So how many people do we think will be weeded out over the next few months for forgetting to say "this call may be recorded for quality and training purposes"? Am I the only one that sees this as something that will allow the company to easily fire a good number of employees due to the fact that we have been conditioned to NOT say this until now...in turn reducing the number of published "layoffs" down the road?
6 replies (most recent on top)
As a consumer you DONT want them recorded because if push came to shove, the company will use them against you but if you were to go to court, they would mysteriously automatically deleted. Only if BOTH parties record the conversation would it be a good idea.
As a consumer I want my calls recorded.... Why wouldn't you!!! Only makes sense that it would help you.
You know as a consumer I hear that automatically said all the time. My response is NO YOU MAY NOT RECORD THIS CONVERSATION and you DO NOT HAVE MY PERMISSION. People forget just what their rights are in this country and in most cases they have to comply. Stop being sheep.
They got rid of that on our outgoing calls. Now we can get in trouble if we do say it. HA!
It is what it is. If they want you gone they will find a way regardless!!!
I agree probably this will increase a lot of compliance gaps and it is rough being for so long we have never needed to say this on "outgoing calls" and then all of a sudden we do. I would think this was a ploy but after reading the mist recent sec filing there was a section that spoke to question about compliance and that it had to be heightened. It obviously goes more in depth and I don't remember word for word or want to sift through all the pages to find it again but basically when I read it.. I thought... Hmm I wonder if this was what caused the sudden need and care for the outgoing recorded line and different verbiage. I think it he purposes are outside wanting to fluff the number of people the want to let go but moreso a regartory piece to show administrative compliance