Yanks, Brits - Racists for Lack of Understanding
May 31, 2005
OK, "Eugene," I don't think it's your accent that people are reacting to, rather it's the fact that many call center workers in Pakistan don't understand or speak English well enough to have a call center job. I can't tell you how many times I've personally been directed to a call center in India, talking with a "Michele," or a "Steven," or a "Humphrey," that I've had to repeatedly say "What?," or "Say again?," "I didn't understand you," "I can't understand what you're saying."
Posted by jkhat at May 31, 2005 12:03 AM
The trackback entry for this page is : http://www.inthehat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/934
The Guardian reports that call centers in India are experiencing a high turnover rate because of "abuse from British and American customers." That customers are frustrated by and insulting to call center workers is something that I don't have a hard time believing - no one likes surfing through a phone tree, waiting on hold for an hour, only to talk to an incompetent and unqualifed no-education-or-experience-required
off-the-street worker. Believe me, I've spent more than my fair share of time on the phone with customer service representatives (CSR's) and tech support people that have no earthly clue what they're doing.
I've also spent a fair amount of time "on the other side of the line" in the call center - I used to develop software for use in call centers and part of my job was to spend time "in the field" assessing the call center's needs. I've spent dozens of hours in call centers all around the country and I can tell you that every single call center is driven by one thing and one thing only - numbers. It's all about decreasing the cost per call, increasing your resolutions per hour, opening fewer tickets, coming off with a higer customer satisfaction rating, etc.
The standard operating procedure in call centers is to have the CSR's and support people follow an established "decision tree," so when I say that no experience is necessary I literally mean that a 10 year old has enough technical knowledge to work "tech support."
Given this environment, it's no surprise that customers hate talking to a tiny know-nothing cog in the big machine. That the frustration is a direct result of the company trying to keep costs as low as possible is understandable, isn't it? Well, the Guardian article has a different explanation for the abuse dished out to Indian CSR's. According to the Guardian, it's all driven by racism. They quote one worker, "Eugene," as saying:
'There was a lot of racist abuse once people detected from our accents that we weren't English. I saw girls reduced to tears by it.'
OK, "Eugene," I don't think it's your accent that people are reacting to, rather it's the fact that many call center workers in Pakistan don't understand or speak English well enough to have a call center job. I can't tell you how many times I've personally been directed to a call center in India, talking with a "Michele," or a "Steven," or a "Humphrey," that I've had to repeatedly say "What?," or "Say again?," "I didn't understand you," "I can't understand what you're saying."
Pooja Chopra, 29, from Delhi, who spent two years fielding calls for BT Cellnet and America Online, faced similar abuse. 'People would say, "You're a Paki, I don't want to talk to you, pass me to someone who can speak my language".
OK, now I happen to know that Pakistanis consider the term "Paki" to be a derrogatory term, akin to calling someone a "mutt" or a "mixed breed." From what I understand, "Paki" was derived from the first letters of four groups of people living on the land, (p-a-k-i) and "stan" just means "land." Hence "Pakistan," or P-A-K-I land. Given that it _is_ the name they chose for their country I'm not sure how reasonable their objections are, but I can tell you one thing - 95% of Americans and Brits using the term "Paki" have no earthly clue that it might be a derogatory term. People who live in Australia are called Aussies or Australians, and similarly, people assume that Pakistanis are also "Pakis."
What people are really saying is "You're a Paki, You live in Pakistan and don't speak my language, I don't want to talk to you I pay real money to this company and expect to talk to someone who can understand me and whom I can undertand, pass me to someone who can speak my language."
Certainly there is nothing "racist" about objecting to being forced to speak to someone with whom you cannot communicate, is there? Isn't that a reasonable request?
Not if you ask the Guardian.
Posted by jkhat at May 31, 2005 12:03 AM
The trackback entry for this page is : http://www.inthehat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/934
| Trackback Entries | |
| Dummocrats.com linked with Yanks, Brits - Racists for Lack of Understanding | |
| Dummocrats.com linked with Yanks, Brits - Racists for Lack of Understanding | |
Comments
| # May 31st, 2005 7:35 AM Laura |
| I agree - and I have worked in call centers as well. The fact is that even under the best of circumstances, that job will take a lot of abuse, because the reason people are calling in, by definition, is that there is a problem. To survive it, you must have excellent communication skills and a high level of empathy for the poor sap who sat in the queue for an hour or two hoping to receive help. People who are sensitive or can't imagine themselves in the other guys' shoes have no chance whatsoever.
