Jeg sendte en e-post til University of Sunderland, angående Arvato-saken

Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com>

---

To the Law Faculty, regarding possible Final Year Project in Employment Law

---

Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com>	Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:28 PM
To: "emrteam@sunderland.ac.uk" <emrteam@sunderland.ac.uk>
Hi, I studied Computing, year 3, Bachelor of Science, in the Goldman and Vardy Building, at University of Sunderland, in 2004/05. I had some problems with the Study-loan bank in Norway, so I had to quit before the end of the year, to get a job. I found a job, in Liverpool, in August 2005, working for Bertelsmann Arvato's Microsoft Scandinavian Product Activation. There I was harassed a lot, by the Team Leaders, and I was constructivly dismissed. (They also used some 'funny' management-methods called reinforcement, which I'm not sure if is allowed to be used in work-places, and which managers on the BBC message-board, discribed as 'bullying'). I was really terrorised by the managers, I think, and I was promissed a better job, that I didn't get, and didn't get overtime, when I worked extra around Christmas 2005, when the managers were at holiday and sick. A Team-leader just removed some working-hours from the time-sheet). There were a lot of problems like this, all the time. I was scream to and bullied and I'm from Norway, but they used me as if I was from Denmark, sending me almost only Danish calls, for many months, which is tirering, for people from Norway, since like one Team-leader said, when the Danes talk fast, and you don't understand, then just say something. And at the same time we were closely monitored, and the time was taken on how long time we used on calls, and written on a black-board each day. I wrote summaries from meetings were I brought up about the problems there. Some Team Leaders acted threatening etc., and I was lied to, from managers there, on several occations. So I was wondering if you could please help me with this. This is a case from 2006, which I've contaced a lot of law-firms about, but haven't gotten any help, through the Legal Aid-programme, (even if I've got my files from Arvato, after contacting them about this, after following advice from a law-firm in Wrexham, which I was sent to, by the organisation who has the legal-aid programme). I also wrote a lot of summaries and notes, and I enclose one of the summaries, with this e-mail so to expain a bit more, what the case is about. Hope that you can please help me with this case! Yours sincerely, Erik Ribsskog PS. Here is the summary, (about some of the problems there), mentioned above, (I also have a lot of other summaries and notes, regarding this case, and the harassment/bullying against me, which I could send later): SUMMARY MEETING 31/10/06 AND 11/11/06 Line Sletvold, Team Leader MSPA, Arvato Services. Erik Ribsskog, Contact Center Representative MSPA, Arvato Services. 31/10/06: ASDP MEETING On the ASDP (Arvato Services Development Program) - meeting we had 06/10/06, we were discussing my scores on the different ASDP categories. I got the best score on most of them, but on one of them I got a lower score than the best score, because as you said, I was sometimes a bit stressed while taking the Danish calls. I startet explaining that I could have been a bit stressed during the last months at work, and that there were many different reasons for this. And that these reasons should be seen as a whole to get the right picture of the whole situation. Its probably not enough to only look at one of the reasons to explain this. To explain this, one really had to explain all of the reasons that were contributing to this, because it was a combination of reasons that caused this, and one really have to tell all of them to make it possible to explain the whole picture. QUALITY BRIEF In June the agents on the campaign recieved an email/quality brief saying that if we didnt ask the customers for the product-key and/or we didnt ask the probing-questions when a customer called to active, then we could face being subject to a development action plan, which could result in disiplinary action (ie. getting fired), being taken against us. BUZZ-MEETING Then, I think it must have been, on 14/06/06, we had a buzz-meeting with Ian. There he said that we had recently recieved an email/quality brief where it said that we could face disiplinary action/getting fired. But, he said, we shouldnt worry about this at all. What was said in the email/quality brief wasnt something we needed to think about at all. But why then was the quality brief issued if what it said wasnt relevant at all? And the buzz-meeting was about call-time, why did he bring up the issue of the warnings in the quality-brief? Later in the meeting we got told that our campaign was the MSPA call-center equivalent of Manchester City when it comes to call-time (we were at the bottom). This problem had to be sorted, the call-time had to go down. He only wanted to hear solutions and no problems regarding how to solve this. People having problems with doing this his way should instead find something else to do than staying on the campaign. The meeting ended with us getting told to find our own solutions, and ask eachother for advice on how to get our call-time down. Line: This is how Ian is on all the campaigns he is working on. When you know him then you know that this is just the way he is. Erik: But he was a new team-leader on the campaign, we didnt know him. Of course we took what he said seriously. AFTER THE BUZZ-MEETING So after the buzz-meeting, I changed the script to a way which I thought would get the call- time down. And started taking calls after this new script. (This work is a bit tireing, because when you are used with taking calls in a certain way for almost a year, then it gets a bit exchausting when you start changing this). After having taken calls after the new script for about three or four hours, Vivian starts saying that we now are to start using a brand new script, newly developed by the team-leaders. So then I have to start taking calls in a new way once again, only three or four hours after I changed the script the first time. I remember thinking that if the script had been presented on the buzz-meeting a few hours earlier, then the situation would have been much less exhausting/caotic, because then we would only have to change the script once. Line: I hadnt got anything to do with the meeting, so cant say why the new script wasnt presented on the meeting. WRAP-UP Then one or two days later, when Im still quite stressed after the buzz-meeting and working with the new scripts, then suddently Vivian starts to complain about that Im on wrap-up to long time between the calls. So when my focus is on the new script (and reducing the call-time), then I start getting complaints about breaking the new wrap-up rules (which says that the wrap-up time that earlier could be up to 30 seconds, now only could be up to 5 seconds.) I was not aware of this new rule. And cannot remember the rule being presented in any way before I started getting complaints that I was breaking this rule. And this was before we had been used to the new script. And the new wrap-up rule was not presented on the buzz-meeting one or two days earlier, and neighter did one wait eighter, untill the campaign had been used to the new script, to present the new rule. The new rule was presented suddently, in the form of a complaint (of breaking the new rule), inbetween the calls, while I was focusing on reducing the call-time and on learning the new script. I remember that the way the new wrap-up rule was presenteted added quite a lot of stress to the already stressed situation I was in at the moment, due to the new scripts and the focus on the call-time. Line: The campaign had a meeting about wrap-up. Maybe it was on one of your rest-days? Erik: I remember the campaign having an ASDP-meeting about wrap-up beeing included in the ASDP-scores, but this meeting was at a time about a couple of months later than this time. I cant remember beeing presented with the new wrap-up rule at all before this happened. WRAP-UP MEETING After Vivian told me about the new wrap-up rule, Vivian and I had a meeting, where I explained that I was used with it being a 30 second wrap-up limit, and that I would focus on that the limit had been reduced, and work on gradually reducing my avarage wrap-up time in the forth- comming days. We agreed that this was an ok aproach on how to sort this problem. But the day after, it was like this meeting had never happened. It was the same complaint: 'Youre on wrap-up', being shouted at you if you had been on wrap-up more than 5 seconds. OTHER STRESSING FACTORS Vivian continued to give orders to me while I was on the phone speaking with customers. This happened on several occations. She gave orders in an agressive, impatient and, I thought, impolite manner, that I remember I found stressing. An example: In the moment a call was finished, Vivian asks me a question in an agressive/threatening tone that made it clear that see wanted an answer straight away. So when the conversation with her was finished, then she looks on the display on my phone, and sees that the phone is in wrap-up mode. Then she says: 'Im warning you about being on wrap-up', in a very agressive/threatening way. But the reason that I was on wrap-up, is that she interupted me in the same moment as the phone-call ended, so that I didnt have any chance of getting time to log the call and put the phone back in available mode. ASKING FOR THE PRODUCT-KEY TAKING DANISH CALLS Then some days later, Vivian overheard me taking a Danish call. She hears that Im not taking the product-key when Im taking this call. [Danish is a tricky language for Norwegians to speak. Danes have problem understanding Norwegian. And its quite exhausting for Norwegians to try to speak Danish. This is mostly because of the way the Danes speak the sounds in their language. The sounds in Danish are spoken very different from how the sounds in Norwegians are spoken. Its not comparable to Norwegian and Swedish. Swedish is spoken in a quite similar way to Norwegian. Swedes and Norwegians understand eachother quite easily. Not so with Danes and Norwegians or Danes and Swedes.] When Vivian hears that Im not taking the product-key, then she rushes to where I sit, and says 'Arent you taking the Danish product-keys?' I answer that Im not used to having to take the product-key on the Danish calls (because of the language-problem). She says: 'You have to start taking the product-key on the Danish calls as well'. NOT USUAL FOR NORWEGIANS TO TAKE THE PRODUCT-KEY ON THE DANISH CALLS Ive been working on the campaign for more than a year now, full-time. And during this time, Ive been working a lot of overtime, and I havent been sick a single day. And have only had a few days vacation when moving to a new appartment in July. And because of the high turnover on the campaign etc., I think Im probably the person who is most aware of the things that have happened on the campaign during the last year. As far as I know, it has not been usual to take the product-key in general, and certainly not usual for Norwegians taking the Danish calls to do this. As far as I know, Norwegians taking only, or mostly Danish calls, have been looked at as an 'emergency'-situation. I remember once when two of the former team-leaders asked me if I could be 'the Dane' that Day. (Because there werent any Danes working that day, because of sicknes etc.) They explained that they knew that it was difficult for a Norwegian to be on the Danish line, but they asked me in a polite way if I could do this anyhow. And then, a bit later, when I asked one of the Danes for the product-key (while the team- leaders were listening), I could see on the way they reacted that it was defenetly not usual for Norwegians to do this. Especially one of them, the one who had been working as a team-leader the longest, looked very surprised by hearing a Norwegian taking the product-key on a Danish call. So it seemed clear to me that this was something that was not usual to do, due to the generally aknowledged language-problems. Line: