel which suggests that whether someone is deemed morally good or bad is often down to luck. There are four distinct types of moral luck and in this article i wish to briefly explain and given an example of each of them.

Resultant moral luck is the idea that two people could perform the same actions with different results, the results of these actions are down to luck, therefore we must either claim that the actions are morally the same or accept that luck plays a large part of morality. Imagine two arsonists burning down what they believe to be abandoned houses, one house is in fact empty but in the other houses there was two sleeping squatters. Both acts will be seen as morally reprehensible however the arsonist who killed the sleeping squatters will generally be seen to be far more so despite the fact that this was simply down to luck


[ Click here to read more ]
54
Vote
   


The Death Penalty

April 16th 2008 23:00
The way society deals with criminals should not be about punishment but about protection. Punishing someone in itself has absolutely no positive effects for society except possibly the satisfaction of vengeance (not a nice emotion in my opinion). The consequences of a crime should be based on two simple factors, protecting society from someone who is likely to offend again and acting as a deterrent to anyone who might be considering committing a similar crime.

It seems apparent that the death penalty is not necessary to protect society from someone who might offend again, the alternative of life in prison is adequate this respect and has the added advantage of being reversible if it turns out the courts got it wrong. Perhaps then the death penalty is justified for it's status as a deterrent, if the idea of being put to death for murder is a factor in reducing murder rates then it could definitely be argued that this is a justification. On a personal level the idea that an internal thought process along the lines of deciding you don't mind going to prison for the rest of your life but definitely do not want to have your life taken away seems quite baffling. Surely murder is only carried out in either the heat of the moment or when you think that you can get away with it, does the difference between life in prison or the death penalty play a big part in either of these situations. It is also seems to be the case that statistics don't back up the case for the death penalty as a deterrent, however i don't want to go into this as i really hate statistics


[ Click here to read more ]
74
Vote
   


Non-Identity Problem

April 15th 2008 22:52
Imagine a girl who wants to get pregnant, she is told by the doctor that if she gets pregnant this month her baby will be born blind but that if she waits one month then she will have a sighted baby. What arguments can we use to persuade the girl that she should wait a month to ensure that her baby is sighted? It seems clear that we can appeal to the girls self interest, it will surely be easier and less stressful to her to bring up a child who can see. However imagine that the girl is indifferent to this reasoning, is there some argument we can use to persuade her that it would be better for her child if she waited a month. At first it seems clear that we can simply tell her that if she waits a month her child will have a better quality of life. However the girl can reply to this by pointing out that if she waits a month to have a baby it will be a different person, made up of different genetic material. If she has a baby this month she causes a child to exist that would not otherwise, provided that child has a life worth living she cannot be said to be harming anybody by doing this.

What are the reasons behind our intuition that the girl should wait a month? Rights? Utility? Or something else?
65
Vote
   


Games at work.

April 11th 2008 15:33
I am working at a call centre during the summer to earn some quids for when i return to university. In the periods where i am not trying to flog trips to legoland or some other product i am equally tired of selling i like nothing more than to waste my time. I would like to share the three games i have found during my time at work which have served this purpose best. I hope to both provide people in a similar situation to me with some mild entertainment and also to inspire people to write about the games they play at work to help me out in return.

The first free game i would like to suggest is Tardis Tennis, this is on the BBC website.. The game is a very simple tennis sim but you can choose to play as John Lennon, Queen Victoria or Shakespeare, you take on each opponent in succession and once you have defeated the main opponents you face the mighty William Churchill. The game itself is surprisingly challenging and it took me a good few hours to beat. It also has great replay value as you revist the game as a different charecter or try to perfect your serve and volley. Hours of fun


[ Click here to read more ]
51
Vote
   


Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide

April 10th 2008 12:18
It is currently illegal in the UK and in most states in the USA to either help someone to die by providing with the means or to actively kill them at their request. In the UK anyone who commits the former offense can face up to fourteen years in prison while the later offense is treated as a case of murder. It seems clear that some laws of this sort must necessarily apply to the public at large both because wishes to die may be short term and based on irrational emotions and because it will often be difficult to distinguish between a case of assisted suicide and a case of murder. However at present these laws also regulate the actions of doctors; doctors can under no circumstances end or provide the materials necessary to end the life of a patient without the facing the possibility of prosecution.

This seems intuitively wrong to me, being able to die in a dignified way at the time of your choosing is not something i can see any moral objection to. However rather than simply state my intuitions i want to lay out the logic that lies behind them. One important principle here is that of respect for autonomy, i believe that respect for autonomy entails accepting to further principles. Firstly the principle of non-paternalism which suggests that in general people are the best judge of their own interests, secondly the principle that the only reason we can prevent someone from pursuing their own interests is if in doing so they will harm the interests of others. These two principles seem difficult to deny and they seem to directly support the removal of laws against assisted suicide and euthanasia


[ Click here to read more ]
68
Vote
   


Hello

April 9th 2008 10:46
Welcome, this is my first blog and my first post so please bear with me. I shall be using this blog to post my thoughts, both serious and not so serious, about political philosophy. I am hoping that this will enable me to codify my thoughts and meet other people interested in contemporary debates, i am also hoping it will be quite fun. I am currently feeling quite self-indulgent; simply writing whatever i want and expecting others to read it is new to me. For this reason I shall not begin this blog with a personal opinion but rather with some links to some other, political philosophy related, sites.

Guerilla Radio Show
[ Click here to read more ]
51
Vote
   


More Posts
10 Posts
10 Posts dating from April 2008
Email Subscription
Receive e-mail notifications of new posts on this blog:

James Stewart's Blogs

I have no other blogs :(
Moderated by James Stewart
Copyright © 2006 2007 2008 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]