Al-Guardian is just another lazy liberal rag. It's easier to complain that the poor brown people are being picked on rather than take the time to really research the problem and write a thoughtful, useful article. |
| # May 31st, 2005 7:39 AM BrianH |
| You didn't work for Clarify developing their call center products did you? If so I've got a few dozen choice words for you...8*)
I work for a call center and have been fighting the battle from the other side. Believe me, WE don't like seeing work channeled through Bangalor either, but... in order to compete and stay in business (IE keep a job) something has to be done to control costs. You're right that it's primarily a numbers game, but there are customer satisfaction issues as well. The current vision is that the script readers will answer the majority of the "easy" questions and the more difficult issues will get passed to someone who knows what they're doing. In some cases these people aren't script readers and have detailed training on the products but don't have the experience to troubleshoot complex problems. The hard part is convincing the low level person that they haven't fixed your problem and getting them to pass you to the next level. Sometimes this is done indirectly (the lower level will ask the expert who gives the answer to the lower level who gives the answer to the customer), sometimes directly (the expert talks directly to the customer). |
| # May 31st, 2005 8:19 AM KVBigSis |
| "What people are really saying is "You're a Paki, You live in Pakistan and don't speak my language, I don't want to talk to you I pay real money to this company and expect to talk to someone who can understand me and whom I can undertand, pass me to someone who can speak my language."
I completely agree with you. Last year I had to call Yahoo Travel because they had arbitrarily changed my flight to give me 15 minutes at O'Hare to change terminals. It took me over half an hour to explain the situation to some poor girl who did not speak much English, and MORE time to get a change in flight. I was pissed off before I BEGAN the call. By the time it ended, I was a raving lunatic. I took it out on my travel folder instead of the woman who answered the call, but I can understand how some people would have become abusive. It's ridiculous to call that customer service. |
| # May 31st, 2005 8:45 AM TheUnabrewer |
| There's nothing I hate more than those damn Swedes from Switzerland. |
| # May 31st, 2005 9:37 AM james |
| swedes from switzerland, oi, what am i thinking. youre right unabrewer... this is what i get for ranting so late at night. i'm gonna edit that one ;-) i need an editor. |
| # May 31st, 2005 9:59 AM james |
no, not Clarify BrianH, so don't take your frustration out on me. 
the low level person is a huge part of the problem, agreed. often times they are not permitted to escalate an issue until they've completed their checklist of steps, even if it makes no sense to do so. i'm reminded of one call that i made to tech support about a broken computer that i was responsible for maintaining back when i was in college - the one i was working on had a bad cache chip it was causing the computer to crash. i knew it was a cache problem b/c i had 1) moved the hard drive to an idential computer and everything worked fine 2) put the HD back in the original computer and swapped the RAM, but it kept crashing, so I 3) replaced the MB on the original machine with that from another machine, and everything worked fine. diagnosis - bad cache chip. tried telling this to tech support at gateway, though, and the "tech" repeatedly told me that it was a windows problem, that i should re-install windows, etc. she kept saying "sir, it can't possibly be a hardware problem..." all because that's what her little checklist said. oi. she wasted two hours of employer's time and money, not to mention gateway's time. in the end i got her to send me a new motherboard, and lo and behold, everything worked fine. as a result, i've never bought a gateway computer myself, and i've personally counseled dozens of people against buying gateways. my employer also eventually quit buying gateways b/c of support issues, costing thousands of sales per year. (very large employer.) i can't believe that companies still insist on dicking around their customers like that. in any event, when i talk to tech support or customer service now, i usually throw around call-center lingo like CSR and sup-loop. that gets you escalated quicker. |
| # May 31st, 2005 10:48 AM BrianH |
| I've had similar experiences. A "tech" on the other end insists it's a problem with something completely unrealted. Rather than arguing with them and explaining that I've been doing it for 20 years and have a good idea what's wrong, I will usually lie and say "yes I've done that" just to get to the next item on the checklist.