When I started here, I was told we had to ask for the product-key. Erik: When I started here, I wasnt aware of the fact that we were supposed to ask for the product-key untill a couple of months had past, and I was having my first call-acreditation. I was then especially reminded by the team-leader, that I had to remember to ask for the product-key. It seemed clear to me that the team-leader knew that I didnt use to ask for the product-key, but that since this was a call-acreditation call, I was supposed to ask for the product-key this time). CUSTOMERS NOT USED WITH HAVING TO READ THE PRODUCT-KEY There have also been a lot of customers calling to activate, that has been very surprised by the fact that they have to read the product-key to get to activate windows. For instance, I remember a Swedish lady working in a computer-lab in southern Sweden, being very surprised by having to read the product-key to activate. She said that she had previously been calling about 20 or 30 times to activate, as a part of her job. And she had never been asked to read the product-key before. Another situation I remember, was when a Danish customer was speaking with Muhammed, and Muhammed had to get me and take over the call. This was because the Dane had called to activate more than 20 times, and had never been asked to read the product-key before. The Dane thought that Mohammed was trying to trick the customer to tell him the product- key (to use it illegaly or something like that). So the customer had to be calmed down. Line: It could be that these customers has been speaking with the Scandinavian PA department in Germany, and that this is the reason why they havent been asked for the product-key. Erik: Well I find this very unlikely. The Scandinavian PA department in Germany have only been operating since November/December last year, and Vivian have told me that our PA department is the main Scandinavian PA department. I therefore find it very unlikely that customers have been calling 20-30 times and only been speaking with the department in Germany. Line: There has been much sloppines involved regarding asking for the product-key. I remember it being usual only to ask for the product-key when the team-leaders where within hearing distance. SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR BEING STRESSED - First it was the quality brief with threats of disiplinary action being taken (eg. being fired), if the agents didnt ask for the product-key (which wasnt usual). - Then the buzz-meeting with the threats of having to quit the job if not doing the job excactly like the managers wanted regarding call-time. - Then the new script presented in the buzz-meeting. - Then another script presented a few hours after the buzz-meeting. - Then the new wrap-up rule which said that the maximum aloved wrap-up time was being reduced from 30 secongs to 5 seconds. And this rule was, as far as I know, put into to function without the campaign being informed. - Then the new product-key situation, with Norwegian agents having to ask for the product-key while taking the Danish calls. (This, as far as I know, almost never happend earlier. Firstly it wasnt usual in general for agents to ask for the product-key. Secondly, the added language- problems surrounding Danish calls being taken by Norwegians, led to that the product-key being never, or almost never, asked for in these calls). - And because of the cover-situation on the Scandinavian PA in Germany, there was in the relevant months much more Danish calls than other calls. (Id say maybe 50-90 percent of the calls where in Danish, varying a bit from day to day, depending on the cover-situation in Germany). [Further explenation: And because there were eighter only none or one Dane working at the campaign in these months, and because Norwegians, in general, where the only non-Danish speakers having to take Danish calls. In general people from the different countries had to take calls in the following nordic languages: Norwegians: Norwegian, Swedish and Danish. Swedes: Swedish and Norwegian. Danes: Danish. Finns: Finish. So when up to 90 percent of the calls were in Danish, and the only Dane was very often not working the same shift. And I was the only Norweigan working full-time taking calls. This resulted in the workload on me being often much heavier than on the others. Because I got most calls, since my login was taking three languages, and because I had to take most of these calls in Danish. (This issue was also brought up with on an Employee Forum Meeting with the Managing Director. But nothing was done about it. The problem only got worse, since the only other Norwegian speaker working full-time taking calls left a few weeks after this meeting. (See enclosed summary from the Employee Forum Meeting, 23/05/06)). Danish is spoken very different than Norwegian. Resulting in misunderstandings etc. Many Danes dont understand Norwegian at all. When you speak to them in Norwegian they often say that they dont understand Swedish. And its almost imposible for Norwegians to speak Danish, because it is spoken in a way that you have to live in Denmark for many years to learn. Wikipedia says this about this subject: "Generally, speakers of the three Scandinavian languages (Danish, Norwegian and Swedish) can read each other's languages without great difficulty. This holds especially true of Danish and Norwegian. The primary obstacles to mutual comprehension are differences in pronunciation. Danish speakers generally do not understand Norwegian as well as the extremely similar written norms would lead one to expect. Some Norwegians also have problems understanding Danish, but according to a recent scientific investigation Norwegians are better at understanding both Danish and Swedish than the Danes and Swedes are at understanding Norwegian.[1] Nonetheless, Danish is widely reported to be the most incomprehensible language of the three. In general, Danes and Norwegians will fluently understand the other language with only a little training." Further from the same link: "The difference in pronunciation between Norwegian and Danish is much more striking than the difference between Norwegian and Swedish. Although written Norwegian is very similar to Danish, spoken Norwegian more closely resembles Swedish. The Danish pronunciation is typically described as 'softer', which in this case refers mostly to the frequent approximants corresponding to Norwegian and historical plosives in some positions in the word (especially the pronunciation of the letters d and g), as well as the realisation of r as a uvular or even pharyngeal approximant in Danish as opposed to the Norwegian alveolar trills or uvular trills/fricatives." (Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differences_between_Norwegian_Bokm%C3%A5l_and_ Standard_Danish, 10/01/07, 19:04.) Even so, it was expected of me that I should take these Danish calls, now also asking for and reading back the product-key, in the same time as eg. Finns used taking Finish calls, Danes used taking Danish calls, and Swedes used taking mostly Swedish calls. Each persons average call-time was each day ranked and put on a big board, and also e-mailed to the campaign. And I had in the back of my mind that if the call-time wasnt reduced to the time-limit mentioned in the buzz-meeting, then management would probably think that I wasnt working on the task of trying to solve the problem with the call-time the way they wanted. (with the threats that were given regarding this). Also, since I have studied computers, and have built some computers myself and having general computer-knowledge, and in adition also have worked with customer-support and being used with the importance of giving proper customer-support. I often got transfered difficult calls that the other agents didnt know how to solve. Since I had been working on the campaign longer than most of the other agents, and was used to use 'active listening', to find out if there were some breaching of Microsoft activation rules regarding this activation. And since I was used to working with customer-support from my earlier jobs, I maybe used longer time than average on finding information helping the customer etc., this lead to the calls taking longer time. And also using 'active listening' like we had been thought earlier, and also helping the customer finding information, explaining rules in detail, and getting the difficult calls transfered from other agents, led to me having to ask more questions in these calls than more regular calls. So you could say that trying to do the job properly often resultet in the calls taking longer time, and then you got a lower rank. And also being Norwegian, having to take calls in three languages, with the other agents having only to take calls in one or two nordic languages., led to you getting a heavier workload. This heavier workload (especially the Danish calls), could lead to you getting more tired than an agent taking fewer calls, and I remember that getting tired could lead to you not managing to take the calls as fast as when you were rested. Especially since the time we got to log the calls (and make ourselves ready for the next call), was reduced from thirty to five seconds. When I moved to a new apartment in July, I had before I did this spoken informaly with Line and Vivian about me aplying for the vacant team-leader position, because I needed to earn more money to pay for the higher rent for the new flat. I have worked ten years as a manager earlier, and is one of the persons that has worked the longest on the campaign, and knows the campaign best, so I didnt think it would be a problem to start working as a team-leader (or at least get to work enough overtime to pay for the higher rent). And in my informal conversation with Line and Vivian about this, in May it must have been, it seemed to me by their answers that this wouldnt be a problem at all. But since I had aplied for the team-leader position, I didnt really want to give a bad impression to the managers, and me getting a low rank on the call-time board, I didnt think came to my advantage when it came to my possibilities of getting the team-leader job. And when the aplication-process for the team-leader job draged on for about three months, without me or the campaign getting any feedback, this also added to the stress. And because of me not getting the team-leader job, I had to work overtime to cover the rent, and this also led to me getting more tired (because the workload in the job became more and more heavy), and when I had to work overtime, the workload became even heavier. Also I have to admit that it wasnt often I heard the other agents asking for the product-key, even after the new quality brief. Firstly I was almost always on the phone taking calls, so it wasnt often I could hear the other agents, how they took the calls. But when I sometimes did hear them, I cant honestly say that I often heard them asking for or reading back the product-key. So it could be that noone, or almost noone, actually did this, except for me, but I didnt have access to listening to the recordings of the other agents' calls, so its difficult for me to say excactly how usual this was. I was applying for team-leader so I didnt want to give a bad impression. Ive also been used to having some pride in doing my job properly, and I also think that the way the job-description says you should do the job, shouldnt vary from the way you are expected by the managers to do you job. This should be clear. It shouldnt be in a way that it says in the quality brief etc. that you are to ask for the product-key, when this really isnt expected by the managers. Because then this could be used as a way of getting contol of the campaign etc. Like eg. if everyone knows that its very tireing to ask for the product-key in each call, and imposible to reach the call- time target if you do it. And it anyway says in the quality brief etc. that if you dont ask for the product-key, then you could face diciplinary action (eg. getting fired). This is my impression of how the situation was on the campaign. That the general expectations to how an agent was supposed to do ones job, wasnt the same as what the formal