> "Tech support" from a carrier is apt to be pretty spotty. There is no
> way they can train every agent on every aspect of every phone. Even with
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> they'll sometimes just make one up or tell you it can't be done. If they
> were paid more rates would go up - and nobody wants higher rates......
> The thing about this is, there was a time not long ago when I
> applied for many jobs like this, and would have been thrilled with
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> of work experience), but nevertheless they totally ignored my
> resume,
God I hope this is a troll. If not, somewhere in all that education
you unfortunately failed to learn how hiring happens.
Of course they ignored your resume. Because you were grossly
overqualified for a tech support position! Seriously, an MS in
telecome in L1 tech support? Woof. You were passed over likely on
the assumption that your salary requirements were way beyond what they
have budgeted for tech support workers, and/or that you would likely
be a short-timer if you were willing to work for so little.
> these people got the jobs instead, and I ended up having to work on
> a loading dock for $6.50 an hour with family to support.
I'm sorry for your situation, and that sucks. But don't blame the
cell company for having a sane and common hiring practice. If you
wanted a tech support job, some career couseling or benchmarking to
those with those positions might's have suggested hiding the degrees
in your resume to avoid the "overqualified" flag.
It takes time and money to train tech support folks and companies
don't generally want to waste time on people they see as using them
for a short term gap, or who will invariablyl become unhappy working
with people less qualified, etc.
> During this time, BTW, I became behind on my cell phone bill which I
> think is what they want on the whole -- somehow giving people a bad
> credit serves the overall corporate interest.
So let me get this straight, the cell phone company is conspiring
against you personally on several levels? Intentionally not hiring
you so you'd get behind on your cell bill so they couldn't get paid,
and wanting to give you bad credit?
Please tell me you're trolling? I fear you're not though.
> Fortunately, now I work for a non-corporate mom and pop business
> that that does not have cruel social motives -- people who actually
> have decent human skills and treat others well.
Which is great--enjoy it, and hope like hell mom and pop have a
sustainable business plan so you can continue to enjoy that position.
Corporations (and I've worked for several) do not have cruel social
motives--well, directly anyway. They're about making money, and
creating shareholder value. And if you want to be profitable, you
don't hire a guy with a master's in telecom to man the phones at your
cell company because if he's willing to work for tech support wages,
he's either a short timer looking to fill an urgent employment gap and
will leave as soon as a more appropriate job gets landed, or has 7
habits of highly defective people and no one else will hire him.
Neither is appealing to a company.
Furthermore, what value do you get out of one guy out of 100 tech
support lackies on the phone? A few customers each day unbelievably
impressed with the sharpness of a tech. Will that translate to better
customer retention? If so how much?
If you crunch the survey numbers, it'll become pretty clear that folks
don't care as much about technical customer service as they do
coverage, price and accurate billing.
So, there's really no reason in the world to roll the dice on an
overqualified candidate for a tech support position.
> I can only conclude that these companies intentionally hire people
> with low qualifications, even though there are better candidates
> willing to work for the same rate.
If that's your only conclusion based on the facts at hand, I'm afraid
your degrees have conspired against your reasoning skills.
The more likely case is the hiring maxim "don't hired overqualified
people into a position." Or, possibly, but less likely, "weren't
hiring at that time, or filled all positions they were advertising
for."
> If they result in shorter call times, it's a very un-admiral way of
> doing it; and besides, I'm not sure that's true since there have
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> years I think I will take my chances with another provider. I doubt
> they will be much better though.
They all pretty much suck, and best I can tell, 50% of the techs you
talked to on this one actually managed a correct answer to solve teh
task you threw at them, which is 50% higher honestly than I'd expect a
carrier to give you on a data transfer question for a specific cell
phone.
Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://toddh.net/
>> "Tech support" from a carrier is apt to be pretty spotty. There is no
>> way they can train every agent on every aspect of every phone. Even
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
> years I think I will take my chances with another provider. I doubt
> they will be much better though.
1. You weren't hired because you're overqualified and wouldn't have
lasted more than 30 days in that job (maybe YOU would, but odds are
against it). Why would you take a $6.50 job with your qualifications
anyway?
2. The corporate conspiracy thing about "cruel social motives" sounds a
bit paranoid. No telecom business is served by slow paying customers. I
have little sympathy for people who roll up big bills and then complain
they can't afford it. Either switch to prepaid or stop using the phone
so much. It wasn't that many years ago that we didn't have cell phones
and the world ran just fine. If you're working for $6.50 an hour the
phone usage isn't related to business (or if it is it should be
reimbursed) so it must be personal. Nobody has anything so important to
say that's worth $150/mo. Too many people grab the phone to chit-chat
and say nothing that can't wait till they see each other later.
3. As far as getting good service goes, I can tell you from experience
that T-Mobile does a very good job. They have 3 levels of support with
some pretty sharp people in the 2nd and third levels.