Rogers employees reveal shady sales tactics

Other business are no different.

look at banks always trying to add on something .

explorer11 wrote: ↑ Other business are no different.

look at banks always trying to add on something .

Or retail pushing extended warranties. Burden is on individuals to understand the value of offers and make decisions. Make your homeworks.

sprung wrote: ↑"When I had my interview ... they actually asked me 'If an elderly lady calls in to cancel her sports package on her TV because her husband just died, are you going to convince her to keep it and add more?'" says Robinson.

BUT... This does not compute. A paragraph up, "Jessica Robinson recently quit working at the Ottawa call centre after seven years."

Now she's disgusted by this stuff after she managed to do it with a clear conscious for seven years?

I'm no fan of Robbers, but this destroys her credibility as much as she's trying to use it to destroy theirs.

It also destroys CBC's credibility. After all if this sort of stuff is so widespread then why did they choose this person to highlight the abuse? They couldn't find anyone who was so disgusted by these types of job interview questions that they told the interviewer to take their job and shove it?

bylo wrote: ↑ BUT... This does not compute. A paragraph up, "Jessica Robinson recently quit working at the Ottawa call centre after seven years."

Now she's disgusted by this stuff after she managed to do it with a clear conscious for seven years?

I'm no fan of Robbers, but this destroys her credibility as much as she's trying to use it to destroy theirs.

It also destroys CBC's credibility. After all if this sort of stuff is so widespread then why did they choose this person to highlight the abuse? They couldn't find anyone who was so disgusted by these types of job interview questions that they told the interviewer to take their job and shove it?

No where does it state that she had a clear conscious for seven years. I disagree with your assertion that the fact that she was there for seven years destroys her credibility. I interpret her seven years as displaying the experience from an experienced employee and counts to the credibility as this being a long term and valid practice.

skeet50 wrote: ↑No where does it state that she had a clear conscious for seven years.

I meant that sarcastically. If it were me there's no way I'd join a company that asked me that interview question, let alone work there for seven years.

I disagree with your assertion that the fact that she was there for seven years destroys her credibility. I interpret her seven years as displaying the experience from an experienced employee and counts to the credibility as this being a long term and valid practice.

Presumably during that seven year period she was OK with lying to and defrauding her customers. That goes to her credibility now because if she was OK with this for seven years then it's unlikely that that's why she left Robbers over it now. So what are her real motives for speaking with the CBC now?

BTW do you believe that lying to and defrauding customers is a "valid practice" in general? Do you believe that employees have a duty to refuse to do such (possibly criminal) work and/or to report to authorities that they've been required to do so by their employer?

Again, to be perfectly clear: I'm no fan of Robbers. I've been a victim of such shady practices by them. I have no sympathy for them. I'm glad the CBC did the investigation and made their report. My issue is merely with the credibility of the person they're using as the lead witness.

bylo wrote: ↑ BUT... This does not compute. A paragraph up, "Jessica Robinson recently quit working at the Ottawa call centre after seven years."

Now she's disgusted by this stuff after she managed to do it with a clear conscious for seven years?

I'm no fan of Robbers, but this destroys her credibility as much as she's trying to use it to destroy theirs.

It also destroys CBC's credibility. After all if this sort of stuff is so widespread then why did they choose this person to highlight the abuse? They couldn't find anyone who was so disgusted by these types of job interview questions that they told the interviewer to take their job and shove it?

So what? She repented and is now exposing Rogers. Rogers has not repented in 30 years about ripping people off.

sprung wrote: ↑ http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/rogers- ... -1.4481128


"When I had my interview ... they actually asked me 'If an elderly lady calls in to cancel her sports package on her TV because her husband just died, are you going to convince her to keep it and add more?'" says Robinson.

This was on The National last night...



Some Rogers employees are facing extreme pressure to upsell. They say the sometimes have to lie or trick customers to buy products and services they don’t need.

LOL employees facing pressure to upsell?

I don't think any Rogers call I've ever been on, have they had the chance to upsell my anything.

I've either gotten what I want or some type of discount for what they couldn't do for me. I find this a bit funny.

flash67 wrote: ↑LOL employees facing pressure to upsell?...

There's a huge difference between upselling and signing up customers for services they don't need and didn't consent to. The former is perfectly legal, just like McD's "Would you like fries with that?" The latter is sleazy, unethical and possibly criminal.

Most people can just say, "No" to an upsell attempt. But how do they prevent getting signed up anyway, even when they did say "No"?

Its kind of expected. I'm paying $99 for gigabit and vip cable with $160 in monthly credits. At the back of my mind, each time that I call Rogers to apply credits and discounts to my account, I assume one of the way they can afford to subsidize my account is by overcharging and upselling another customer in cable and internet services.

They can keep upselling more packages to me just as long as I also receive a monthly credit that is worth more than the package.

explorer11 wrote: ↑ Other business are no different.

look at banks always trying to add on something .