job-instruction/quality brief said regarding this. It seems to me that the managers used this method/hidden agenda, to take control of the campaign, firering who they want, or at least puting fear of getting fired into the employees, giving them bad concience about this etc. I dont know excactly who made it to be this way, or why, but this is how it seems to me that the situation was, and it certainly added to the stress. Another thing that comes to mind is that I didnt know what our main goal with the job was. I remember working in a grocery-store in Oslo some years ago, and there on an employee- meeting we were told that the stores main goal, which everyone should work to acheive, was to get more, and more satisfied customers. On MSPA I thought it was hard figuring out what was the most important part of the job. Was it that the customers should be conent like in the grocery-store? Was the most important thing to stop as many illigal activations as possible? Was it to have the lowest call-time? If it had been clear what Arvato and/or Microsoft meant was the most important aspect of the job, then it would be easier for the agents/me to know which part of the job I should put most empesis on. I understand that all the things I mentioned are important, but it doesnt make any sense to say that all are equally important. It should be clear that this part of the job is the most important. If not, then you could get complaints for not putting enough effort into one part of the job, and then you couldnt say its because you thought something else was more important. Because then you would get the answer that this part is very important. So when the managers says that all parts of the job are very important, then it makes the job more stressful, and Id say impossible to do a god job. Its much easier if the organisation has got a clear goal that everyone agrees on is the most important to work against. Because then if you got complaints you could answer that you could explain that since this part of the job is especially important, you chose to put more priority on this part in the particular phone-call. On the campaign it seemed like everything was very important. Customers were very important, call-time was very important, wrap-up was very important, stoping the illigal activations was very important, logging was very important, break-times were very important, and much more. It seemed like every little detail was very important. I understand that many of these things really are very important, but it really doesnt make any sence not to have a clear main-goal. Im not sure if we didnt have a clear main-goal because of the manager not thinking about this, or if it could also be that the managers liked to have it this way so that they could complain all the time about small details etc. Because everytime you did a small detail wrong, then you got complaints. It could be that they wanted it to be a bit caotic like this, so it would be easy to find errors employees made, and then they could eg. fire who they wanted, or make a person they didnt want to work there so stressed that they had to find a new job. I thought about brining this issue with the missing main-goal up with the team-leaders, but there was so many other things going on, and from the team-leaders on the campaign it was so much harassment (sexual and no-sexual), lying, threats, missing imformation (like when team-leader Ian Wormwald quit the campaign, he worked a bit on our campaign and a bit on the other campaigns at the end. But when he quit, our campaign wasnt informed,so I kept sending the emails with the Service-Level competition results to him. And then two or three weeks later, we got an e-mail complaining that we shouldnt send emails to Ian Wormwald, because he had quit the campgain.) This happened again and againg. No imformation about things like this whatsoever. And when rules were changed, the campaign very often didnt get any information about the new rule, until you suddently starting getting complaints about breaking a new rule you hadnt been informed of. Also the team-leaders didnt cooperate properly at all. When rules were changed etc, the team-leaders hadnt first agreed on how to interperate the rules, but they interperatied the rules differently (eg. the new break-rules etc.). They kept blaming eachother, and didnt seem to have any understanding of that they were supposed to be co-worked, and agree on how to interperate rules etc, before they actually interduced them. So the situation on the campaign was so chaotic, and there were always so much going on, like problems with getting the right overtime-pay, holidays, interflex, shift-plan, problem with unclear activation-rules, new rules like new break-rules, the harassment and threats etc. So I never actually got so far as to bring up the question about the main goal. And if I did Im afraid I would just have got told a lye, or being harassed, or just getting a reply that meant your job would become even more stressful, like when I had to start asking for and reading back the Danish product-keys etc. And I have documentation that shows that all of these things (many occurances of sexual and no-sexual harassment, lies and threats from team-leaders and senior team-leaders, and also some from other employees) The campaign didnt use to be this bad, the situation started to be worse around June/July, and then gradually became worse and worse. I was a bit slow starting to addresing all of these issues (I adressed some, but I had just recently been transfered to an Arvato contract, instead of an Randstad contract in the end of June, and I wasnt used to how problems like these were usually dealt with in England, so I needed some time to learn what the things in the employee-handbook meant etc. And the situation at work created so much stress, so it wasnt easy finding the extra energy to learn and deal with this. I also had aplied for team-leader, and I didnt want the process of dealing with these problems become mixed-up with or interfere with the team-leader appliction, because I really needed to get a higher salary. Because I really had to move to a safer place than the one I first had lived in, because Ive been having problems with org. criminals. Problems which were non of my foult, and which I have reported to the police. But the new apartment was much more expensive, so I needed to get a higher salary. I didnt think the team-leader application process would go on for almost three months. And I also decided when the situation on the campaign got worse, and the team-leader issue didnt get solved, that I had to start adressing more of the problems on the campaign, so I started having meetings with the team-leaders adressing the problems. I wasnt really sure how to deal with the more serious problems, like the sexual and non- sexual harassment, lies and threats from the managers, because I thought much of this was very sensitive, and if I adressed some of these things in a wrong way, I was afraid I could loose my job. (And I was only on a renewable three-month contract anyway, so it seemed a bit risky complaining to much. I needed a new contract when I applied for the flat, thats why I switched from Randstad to Arvato, because the estate agency wouldnt accept the Randstad-contract, since it was only a temperarely contract. But the campaign got informed around May/June that we could switch to Arvato-contracts. I was under the impression from speaking with team-leaders etc. that the Arvato-contracts were permanent contracts, like the estate agency wanted. But when we got the new contract, it was only a three month contract. I complained to my line-manager, and she said it was like this for all, and that the next contract would be a permanent one (after the first three months). When the next contract came, it was still a three month one, and when I complained again I was told by my line-manager that we were only going to get contracts like this. It was around the time I switched from Randstad to Arvato (19/06/06), that I suddently started noticing more and more being porly treated by the managers. Im not sure if these could be connected, but it certainly could fit in with the other things that happened. The problems with the quality brief, threats on the buzz-meating, focus on the call-time etc., started right after four of the team-leaders and key-employees on the campaign switched from Randstad/Gap to Arvato. After the switch to Arvato, there also started to be much more problems when it came to things that had to to with other departments etc. Problems with not being paid overtime, problems with shift-plans not having the right amount of rest-days, problems with the start and end-time on some of the shifts on the shift-plan suddently becoming more and more peculiar, and more. Regarding the team-leader application-process, it seemed to me a bit unprofessional for a big company like Arvato to let the process drag out for about three months, without the campaign getting any feedback. To me it seems a bit peculiar that such a big organisation should deal with this situation in such an unprofessional manner. Its described more about what happened regarding this under the section called 'Team- leader application'.] - And Vivians aggressive and impatient/impolite behaviour at the time, also added to the stress. The way she interupted the phone-calls with the customers, and the way she complained in a threatening manner. It seems to me that this type of behaviour was more directed at me than towards the other agents, but I also remember her behaving like this towards other agents. For instance I remember when one agent went from her chair towards the short-call tracking forms (close to where Vivian sat), to pick up a new form. And the reaction from Vivian was to say in an agressive way: 'What are you doing?'. The agent didnt answer anything, she just went back to her chair, as far as I remember, without picking up any form. MEETINGS WITH VIVIAN AND LINE I thought with myself that I had to get in a dialog with the team-leaders (especially Vivian, which I found it stressing co-working with), in an effort to try to sort some of these problems. Since the problems just got worse and worse, and didnt think it was possible for me to manage to continue in the job if something wasnt done regarding sorting these problems. I wasnt sure about how to deal with the problems like the ones mentioned on the campaign, but I thought that if I knew that we agreed on some basic rules as to how people should co-work on the campaign, then it would be easier for me to do a better and more constructive job on the campaign, and also easier for me to try to find a solution for the problems, like the ones that very making me (very) stressed. I remember from working as a store-manager in Norway, that we from our training learned that every person working in an organisation were important, and had the right to be treated in a respectful, polite, decent and (preferably) nice way. I read a bit about the Arvato policy and the Bertesmann essentials about this, and I found them to be in line with what we learned about this in the organisation I worked with for many years in Norway. (Rimi/Hakon-gruppen now Ica-gruppen). So on the date 12/09/06, Vivian and I had a meeting regarding this. (Line and I had a similar meeting 28/09/06, where we two also found that we both agreed on the fact that these principles were an important part of the platform on which we could base the way we co- operated on the campaign). Vivian agreed with me that all people in an organisation had the right to be treated in a respectful, polite and decent manner. I also explained that I found it stressing when she interupted me while I was speaking with the customers or logging the calls. She understood this, and promised to wait till the conversation with the customer was finished before starting to talk or give orders. I also brought up the situation with the wrap-up meeting we had some weeks earlier, where we agreed on that I would work on gradually bettering the wrap-up time, but that she then forgot this agreement, and the next day acted like this meeting hadnt been taking place at all, and continued to shout 'You're on wrap-up' if