Some companies are better than others. The good ones will allow their front line people to use judgement (mine does, or at least my subset of my company does). Others are so rigid that you just have to submit to the stupid questions. P.S. Glad you didn't inflict this pain on me. 8*) I'm mostly frustrated with the Clarify stuff because it replaced a home grown system that "worked" and was much easier to use. I understand the need to go to a more off the shelf solution, it's just irritating to have to do so many steps to accomplish what I used to do with one command. |
| # May 31st, 2005 10:59 AM james |
| the software i developed wasn't completely "off the shelf" - we did a high level of customization. that's why i sat in call centers watching what the CSR's did. it's one thing to ask CSR's what they want or need - sometimes you get good input. it's much more beneficial, in my opinion, to sit and watch people actually use your software for a while. i see a user repeatedly performing the same complex action again and again, i.e. enter menu x, select item y, choose subset z, etc, well, that series of input events should be made easier to access. maybe it should even get its own button, or a keystroke.
(sigh... sadly, no one uses keystrokes anymore...) |
| # May 31st, 2005 1:11 PM freethinker |
| This topic is awesome! Nevermind that it became a call center chat board! (J/k, I hate the troubleshooting calls I have to take.)
Seriously though, what is the problem, oh humble liberal bashers? Maybe its the conservative, big business government you champion offering easy cost reductions for large companies? Creating no incentives and allowing tax breaks for companies looking for the cheap way out. You want to complain about losing work oversees, well bring it back! Yeah, and who the hell wants to talk to somebody they can't understand half way around the planet that is working the graveyard shift to be available when we're awake? I agree, the Guardian is whining. But realize the root of this problem is whats government policy currently in place. |
| # May 31st, 2005 1:36 PM BVBigBro |
| No, the root of the problem is that most people are unwilling to pay for the service. |
| # May 31st, 2005 4:43 PM jleff |
| Great topic! I do agree with the notion that people are NOT venting anger because of job losses....they are venting anger because they aren't getting the customer service they are paying for.
One note, though. The term "Paki" is considered derogatory in the UK, though it is not in the US. There's no reason it should be considered derogatory (cf. Brit, Aussie), but the liberal British media has made it so. So I have no doubt that the callers that used the term "Paki" were indeed British and were intentionally using it in a derogatory way. But that is neither here nor there. The root problem is the downhill landslide in customer service ever since the outsourcing train started to roll. |
| # May 31st, 2005 4:45 PM kris |
| Would people pay a premium for guaranteed domestic customer service, or, better yet, "advanced" customer service that was only available to those payers? |
| # May 31st, 2005 5:03 PM james |
| i gladly pay extra to fly midwest airlines. wide seats, excellent customer service. fresh baked chocolate chip cookies.
i've flown quite a bit in my short life, probably over 100 times. believe me, paying a little bit more is well worth it in that case. b/c they have superior customer service. but to answer your question - people shouldnt have to pay extra for customer service. if dell sells me a crappy laptop, and it comes with a warranty, they'd damn well better be prepared to support it in a language that i can understand. |
| # May 31st, 2005 5:08 PM BVBigBro |
| Ahh yes, I paid for the Buick, now where's my Cadillac? |
| # June 1st, 2005 7:13 AM BrianH |
| Freethinker,
The real problem is economics. When computer systems cost between several thousand to tens of millions of dollars, it's not hard to justify spending a few extra thousand dollars to provide support for the system. When a computer costs a few hundred bucks, you can only justify spending a fraction of that on support. It's sometimes cheaper to throw the thing away and replace it than it is to fix it. By moving the support to Bangalor, you can provide a volume of low level support for a much lower cost than in the US. It's a business that won't work with US labor costs, but may work with lower overseas labor costs. I'm glad I don't support PCs or I'd be looking for new work now (I'm thinking of planting a vineyard), but even with the larger systems the prices are dropping and the realities of support costs are an issue. I and my co-workers have been DIRECTLY effected by outsourcing. But I can't suggest protectionist policies, they will either drive the entire industry out of business (due to costs) or will drive ALL our jobs overseas (most companies are international now and it wouldn't be difficult to move a division). With outsourcing of the lower level support, many of us can keep our jobs here. I don't like it, but I understand it. The flip side of all this is James' point that if you can't get good support in your own language, you'll start buying from someone who provides support in your languange PROVIDED their initial cost is nearly the same. Seriously, will you pay $2500 for a computer that you can get elsewhere for $500 because you can get US based English support? A few people will, but not enough for a company to stay competitive. Most people will pay the $500 and just bitch about the "qwikie mart" accents on the support line. |
| # June 1st, 2005 11:02 AM freethinker |
| True, true. Long live the Mac! This problem is like the WalMart syndrome. BrianH, I'd venture to guess like me you try to avoid these juggernauts that undersell the competition and then blindside us with sub-par customer service. Although the typical American, many for economic reasons, are drawn to these bargains (like McD's) that really make our lives worse little by little.