That's a pretty cynical way of looking at things. There are a number of ethical companies trying to do the right thing...the problem is people don't make it a point to patronize them because they're not offering the crap they don't need such as the latest and greatest phone for $0 down or Gigabit internet or flashy ads on TV (according to this story financed by the customers themselves taking it up the arse with a smile for years). Vicious circle of consumers empowering them, so the ethical company doesn't stand a chance by our own consumer stupidity.

bylo wrote: ↑ ...

Presumably during that seven year period she was OK with lying to and defrauding her customers. That goes to her credibility now because if she was OK with this for seven years then it's unlikely that that's why she left Robbers over it now. So what are her real motives for speaking with the CBC now?

Again, it doesn't state that she was okay with it. That is an assumption that you are making on you part, having never met the person in question. The article did state that she was on leave several times - have you thought that it could have been attributed to the toxic work environment?

Again, to be perfectly clear: I'm no fan of Robbers. I've been a victim of such shady practices by them. I have no sympathy for them. I'm glad the CBC did the investigation and made their report. My issue is merely with the credibility of the person they're using as the lead witness.

I am not a fan of Rogers either. It is disappointing to read you attacking the messenger and not the message.

The employees are the guilty ones here. Just because some greedy corporation pressures you to upsell to ppl doesn't mean you have to. They employees do not say they were forced but were pressured. I'm sure they also got commission or something for those upsells.

When I called to cancel I remember being tossed from agent to agent, it just made me mad. The best line I heard was "but don't you want to watch game of thrones?"

webshark wrote: ↑ The employees are the guilty ones here. Just because some greedy corporation pressures you to upsell to ppl doesn't mean you have to. They employees do not say they were forced but were pressured. I'm sure they also got commission or something for those upsells.

They also got walked out the door if they didn't make quota. Remember the big stink last year about TD Bank employees? This story:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/banks-u ... -1.4023575
This is exactly the same thing.

You can't blame employees for doing what they have to do in order to keep roofs over their heads and food on the table, and employers know that.

Robbers not only uses shady sales tactics on its customers, but also on its employees!

I knew a guy who was hired to work in the call centre much like the people in this story. One of the perks as an employee is you got your services for half price... but the catch is you have to buy ALL your telecom services from them. And they kept reminding him (and every new hire) every day, as if they were trying to sell to their staff as well as to their customers. However, if your household is found to have even 1 competing product, you were disqualified from the discount. So this guy had a mix of providers (what he had is beside the point but for argument's sake let's say he had Bell for TV/Internet/landline and Telus Mobility for wireless). He resisted the temptation to switch since he was happy with what he had, but the Robbers discount price was too tempting. So maybe 4 months after he started there, he took the bait, cancelled all those services, and went all-in with Robbers (and in those days that meant 3 year contracts for your cable box, Internet modem, and of course mobile phones), including multiple iPhones on a family plan.

You can guess what happened next. A week later he was fired for not meeting sales quota (and like the lady in the story, he too called sick a few times due to the stress).
So now this guy has no job and he's stuck with expensive 3 year contracts he can't afford (nor can he afford the cancellation fees).... at full price since he lost the employee discount.

Reading this CBC story -- these people are probably in the same boat -- they fear losing their job (as anybody would) but who knows what kind of bad telecom deal they'll be stuck paying till end of contract once that discount disappears?

This is but one major reason why I refuse to do business with that company. What a way to sucker in new business -- hire somebody then once they've switched over to Robbers and are locked into contracts, fire them. Wow.

Just scummy...And, no, not all biz are like that.

The article made mention of customers being hung up when they tried to file a complaint or cancel a service. I was subject to this myself so I know it exists. To see it illuminated in cold hard facts makes me wish there was a class-action lawsuit so I get the satisfaction of seeing Robber's lose some money even though I'm a current customer.

Very much like Loblaws shady practice about price fixing bread, I don't think they will lose a lot of customers; directly or indirectly through their sister-companies.

At the end of the day, we as a society want to see people who commit transgressions pay for their actions. It isn't always ideal to boycott a company in the name of principles because the net result is you end up harming yourself far worse than them.

tranquility922 wrote: ↑ Just scummy...And, no, not all biz are like that.

Like what? Protecting their own self interest?

When it concerns monetary values, every company is like that. Even supposed charities are looking out for their bottom line.

Supercooled wrote: ↑Like what? Protecting their own self interest? When it concerns monetary values, every company is like that.

So any deceptive sales practice is OK, even subscribing people for services they've explicitly declined?

Where do you draw the line between simply "protecting their own self interest" and acts of criminality? (Or do you draw any lines when it concerns money?)

And how do you propose that consumers go about "protecting their own self interest" in the face of companies like Robbers who hang up on them when they call to undo the damage an overzealous Robbers employee did to them against their will?

Supercooled wrote: ↑ Like what? Protecting their own self interest?

When it concerns monetary values, every company is like that. Even supposed charities are looking out for their bottom line.

Obviously not all biz operate at the scummy level of Rogers.