the wrap-up time exceeded 5 seconds. Vivian explained that this was call reinforcement, and that the team-leaders were trained to use reinforcement as a way of solving problems, like the problem with agents being to long time on wrap-up between the calls. So she wouldnt stop doing this, because she had been trained to do her job this way. NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT I hadnt heard about reinforcement on the management/organisation modules I had studied on upper secondary and university-level, and neighter had I heard about it on the management- courses I had participated on while I was working as a manager in Norway. So when I got home on the day we had the meeting, I searched for 'reinforcement' on the internet. I found from how Vivian described it in the meeting, that this way of sorting problems was called 'negative reinforcement'. I couldnt find very much on how this was being used in management, but from what I found it seemed like it was more used as a way of training dogs, and that it was known to make the dogs nervous. Line says that they were told to do it this way, because if they did it this way, then the agents would do the job the way the team-leaders wanted. THINGS NOT IN LINE WITH ARVATO POLICY/BERTELSMANN ESSENTIALS? After reading about negative reinforcement on the internet, I was wondering if this could be in line with Arvato Policy and Bertelsmann Essentials. There were also other things I was wondering if were in line with these, eg. the threats on the buzz-meeting, the interuptions by team-leaders while agents were on the phone speaking with customers, and agressive/threatening behavior in general by team-leaders. I was also wondering if these things were in line with what we agreed on the meetings 12/09/06 and 29/09/06 that all people in the organisation had the right to be treated in a repectful, polite and decent manner. BERTELSMANN ESSENTIALS When I was looking for information regarding how the system with the new ASDP- (Arvato Services Development Program) program was working, I read in a summary from an Employee Forum meeting in May where some of the employees had asked the Managing Director how it could be that the Bertelsmann Essentials didnt seem to be in any way related to us in Liverpool. Im not sure if I understood this right, but the Managing Director replied that the Bertelsmann Essentials are new, and that HR and the Ops. (meaning team-leaders/Senior team- leaders?), would implement the Bertelsmann Essentials in the company and relating them to us. Line says that she havent heard anything about this. Well, my meaning, is that if you take a task seriously, then, when you get a new important task/project that is going to be implementet in the organisation, then you should take responsibility yourself for getting the system up and running. And you should make sure that the system is up and running satisfactory, then you can delegate the responsibility for the task. At least this is how we used to do it when I was working with management in Norway. So I dont know if this could be a sign of the Bertelsmann Essentials not being taken seriously enough? (That we havent heard anything about them, and that the responsiblily for the Bertelsmann Essentials have been delegated before the Essentials have been implemented). And also the posters with the Essentials on them, why are the posters hanging on the wall if the Essentials arent implemented? Are the posters hanging there just to impress visiting clients, so that they will be asured that these things are being taken seriously? Is it right for the posters with the Essentials on them to be hanging on the wall, when the Essentials arent implemented yet? Its possible that Ive misunderstood, so I take a precausion in case I might have misunderstood something surounding this. HARASSMENT? This is a quite recent example that happened after the ASDP-meeting [06/10/06]. Most of the things Ive been mentioning so far, is a more thorow explanation of the things that I started explaining about on the ASDP-meeting. I hadnt prepared to explain about these things on the ASDP-meeting, and we didnt get finished (because of time-problems), so when this episode happened on 26/10, I deceded to prepare more thorowly this time, and try to explain better this time. [Because when you asked why I was stressed while taking the Danish calls, I mentioned a lot of the same things that Im mentioning on this meeting. But on the ASDP- meeting [since I hadnt prepared to explain about these things], I forgot to mention for instance about the buzz-meeting etc. So in the ASDP-meeting, I didnt manage to make it clear why I was being stressed about the call-time. But after remembering what was said in the buzz-meeting, it seemed clearer to me why I was so focused about reducing the call-time. So this is the reason on why I thought it was best to explain it all from the beginning in this meeting]. What happened on the 26/10 was firstly this: Im sitting transfering a call to Vivian Morris. Vivian S. shouts from the other end of the campaign-table, 'Why are you transfering the call'. Then she explains there is a new rule now: Agents should no longer transfer calls to other agents. Agents should transfer calls to the team-leader, and then the team-leader should transfer the call to the other agent. This rule was new to me. And the way this new rule was presented, (By interuption, and by screaming across the table), I dont think is in line what we agreed on, on the meeting 13/9, where we agreed on employees having the right to be treated polite, respectfully and decent etc. Line says that this rule is also new to her. Later, on the same day: In the same moment as Ive ended a call, Vivian starts talking to me. I nods my head (towards the computer) and mumbles someting, trying to explain, by this, something like 'One moment please, Ill just log the call, because then I wont forget to log, and I also wont forget which call-type the call should be logged like'. She dont wait, she just continues: 'Why dont you log the call while youre talking with the customer on the phone?' (She asks this while Im still loging.) And I explain, although Im a bit dizzy by being talk to while trying not to forget how to log the call correctly, that the reason why Im not loging the call while Im still talking with the customer, is that I focus on ending the call in an apropriate manner. I think its important how you end the call, so I try to concentrate on this. [I think that if I should log the call while Im ending the call, then I would be distracted, because you have to find the right gruop to log the call as etc, and then you have to consentrate on this, and then the conversation with the customer could suffer because of this, leading to the customer getting a less good impression on the level of customer-support the customer is recieving]. Then she says: 'During the last days, your logging percentage has fallen', in a tone demaning an explanation. Im still quite dizzy because of the logging and the sprining conversation at the same time, so I cant think of something else to say but: 'Maybe its because Ive been a bit tired the last days'. Then she says: 'Its important that a person does his job', and finishes the conversation. She says this in a tone I find threatening. Its like shes saying that Im not doing my job, and that this is unaceptable, and the threatening way she says it, and then just leaves, makes me think that she maybe wants to report me for not doing my job or something like that, because she sounds angry and threatening when she says it. Because Ive been working with grocery-store work, office-work, driver-work etc., since I was 18. So thats 18 years. So I know that a person should to his job. So when shes saying an obvious thing like that, in a tone like that, I take it as a threat. Its like shes saying: 'This we cant accept, weve got to do something about this'. [Or, we cant have people working here whos not doing their job]. This is how I interpret what she says, and the way shes saying it. So after this episode, I decided that I would try to explain the reason for why Im being stressed more thorowly, because this would also give me a chance to bring up different things that have happened on the campaign during the last months. Since Im feeling threatened, and I think that bringing up these things, could help show that I really have had reasons for being stressed, and also could help sheed light on other things that have been going on. This could also help me avoid a future situation, where Im for instance being accused of this or that, or being reported, eg. by a team-leader (like I fear could happen, because Ive been feeling threatened by Vivian). Then I could end up in a position where I start explaining that this has happend and If i at that point start explaining about this happened then and is connected to something else that happened at another time, then I could be met with the answer: 'Why havent you brought this up earlier?'. [Many of these things Ive brought up before in other meetings etc. And other of these things have come to mind while I have been preparing for this meeting. And I consider myself to be hard-working and professional. I havent been absent one single day since I started here. And I dont think it would be fair to me, if I should loose my job because of a situation like this. And to thorowly explain the situation about why Im being stressed, also raises the opertunity to sheed light on other things that has been going on on the campaign. But even so, all the things that Im describing here are in some degree participating factors as to why I was being stressed while I was taking the Danish calls, so I think its justifiable to include all of these things, since they are all part of the bigger picture.] It says in the employee manual that its harassment if a person with power is acting threatening. And I think this is right. A manager has a special responsibility to not act threatening/agressive. Because if a manager acts this way towards you, then its being percieved as worse than if an agents acts this way towards you, because the manager is in a position in which he/she has got power over you. (The manager has got influence in diciplinary cases. He/she has got influence in situations that could end up with you getting fired etc.) Line agrees on this, that a teamleader has got more responsibility not to act threatening. Erik says that sometimes it seems like shes after me for some reason, like the way she complains about me, the she brings up many things very fast, one subject after the other, with it being difficult to follow the flow of different subject. And also that she often brings up things inbetween calls, when Im being focused on other things, and also when shes acting threatening and agressive. It seems like shes sometimes doing these things to punish me for other things, maybe something that Ive said that she didnt like, or something I did that she didnt like. I cant garantee that it is like this, but this is the way it seems to me. Erik says that he is not used with the expression harassment, and dont know exacltly what it covers, so he'll try to contact core care, to see if they can help with this problem. Line says that Erik could talk with HR or Senior team-leader about this. Erik says that he wants to speak with core care regarding this issue and also regarding other harassment issues on the campaign. Some of these issues are quite sensible, and Im not sure on how to present them, so I would like to get some advice on this, before I bring them up with Line and/or HR, Senior team-leader. Line says that shes going to try to learn more about harassment herselves. Erik is going to contact core care, and try to set up a meeting with them. After the meeting with core care, Line and Erik will have a new meeting about these issues. (One hour has passed, so even if there are more things on the agenda, the meeting will have to be finished on a later date.) 11/11/06: EPISODE 05/11/06 On 05/11 there was a new episode with Vivian. What happened was first was an arugement where Vivian complained that I wasnt wearing the headphones while I was on the phone. The reason I wasnt wearing them was that the headphone-pads were lying in the my folders with papers regarding work etc. And these had been moved to a new place, and Vivian said shed get them while I was logging on the computer and the phone. My point was that I always wear the headphones while on work, and this was just an exception while I was waiting a few seconds for the folders. Line says that in situations like this, its important that the team-leader give the agent feedback about the breach of company-rules. It doesnt matter if its an exception and if it only is for a few seconds. My other point was that it seemed like she was complaining about this, and also asked about other things, at the same time that I was logging on the computer and the phone, and trying to do this in time before the shift starts at 12.00, to make me stressed or get out of balance. [Because there had been so much problems on the campaign the last months, Ive started a daily routine which is that I every day when the shift starts, bring three short-call tracking forms with me to my workstation. The first one I use to log the short- (and lately also the long-) calls, the second I use to scrible different information the customer tells me during the call, eg. what producer it was that produced the different computers if the customer has windows on more than one computer, to keep track of them, so that its easier to explain the activation-rules to the customer. The third form/sheet of paper, I use to write down the different problems/harrasment/etc, that happens on the campaign that day.] I still have the 'problem'-sheet for that day (05/11), and it says: - 11.59: Vivian is asking 'Who won the Service-level competiton this week?' - I said: 'Have you sent me an email with the service-level result yet?'