Real quick though, just a thought. Are Michael Dell, Bill Gates or any of their peers who run these mega buck companies seriously trying to make us believe that they "have" to get India to work the call centers? No, c'mon guys. They do it to keep their costs down so that everybody buys from them and they get another $50M yacht. As much as I believe that if you work hard and are successful you should get to reap the benefits. But our founding fathers meant that for farmers and such so they weren't unfairly abused by government, ie - kings and rulers. They didn't foresee a commoner like Gates or Dell riding the backs of the lower classes and claiming they "did it all themselves". The book "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" talks about using other people's money and other people's time. If nothing more, I'd like to think that our government, in this day and age, can help prevent the class gap from widening. |
| # June 1st, 2005 11:29 AM BrianH |
| freethinker,
The Mac is just a PC with a different chip. It has a more user friendly OS than the Intel based PCs and you pay a little more for it, but it's still in the category. They're all commodities. Apple is just playing at the high end of the commodity market. You can't provide above par service at commodity prices. You also can't get too far below par or your competition will eat you alive. The trick is to provide the best value for the dollars spent. I don't think you really understood my point. You CAN'T provide $700 worth of support for a product you're selling for $500. You either have to raise your price (in which case you sell little or nothing) or cut the cost of your support (in which case you loose a few customers due to poor service). I shop at Walmart. It's stupid to pay more for the same products with the same level of support. I don't buy everything at Walmart because they aren't always the best value. Sometimes I go elsewhere because of lower price. Sometimes I go elsewhere because I need better service. Sometimes I go elsewhere because of convenience. Sometimes I use the hardware store on the corner because I like the guy who runs it and I'd like him to stay in business. And I really don't get upset if Gates or Dell or anyone else makes a fortune. That's actually a GOOD thing. I don't particularly like Microsoft's product, but I use it because I need to be compatable with business systems and thousands of others who also use it. I accept the low quality as part of the low cost and compatability that goes with it. |
| # June 1st, 2005 1:40 PM james |
| walmart has done more to make the good life available to the average american than anyone in the history of the republic, except for perhaps henry ford. walmart has made the good life available to the masses. if you think that walmart makes life worse for people then you have serious issues understanding reality. i suggest you talk to your parents about life in the 50's and 60's. |
| # June 2nd, 2005 1:00 AM mbrlr |
| James, James, James...my parents knew life in the '50s and '60s. Hell, they knew life in the '30s and '40s. They remembered the Depression and they knew exactly what people like the folks who run our Bentonville business and don't look out for their employees *are*. I remember places in Memphis and Little Rock and Memphis and Jackson and Monroe and Dallas, even in my childhood in the late '60s and the '70s that are now dead as doornails thanks to that company. The masses, strangely enough, really don't seem much better and the good life doesn't seem to be pouring out upon them from Wal-Mart and its ilk. To think otherwise is a true break with reality. These businesses provide essentially nothing to their workers, either benefit-wise or money-wise, and keep many of them initially from working full time because they don't want to pay even the dreadful benefits they do provide. They are essentially the scum of the earth.