. - Vivian says: 'But the service-level result is to be found in "something" (didnt hear excactly what she said) - report'. [This report was a new report, that she had sent for the first time eighter earlier that day, or the day before (which was my rest-day), yet she mentioned this report like something I should be aware of, even if my shift hadnt really started this day, and we had never been sent this report before.] - I must have answered that I have to look at the service-level competiton-form which is in my folder, which I couldnt find because someone had moved them. - Then Vivian must have said that the folders had been moved to a place in the window on the other side of the campaign-table, and that she would fetch them. - I continued to log on the phone and computer, but didnt put on the headphones, because it was quiet, and the 'pads' for the headphones were in the folders which Vivian had already gone to fetch (because she also usually move very quick), and then put the 'pads' on the headphone, and then wear the headphones. - 12.00. Vivian: 'Its important that one wears ones headphones'. I started explaining that the 'pads' for the headphones were in the folder she was fetching, but still insisted that I should wear the headphones without the 'pads' untill she got me the folders, and then I should take the headphones off, and put on the 'pads'. So since she was ordering me to do this, I did this. But my point was that all this was going on while I was logging on to the computer and phone, I was trying to get this done before 12.00, or else I could be reported if I didnt get logged on in time. And Vivian must have been aware of the fact that I was focused on login on, yet she had to ask me about the service-level competition, try to ridicule me since I didnt know that she had started to send a new report with the service-level in it. (a report that I only can remember that she sent this week, I dont think before, and I dont think later). And then start to complain about that I wasnt wearing the headphones, although it was only for a few seconds while she was fetching the folders. [So she must have understood that she acting like this, while I was hurrying to log on in time, would make me more stressed. I cant understand it differently than that she was trying to make me stressed/getting me out of balance on purpose. Later it could seem like it was almost planned. It was on a Sunday, so it wasnt many other managers there. And I had been putting the headphone-pads in the folder for quite some time then, so its quite possible that she knew I kept them in the folder, and that she knew that it was the pads I was waiting for, but said it to stress me/getting me out of balance.] LATER THE SAME DAY Then, later the same day, I got a peculiar phone-call from a customer that had been living in Finland, spoke English, had later moved to Norway. The customer spoke English, but it wasnt his first-language. His English wasnt that good, and he didnt speak Norwegian. I used to write the notes about the problems that day on the back-side of the short-call tracking-form, and then log the short calls and long calls on a seperate short-call tracking-form. But this day Id become so stressed by the way Vivian acted at the start of the shift, that I had started logging the short/long calls on the same sheet of paper that I used to write about the problems. After I had written down the problems around the start of the shift, I must have turned the sheet of paper (so that Vivian wouldnt see what Ive written), and then Id started to log the short and long calls on the same sheet of paper. So Ive still got the log-info I wrote from this peculiar call, it was: Language: English [but he called from Norway, and at about 1.20 pm] Minutes: 19.00 Reason for long call: Lang.prob. + prob. with finding out if the license was ok with eula + customer wouldnt end call. So this call took 19.00 minutes [an average call is supposed to take 3.00 mins], I remember the customers English was not very good, so it was difficult to comunicate. And it was very difficult to find out if the activation was ok or not. Since the call went on for as long as 19 minutes, it was difficult at the end of the call, to remeber excactly what the customer had been saying at the beginning of the call. But as far as I remember, at the end of the call, the customer was saying that he had the program on two computers, but the other computer he didnt use, he had left it in Finland, where he had lived earlier. I remember thinking that this call was a bit peculiar, because by his voice and the way he spoke English, he sounded like he was from Africa I remember thinking, and he didnt speak any Finish or Norwegian. And I dont think I remember so much about people from other countries moving from Finland to Norway, the usual I think would be from Finland to Sweden, or Sweden to Norway maybe. I dont there are very many foreign people in Finland at all actually, if Ive read correctly in the newspaper, the Finns have very strict rules for imigration. But anyway, the customer wouldnt end the call, and the call was a tirering one, because of the langauge-problems, the customer wouldnt end the call, but came up with more and more things. He had said that windows were on two computers, and thats why I wouldnt let him activate. But then he said at the end of the call, that the other computer was in Finland, when I said that he had to remove it from the other computer. I thought it would be a bit inpolite to ask the customer to go to Finland to remove windows from the computer, and then call back to activate on this computer. (like we usually tell customers in these cases). And the customer, i think, said it was a retail-version of windows, and these are aloved to be transfered to a new computer. So I thought that I should give the customer the benefit of the doubt, because of the language problems, and of course I couldnt sit there argue with him all day, because he wouldnt end the call. And I had been under the impression, that in cases of doubt or in extra-ordinary cases, we were aloved to use our own judgement, and maybe make exceptions, if the rules in one particular case seemed unreasionable. I thought it would seem unreasonable to ask the customer to go back to Finland to remove windows from the other computer which he said he didnt use there. (From what he said I understood he had it stored there or something, but didnt use it). And also there were other customers calling to activate, and the customer wouldnt hang up, so I thought it would be ok to activate, if the customer agreed to remove it from the other computer later, so that I could go on with the other calls, and since it was a case would it would seem unreasonable to ask the customer to go to another country to remove windows, and also because of the language- problems. But then Vivian started interfering, she had been listening to the call, and started to talk loud to me while I was speaking with the customer. I hadnt asked Vivian for advice with this call, because of the episode that happened on the 26/10 (explained earlier), and the other episodes, I tryed to work as indipendant as possible, because I wanted the situation to calm down, so I didnt want to do anything that could give her an excuse to start to act threatening etc. But she had been listening, so she interupted the call, said ordered me not to activate the call, and she wouldnt speak with the customer when I asked if she could talk with the customer herself to get the whole picture. I thought it was a bit strange that she had been listening to the whole call for 19 minutes, but I just went on to take the other calls, but I wanted to bring up these things, because in the first episode it seemed like she wanted to make me stressed, and the last episode was in breach of what was agreed in the meeting between Vivian and me on 12/09, where Vivian agreed that she wouldnt interupt me when I was speaking in the phone, but would wait till the call was finished. So I was wondering if these things could be a provocation etc. into trying to react in a way that could get me in problems, or that she might report them etc, because to me it seemed (from the episode 26/10 etc.) that she was after me, threatening me, trying to get me fired etc. Line says that if the agent says something thats wrong, then the team-leader has to tell the agent at once. If the agent activates a product that he shouldnt have activated then its gross misconduct, and the agent wouldnt want to get fired, so thats why the team-leaders should interupt the calls. If the team-leader hears something that sounds like its not like it should be, then they have to interupt the call. Erik says that we had agreed that the team-leader shouldnt interupt the calls, like when I was working in the food-store, then we didnt interupt the chasiers while they were serving the customers. Line says that if an agent activates a program when its clear that he shouldnt, then its gross misconduct, and the agents would rather get interupted than loose their job, so she thinks its ok to interupt. Erik wonders how the routine is supposed to be for team-leaders interupting the calls. Line says she would have taped the agent on the shoulder, and asked the agent to ask the customer to wait, and then explained to the agent what to say etc. Erik says he has to think more about this. [Line normally dont speak about things like gross misconduct etc. (because an expression like gross misconduct isnt often in an English-speaking Norwegians vocabulary). But she used the term like she knew exactly what it meant. Yet on the meeting 31/10, she didnt know what other terms like harassment meant, so I recon that shes probably been speaking with the other managers about this episode and about gross misconduct.] SUMMARY OF PROBLEMS WITH VIVIAN Erik says that in the light of the latest episodes involving problems with Vivian, hed tried to write a list with the problems and with some more examples. Line says that it takes much time to go through the same things again. Erik says that when they are summarised up then it makes it easier to get it clear why he finds the way she behaves threatening. Erik goes quickly through the lists: PROBLEMS WITH VIVIAN: - Interupting while Im on the phone. - Interupting while Im logging calls. - Brings up many subjects very fast [often when youre occupied doing other work-tasks]. - Presents changes/new rules suddently, inbetween calls. - Wants to teach me how to do my job all the time. [Even if Ive worked there longer] - Dont pay any attention to agreements, like what we agreed in the meeting 12/9, that team-leaders and agents should treat their colleages with respect and in a decent and polite manner. - Is picking, complaining, 'naging'. In Norwegian I think I would have called it 'mobbing' = bullying. [And shes doing it all the time.] - And Ive tryed to bring up most of these problems earlier, but it hasnt helped. - Im trying to focus on my work, but is all the time being interupted by her wanting to controle everything in detail. - Shes acting agressive, impatient, [and threatening]. EXAMPLES: - In the moment a phone-call ends, she asks about something in an agressive tone, then 'Im warning you about being on wrap-up'. Line says she thinks Vivian should have said 'Can you log meeting?' first. - I says, 'One moment I'll just log this', and then she: 'Why dont you log during the calls?' Me: 'Im concentrating about ending the call.' She: 'Your loggin havent been good the last days'. Me: 'Ive been tired lately.' She: 'Its important to do ones job'. - Shes sitting on the chair next to me, and then shes asking about help with maths (excel). Shes listening to the calls, and starts 'naging' about the script ++. inbetween the calls, I have move to another place [to get some peace]. - Im talking with Judith transfering a call, when she interupts, wants to know whats happening. When Ive transfered the call, she says: 'You can go on available, you'. [Like we always do after transfering a call], in an impolite way. - Meeting about wrap-up that Vivian and me had right after the new scripts and wrap-up rule was interduced: We agreed in the meeting that I should keep in the back of my head that I should work on gradually inproving the wrap-up time. I explained that I not used with this being an issue at all, and that I was used with taking the calls etc. in rutinely way, so I would need some time to adapt to the new changes. [Especially since we recently had also got the changes with the new scripts, and the focus on the call-time etc, and I hadnt got used to this yet]. Yet, on the next day (and after), she continues to complain about the same thing, just like the meeting the day before had never taken place. - 'You have to ask for product-keys on the Danish calls'. I didnt know that this was usual at all. Was she doing it to punish me or something? - Rules are changing all the time. First we were to transfer calls ourself to technical support. Then we were to transfer the calls to the TL, which would transfer them to tech.support. Then we were to try to transfer them for 2 minutes to tech.support and then transfer them to the team-leader. And then we were also, according to Vivian 26/10, meant to transfer calls to other agents instead to the TL, so that the TL could transfer to the other agent. Line says that I didnt have to transfer this last type of calls to the TL but could transfer these calls directly to the agent. [There are also more examples. Eg. on 27/7, Vivian and I were having a conversation, were I told her about the new pay-slip, and that I hadnt got paid for all the overtime I had been working in my holiday. Vivian said that I should send an email to HR regarding this, since she herself was busy writing a report. Later in the conversation I asked her something, and then instead of answering, she started complaining about me having an empty carrier-bag behind the computer, this being a health and safety issue, and breach of company-rules. So then at the end of the shift, when the other people at the campaign had left, I said to her that I tought that team-leaders should be able to have a conversation in a proper manner. She agreed to have this in mind. I wrote a note about this meeting in my organizer-book, and also other notes on a sheet of paper when I got home, so thats why I still know the date. (Althoug the meeting didnt help much, her behaviour just got worse, even if we also had a meeting about this, and also about general behavior at work on 13/9). Notes from 11/9: Talking to me while being on the phone. Asks if its a terminal-server call in the midle of the call. It becomes stressing with interuptions and comanding. Shes talking very fast. Shes talking more quiet with Maiken, and doesnt interupt her on the phone. Notes from 12/9: Talks to me while Im on the phone. Asks if its a change product-key call. Notes from 20/10: Talks to me while Im on the phone. Regarding a transfer to tech. support.] CONTINUING FROM MEETING 31/10/06 [The first things I went throug on this meeting, about the episode 5/11, and the summary of the problems Ive been having with Vivian, werent in the original notes I had for this meeting, that I brought to the meeting 31/10. But because of the incidents 5/11, I thought the situation had become worse in the mean-time, and I knew that we were going to have this meeting quite soon after 5/11, so I choose to also bring these things up on this meeting, because I thought these things were further examples of bullying/harassment/provocations, and should be seen in connection with the other incidents. The next issues in the meeting are from the notes I brought to the meeting on 31/10:] SOME DAYS BEFORE THE HARASSMENT INCIDENT ON 26/10 Inbetween the calls, Vivian says: 'There is a change in the script now. You cant say "Welcome to Microsoft" any longer, youve got to say "Thanks for calling Microsoft"'. This was only a few days after we had got the new script. [Were it said that we now only has got to ask for the product-key in the calls in which the customer says that its the first time he activates the program]. Why werent the new rules for the opening of the calls presented at the same time as the other changes in rules were presented. [Instead of presenting the change inbetween the calls]. Eighter this, or wait untill we had got used with the new script, and then present this later, so that there isnt to much changes in a short periode of time? Line says that we havent got to say 'Thanks for calling Microsoft'. As long as we remember to be polite, include the word Microsoft and say your name, then its not importent exactly how the welcome-greeting is worded. Erik wonders if these things [about if you are following the script or not] arent supposed to be brought up on ASDP-meetings (like the one we had on 06/10)? Line says that agents could updated on these things inbetween ASDP meetings, but she things updates should be done on meetings and not inbetween calls. And then a bit later: Vivian writes on a sheet of paper that is laying beside me [Ive been writing down quite a few of the things that have been going on, and kept the notes of different things. Much because Id long before this thought that it seemed like there could be more problems ahead, and Ive learned in previous jobs that its important to be able to document if there are problems etc. I went through the notes, and I found the sheet of paper that she had written on.], in English, "System update Say it nex 2 calls.". She writes this while Im on my last call before lunch, so since its my last call before lunch, I dont nod to her to conferm this, because if i should start to explain that Im on my lunch-break anyway [which she could have know by looking on the form], then it would be to complicated to explain without interupting the call and talking. Then I go to lunch, I remember Vivian was sitting in a meeting with Aidan. I try to explain to her that Im on my lunch-break, and that this is the reason that I didnt nod to her to confirm her written message. I think i say 'Vivian' or something to get her attention, but she doesnt respond. I dont want to be impolite and speak to loud and interupt while they are having the meeting, so I just go and take my lunch-break. Erik wonders how the agents are supposed to answer these written messages while they are on the phone. Line says that I was ok to go to lunch. Line will write Vivian an email, were shell write that she thinks its better to talk with the agents than write a message, because then its easier not to misunderstand. SIMILAR EPISODE Erik says that something similar happened earlier as well. This was also the last conversation before the lunch-break. Vivian writes 'Can you go on the finish line', and a log-in I think, while Im on the phone. Then she disapears on a lunch-break, without checking the form, then she would have seen that I was on a lunch-break. [When she got back, and sat down, I logged off, and went over to speak with her, then she said in an unpolite way: 'what do you want'. She almost said it in a way that reminds a bit of the sound cats make when they want to warn/scare you, I dont remember the English word. I explained that I was meant to be having my lunch-break 40 minutes earlier. But that because of that we were understaffed after 4pm (I remember I was the only agent working the late-shift that day, many agents quit earlier in the automn, so we quite often were understaffed around that time), Id try to only have a 20-30 minute break (this must have been around 3.45 pm, I always write myself up on a 3 pm break if noone else have written themselves on that time). Vivian said that I shouldnt worry about it. I was back about 4.10 or 4.15 I think, and then Vivian had got Nina to work overtime until I arrived, if I remember right. Nina didnt say anything, she just went home.] Line says that I should have just gone on the lunch-break. Erik says that if I had done that, then there wouldnt have been any agents taking the finish calls. Line says that this isnt the agents responsibility, so they shouldnt think about that. Erik says that of course, when you have worked a place quite long, then you try to act responsible, and if you think the campaign is going to get lots of complaints etc, then of course you try to avoid this. You wouldnt want the whole campaign to be moved to another place, and then everybody would loose their job. EPISODE WITH THE BREAK-FORM One of the reasons I thought it was strange that Vivian didnt look at the break-form, was that I remembered a situation from when we were sitting at the 4th floor [I think it was probably in July or August.] Then, when my shift started, there wasnt any break-form ready. I think I worked the early shift, and that Vivian was late. [So then later, when it was my usual break-time, I explained to Vivian that I hadnt written on the break-form, since it wasnt there at the beginning of the day, and asked if it was ok that I went on my break. (This was probably at 12.00, since thats when I always used to take my lunch-break when I worked the early shift, since the late-shift starts at 12.00.) Vivian said that this was ok. I also asked if it was ok that I didnt write on the break-form, because I was on my way out, and Id already told her that I was going for a break, so I guessed that there wasnt much point in writing myself on the list. (On the other hand, I thought that Vivian was a bit picking on agents sometimes, so I thought It would be best to ask, so that she didnt complain later). But I asked in a nice way, so I thought shed just be nice back and say that it was ok that I didnt write myself on the list.] Vivan said that I should go and write my name on the list, because then they got the overview. [I didnt really think that me writing my name on the list would add much to her overview, since she already knew that I was going for a break. (And if the agents writing themselves on the list was so important, then why wasnt the list there at the beginning of the shift). I remember I felt a bit embaresed and stupid, having to walk the extra way to the break-form, past all the people, just to sign on the form,.when it already was agreed that I was having my break then. So I thought she was just saying it to, I dont know, show that she was the one in charge, or embares me or something like that. But the room was full of people, who I think had heard the conversation, Vivian was always sitting next to Judith, and in the corner, so it was difficult to speak with her without people hearing. And once I asked Judith if Vivian was there or not (on the place next to her), and then Judith got a bit insulted it seemed