Drive through small town Arkansas or many places elsewhere in the South (or throughout the country) and see what the effect has been of having these do their thing. And they bring cheap, in the bad sense, merchandise and low level jobs. Want to unionize? Well, they have enough money and they're scared enough of it that they'll just shut down and move off...meanwhile, all the old businesses in town have died. Of course, if you have strong unions in the first place and no misnamed "right to work" laws in your state, they don't move in to begin with and life never turns topsy turvy. My point is that those of that sort don't allow the poor to escape poverty. The effect is precisely to keep the poor in poverty while the rich get richer. We've returned to the 19th century economic model and it ain't pretty. The only reason I perhaps lean toward the "end times" nonsense that those popular books are pitching, Catholic/quasi-Orthodox that I am, is that I can see the mark of the beast in these circumstances. I won't say where exactly because I don't want to get sued by our friends up in Bentonville and I do want to make the Rapture, although every time I mention that to my priest, he just looks at me a bit funny. |
| # June 2nd, 2005 7:42 AM BrianH |
| mbrlr,
The only problem with your argument is it doesn't explain what so many people will leave other jobs to take a job at Walmart (I wouldn't want to work there, at least not at the check outs). If they are such a terrible place to work and shop, why will so many people work there and why will so many people shop there? Walmart isn't a slave shop. It doesn't force anyone to work for them. If they want to work in a union shop, they are free to go work for one. Walmart isn't the only store in town. If people don't like the products or prices at Walmart, they can go to Kmart or Sears or Target or liberals-r-us or where ever they please. Walmart isn't evil. It's grown so large because it offers good values to customers in a convenient setting. It's an OK place to work, or the workforce would leave. As for it's effect on other business, I've seen it work both ways. I've seen a marginal grocery store close because a Super Walmart moved in about a mile down the road. I've also seen a large number of other businesses grow up around the Walmart. It seems that where ever Walmart builds other growth follows. Keep looking for signs of the end times. Sam Walton wasn't the antichrist. |
| # June 2nd, 2005 8:38 AM kris |
| I never shop at Wal-Mart. I hate the entire Wal-Mart shopping experience. However, rather than taking that as an indictment of Wal-Mart and how evil they are, I think you should take it as an example of why they are not all-powerful. Despite the market dominance of Wal-Mart other retailers can, and will, survive if they differentiate themselves from Wal-Mart.
Target is a great example of this. Target competes with Wal-Mart through exclusive product lines and marketing that emphasizes the cute over the cheap. If other retailers die because they refuse to change to compete with Wal-Mart (because they can't beat them on price), that's their own fault, not Wal-Marts. Furthermore, Wal-Mart wins on price not just because they're huge. Wal-Mart wins because they have developed the world's most innovative supply chain management strategy. A strategy that has been copied by numerous other companies and has undoubtably led to increased productivity all across the American economy. I hate shopping Wal-Mart, but long live Wal-Mart. |
| # June 3rd, 2005 6:05 AM jonts |
| |
| # June 3rd, 2005 6:07 AM jonts |
| "Given that it _is_ the name they chose for their country I'm not sure how reasonable their objections are",
Right, negroids is a scientific term, the phrase 'nigger' is merely dervided from 'negroid'. Given that negroid is the name for their race, i am not sure how reasonable their (blacks) objections are. |
| # June 3rd, 2005 6:09 AM jonts |
| Rednecks do often have sunburnt necks, so i am not sure how reasonable their objections are to being called that. |
| # June 3rd, 2005 6:10 AM jonts |
| Chinese people- or 'slanty eyes' as i like to call them- they really do have slanty eyes, so i am not sure how reasonable their objections are to being called that.
|
| # June 3rd, 2005 8:44 AM james |
| jonts, try coming up with an example that makes a modicum of sense.
here, you're looking for a place called "redneckland." nothing i said has anything to do with a physical characteristic, dumbass. |
| # June 3rd, 2005 9:14 PM TNcowdaddy |
| Obviously jonts is not a redneck or he would know that we rednecks do not object to the "slur". I find it amusing that anyone would compare "redneck" to "nigger" anyway. The point is that some people deliberately abuse people. If the people of India or Pakistan object to being called names or taking abuse from UK and US customers, let them quit. If the Guardian wants to theorize that it is because of racism, I guess they are welcome to do so, BUT how do they explain the abuse that US customers shell out on incompetent US CSRs at call centers. I've worked in US-based call centers for 9 years. I've heard some racism from customers, but I've also heard a bunch of customers who are just plain jerks. They think they are better than the person on the other end of the line, just because they pay their salary by buying the product. Overall, I agree with the comments that people are upset over incompetence. I'm not a racist, but I DO discriminate against idiots. |
| # June 4th, 2005 10:03 AM Claire |
| So how long before disliking the Frentch is "racist?" |
| # December 1st, 2005 10:14 AM mbrlr |
| Try working in a union shop in a "right to work" state. |
Log in here
or Get an Account here.