to me, and after this sometimes was just looking at me without saying anything. So I didnt like to go close to where she sat to often, before I was certain that she didnt bear a grudge towards me. But with the room full of people, I didnt want to argue with the team-leader, so I signed the form and went for my lunch-break.] So I didnt get this episode, that she points out that the break-form helps her get the overview, to go with the later two episodes where she didnt have the overview, even if she could just have had a look on the break-form. TEAM-LEADER APPLICATION Because I hadnt recieved any answer to my team-leader application from 30/06/06, I tryed to get a meeting with [Senior team-leader] Aidan, about what had been going on with the application-process. On this meeting [06/10/06], I asked Aidan questions about why I hadnt got any answer on the application, about why they hadnt written in the anoncement that it wasnt certain that they actualy would employ someone. About why neighter the campaign or the applicants had been given any feedback/update/ information about the application-process at all. Like no confirmation on that the application was recieved, no answer to the application, no explenation to the campaign or the applicants about why noone had been employeed in the position. [During the application-process, which lastet from 30/06/06 untill September or October, no information/update/feedback at all was given to the campaign or the applicants about what was going on regarding the recruitment-process. I had to ask my line-manager all the time to get to know what was going on, and everytime I got a different answer, like 'Aidan is on holiday', 'They havent been given the applications from HR yet' (and this was something like two months after the last application-date!), 'Its because there have been fewer calls than expected, they have to see how the amount of calls will develop', etc. I knew that the amount of calls would be higher again in September, because the summer- holiday was finished etc, but when still nothing happened, I asked if I could speak with the STL about this.] Aidans answer was that these were good points [things like giving the applicants information, and an answer to the application. To inform and keep the campaign updated, and to write it in the anoncement if it isnt certain that they actually will employ someone], and he said they would remember to do this next time. At first I thought that this was ok, I wasnt used to speaking with the STL, and thought that maybe Id gone a bit far asking for a meeting about this. [I wasnt sure about how things like these were normally done in England, and didnt want to act out of line.] But then I started to think more about it, and then I thought about it this way: Like, Arvato is a big company, with many hundred employees, right? So, they must have hired people very many times before, right? So they shouldnt really need me to tell them how to do this. They really should know how to go through an application-process in a proper manner from all the times theyve hired people before. [Only the Liverpool department of Arvato alone must have hired people more than a thousand times (since there are many hundred employees, and also high turnover, and often shifting campaigns), so recruiting people is something they really should know how to do from before.] So I thought more about this, and thought that maybe it was possible to find something regarding this in the Employee Handbook. In the Employee Handbook, it says that Arvato has got its own policy for recruiting employees [Employee Handbook, Section 3.1.2, Recruitment Policy], and that its possible to contact HR and get a copy of this policy [Employee Handbook, Section 3.1.2: '.... Copies of the Recruitment Procedure are available from the Human Resourses Department and should be adhered to on all occasions.']. Erik: Since I dont think that the application-process has been conducted in a proper manner, and since Im not sure that the process has been conducted in line with Arvato policy, Id like to contact HR and ask to get a copy of the recruitment policy, and see what it says. Line says that then I should email eighter Sarah Rushby or Claire Singleton at HR. Erik: Have HR got their old office back, the one they had before the fire? Line explains where HR are now. SIGN IN FORM On the ASDP-meeting 06/10/06, among other things we also were talking about the rules regarding what happened if an employee was one or two minuttes late. I remember from working as a store-manager in Norway, that there it wasnt aloved for the managers to change what the employees wrote on the sign-in form. And because it isnt aloved in Norway, Im not sure if its ok in England for the company to deduct 15 minutes of the employees salary if the employee is one minute late. Erik: I thougth Id just add this also in this meeting, since Id decided to bring up all the things that had been going on in this meeting. This isnt a big problem to me, but maybe it should be checked up to see if this is in line with regulations etc. Line says that this is company policy. BREAKS Regarding the situation with the breaks [That it isnt aloved for an employee to take more than 40 minutes lunch-break. Because the employee have got 60 minutes break-time on an ordinary shift. And since I moved to my new appartment, I had problems with the new, higher rent, so I used to eat at home in the lunch- break, because this was much less expensive. So, regularly since July, and also earlier when I had to do earends in the lunch-break, I used to take maybe 50 or 60 minute breaks in the lunch-break. And I almost never used to have ten minutes breaks, because I dont smoke, and I didnt have any useful things to do in the ten minute breaks. Id usually eighter had a 30-60 minutes lunch-break, and then work 8-8.5 hours. The way I did with the lunch-breaks, was that if I was working the early-shift, then I waited till the late-shit had started at 12.00, before I went on a lunch-break. And if i worked the late-shift, then I took my lunch-break at 3 pm, so that I would have finished my break before 4. pm, when the early-shift went home. From working as a store-manager in Norway, I knew the importance of fitting the lunch-breaks in with the times that other employees were at work. And if you did it this way, then youd allways have cover by the people working the other shift during the breaks. In the beginning I used to ask the team-leaders if it was ok if I had a 50 or 60 minutes lunch- break instead of 40 minutes, as long as my daily break-time wasnt longer than 60 minutes, and as long as I had the break on a time that it was cover on the campaign. And I was always told was ok, and I got the impression that it wasnt even necessary to ask about this, because it seemed to be usual for other employees also to do this, and it seemed to me that they knew that I always made sure to take my breaks at a time when it was enough cover on the campaign, so it seemed to me that the team-leaders thought that this was an ok way to have the breaks. And it was also good for the daily running of the campaign in the sence that I didnt have the 10 minute breaks, and then this should add at least a bit to the campaign running smother. But then suddently in September or October, when I had been having an about 50 minute lunch-break, the team-leaders startet to complain about this, and say that I could get diciplinary action taken against me if I did this. Since I used to go home in the lunch break, and it took about ten minutes to walk home, then it could be a bit stressing to to the lunch break in 40 minutes. Because it also took some time to make the food, so then I would maybe only be left with 10 minutes to eat the food, so then it wouldnt be any time to relax and calm down in the lunch-break, or if it was something else I had to do on the break it would be stressful. And since we got more and more rules at work, then the work got more and more stressful, and if the lunch-break also was going to be stressful, then really the whole shift was one long periode filled with stress, without any time for calming down. And the fact that the team-leaders hadnt sayd anything about me having lunch-breaks in the way I explained regularly for 2 or 3 months after I moved house, and that I also had been used to have lunch-breaks like these often earlier, without ever getting any negative feedback, I took as it was ok to have lunch-breaks like these. I also used to write on the lunch-break-form that I had lunch break from eg. 12.00-13.00. On the form it said 12-12.40, but I changed it so it said 12.00-13.00. And the first times I had breaks like these, I always asked the team-leaders, and later I was sure that this was ok, so I only wrote it on the form so that everyone would know this and get the overwiev. But suddently this wasnt ok anymore, I wanted to continue having lunch-breaks like I hade used to, so that I could maybe get to take important phone-calls in the break if I had to, and also get a couple of minutes to calm down, so that I didnt have to stress in the lunch-break every day to make it back in 40 minutes. And I also remembered that this arrangement seemed to be ok with (at least the old) team-leaders, so I meant to remember that this was more or less an agreement that I could have breaks like these. So I explained this, that by having more or less an agreement on this, and by writing on the form every day, and by having had breaks like these regularly since I moved. I meant that it exsisted a kind of agreement that I could have breaks like this, at least when I had the breaks at a time when the other shift were still present at the campaign, so that it wouldnt be any problems with covering the lines But the team-leaders said that this wasnt ok, and they contacted STL Aidan, who said that even if I had an agreement that this was ok before, then it wasnt ok any longer]. Regarding this, I think it sounds a bit strange that the new team-leaders/Arvato doesnt have to pay regard to agreements/arangements that has been agreed/arranged with the team-leaders that used to work on the campaign earlier. Because I remember from working as a store-manager in Norway, and there it was clear that you had to keep in mind, and pay regards to agreements that had been made by the the earlier managers, because they had made these agreements on behalf of the company, and then its like an agreement between the company and the employeers, and then I dont think its right for new team-leaders not to pay any respect to this. Line: I though we had already discussed this matter, if we never get finished discussing a matter, then it will just be more and more things to discuss, and well never get to and end of it. Ive said before that STL has said that agreements like these are to a teamleaders discretion, and new team-leaders doesnt have to pay attention to what the old team-leader have said. Erik: Yeah, but I dont think that sounds right. For instance in Norway we have an expression, sedvane, that means that if one have done one thing for a certain amount of time, and noone has complained about this, then after a while it is to late to complain about this, and then it should be ok to do this. We have to take into acount principles like that. Line: Well Ive also studied law in Norway, and these principles dont aply until it has been many years, so its the principle that these decitions are to a team-leaders discretion that aplies, agreements with old team-leaders dont aply. Erik: Does this also aply to written agreements, becausenon-written agreements should be just as binding as written agreements. Line: Its also Arvato policy to have 40 minutes lunch-breaks and 2x10 minutes short-breaks. Erik: But dont you think, that even if its Arvato policy, that if its an agreement that says that we can arrange the breaks differently, then this agreement maybe should be paid regards to even if it isnt Arvato policy? Line: I Dont think so, its whats Arvato policy that counts, and also this is to a team-leaders discretion. Erik: Well, Id like to try to find out more about how this is. How should we do in the mean- time, I mean, because of the problems with it taking time to get through and from work, then I sometimes am a bit late back from the break. I remember one time I was three minutes late, and then you said it didnt matter, how many minutes can one be late back before it matters? Line: I think your acting responsible about this, when you start discussing about minutes and continue to bring up the same discusions again and again. Erik: Ive been trying to sort the matter with the breaks responsible the whole time I have been working here. I always wait till the late shift arrives when Im working early before I have the break, and I always make sure to finish the breake before the early shift leaves when Im working late. And it hasnt been any problems with this way of arranging the breaks at all. And now I also have to take into consideration that I have a team-leader that seems to be on my back, and acting threatening, and seems to want to get rid of me, so I wouldnt want to give anyone any excuses to report me etc. if I get one or two minutes late back from lunch because of this. [Because I was reported a couple of times in May/June when there was problems with the bus and I was 2 minutes late one day, and then 4 minutes late another day. And even if Id then worked there for almost a year, and never been late, sick or absent a single time before, this with me being 2 and 4 minutes late was also reported to Randstad, who I was employed by then, and who brought this up in a meeting, saying that they didnt expect this from me. So because of this, I was concerned that it could also be reported if I was a couple of minutes late back from lunch, and that this could maybe be used against me in other ciromstances, and therefore I thought it would be better to get this clear, considering the situation with all the strange things that were going on on the campaign, the harrasment-situations, threats, etc, I didnt want to give anyone something that could be used against me if I could avoid it.] I remember you said that it was ok when I had a 43 minutes lunch-break, does this mean that its also ok eg. to have a 45 minutes lunch-break, or what with a 50 minute lunch- break if I havnt had the first ten minute break? Line: Well if were going to have it that way then we say that 40 minutes is the limit. Erik: Im not discussing this to be difficult, with the situation on the campgain with the problems with the team-leader etc, I think that it isnt impossible that this could be an issue, and then Id think it would be better to have it clear on how the rules are to be interperated now, so that this isnt going to be a problem later. Line: Ok, well say that a couple of minutes is ok then. Up to 42 minutes break is ok, but not any longer. ASDP MEETING 06/10/06 On the ASDP meeting we had 06/10/06, then you said that there are two things in this job that the agents do not have to think about/care about at all. This was the light [on the phone, its eighter green, orange or red, depending on how many customers that are waiting in the queue. What she meant was that one should go through with the calls equally thorogh when there are 20 customers in the queue as if there are no customers in the queue. The agents shouldnt think about the problems with the customers having to wait in the queue at all.] And the agents should neighter care about/think about the call time. When I said that one of the reasons that I had been stressed the following months, was that I tryed to get the call-time down, then you said that agents shouldnt care about the problem with getting the call-time down at all. I didnt know what to say at the meeting then, because I hadnt prepared to talk about this, like I have now. So on the meeting then, it ended up with giving the impression that I had been stressed because of working on the problem of reducing the call time, when there really wasnt any need for me to be stressed by this. But, when I before this meeting went more thorowly through what had been going on on the campaign in the last months, and how this could have to contributed to me being stressed, then I thought about for instance these things: The buzz-meeting about the call-time, where it was threatened with the new Quality Brief, that could led to one getting fired, and the threats about us having to do the job the way the managers wanted (eg. reducing the call-time), if we wanted to continue working on the campaign. And also, the focus on the call-time, with it being written on the board every day, ranked by who has got the lowest call-time. And also, we get emails everyday, with feedback on our stats from the day before, and these stats are always ranked by call-time, even if other stats should really be considered more important. Eg. wrap-up time is included in the ASDP-program, and has got its own ASDP-score, yet the reports are still ranked by the agents call-time which arent in the ASDP-program [and which Line said on the meeting 06/10/06 that the agents shouldnt think about/worry about]. Line: Well, now since the new script [were the agents havent got to ask about the product-key for all the calls any longer], call-time is also going to be included in the ASDP-program, so now this isnt going to be problem any longer, after the new script. [I didnt go any further on this point, the point really being that she said on the ASDP-meeting on 06/10/06, that thinking about the call-time wasnt a reason for being stressed, because the call-time was something the agents didnt have to think about/worry about at all. While other team-leaders on the buzz-meeting in June, threatened us with that we could get fired if we didnt solve the problem with the call-time the way the managers wanted. And the fact that it was a very big fucus on the call-time. All the time we got emails about it. It was written ranked by average call-time on a big board, with names, average call-time and different colours by if you had managed to achive the call-time goal or not. And also we every day got an email with info of our stats from the day before, and these were ranked by, and largly focused on the call-time. So I didnt get this to go with what she was saying on the meeing 06/10/06, that the agents shouldnt worry about/be stressed about the call-time. But we had almost argued on the point before, about the lunch-breaks, and I was a bit tired this day from working much overtime etc, and I really thought that my point about why I really brought this up would be quite clear, to get an explanation about how she could say one thing in the ASDP-meeting, when its quite clear with all the focus on the call-time and the threats in the buzz-meeting etc. that this is not how this issue is being looked at in the campaign in general. From what weve been presented we really should put effort towards and care about reducing the call-time. And the she said it in the ASDP-meeting, that there were two things the agents shouldnt worry about in the job, the light and the call-time. She smiled in an almost patronising way, in a way indivating that it should be obvious to everyone that these were things that the agents didnt need to worry/care about. So I thought that she should have understood that this was my point, and that it was strange if she didnt understand my point. And if she did understand my point, and still didnt coment on this point, then this was a bit strange as well. So this confused me a bit, so I wasnt sure on how to continue with this issue, so I decided to just continue with the next point.] ASDP SCORES On the meeting 06/10/06, we went through all the ASDP-scores, and I got 4/4 on all of them except one I got 3/4 on, and another one I got 2/4 on. The one I got 2/4 on again, was that to do with how you try to act responsible/try to lead the other co-workers on the campaign? Because if it was, then I think it must be a misunderstanding, because when Im working on the campaign, I dont like to tell people all the time what to do, like some other agents they all the time tell the other agents, now you should do this, and now you can do that. But even if I dont act like that all the time, it doesnt mean that I dont act responsible and care about the campaign running well. Like if there arent any team-leaders on the campaign, then I always try to make sure that eg. there is cover on all the lines, and if I work early, then before I go home I always make sure that all the lines are covered by the people working the late shift. (eg. I tell Osman or Eown to go on a TL-login if there isnt cover on the Finish lines). And around Christmas last year, when the team-leaders where home on holiday, and the temperarly English team-leader had quit Arvato before new year, and Judith got sick and had to go to hospital, and all the other agents were eighter being on holiday for christmas or new year, then I worked the shifts that noone else were working because of sicknes etc, and worked extra on the other shifts that were very understaffed, and made sure that the campaign still were running even if all the team-leaders were absent for different reasons. So even if I dont tell people what to do all the time, it doesnt mean that I dont act responsible, and I look after the campaign when there arent any team-leaders present, even if I dont tell people what to do all the time. Just to make sure that there arent any misunderstandings regarding this, and that a misunderstanding like this could be the reason to why I havent been made team-leader etc. [since I thought there had had to be something going on, since I thought the way the team-leader recutation-process hadnt been conducted seemed a bit strange, so I was trying to find out if there could eg. have been a misunderstanding surrounding this that could have been causing me not getting the job.] Line sayd that the ASDP-score hadnt got to do with this. It was an ASDP-score that wasnt relevant for the campaign, so she used to give all the agents 2/4 on it. She said that she had the impression that I acted responsible and did my job well, and she had also got positive feedback regarding me from the other agents [I also asked her on the ASDP-meeting 06/10/06 if it was anything surrounding the ASDP-scores or how I did my job in general that she could see point at as a reason of why I didnt get the team-leader job. And she said that she couldnt see any reason for this. That ASDP-meeting was on the same day, a few hours earlier, as the meeting with STL Aidan about the problems surrounding the team-leader recruitment-process, and I thought the process had been a bit strange. (With the campaign not being given any feedback at all, with applicants not getting any answer on the applications, and the process draging on for months without anything happening, and with me being given different answers all the time when I asked the team-leaders why nothing was happening. I knew that my application was strong, since I had been working in management for ten years in Norway, and because I had been working with customer-support, knew the campaign well, know the Scandinavian languages, had studied computers, had been having modules in management and organisation on universty-level, had been having many management courses etc. from when I was working as a manager in one of Norways bigest companies (Ica-gruppen formerly hakon-gruppen). So when nothing happened with the recruitment-process, and no feedback at all was given, I thought this was a bit peculiar, and I wondered what the reasons for this could be, and if this could be that they for some reason didnt want to hire me in this posistion, and I therefore tried a bit to find out what the reasons for that could be. And the ASPD scores were good. I think they were 3.9/4 and 3.6/4 or something like that. And those scores covered most parts on how I did my job, so it didnt seem like it was the way I did the job that was the reason that I didnt get promoted.] She said that the team-leaders hadnt got anything to do with the team-leader recruitment at all, but that it was the STL and other people in the organisation that had to do with this. We agreed that I should contact core-care about the harassment-cases etc., and then later, wed have a new meeting surrounding how these issues should be dealt with further. We finished the meeting and went back to the campaign.

---