BG> Also, one of the more objectionable and
BG> time-wasting duties I had to perform at CHH

RS> Interesting fellow in many ways,

BG> A two-faced hypocrite, in fact.

Interesting, wasnt sure if that was true or not, havent seen too much of
him at all. Thats one of the odder things about people in that situation,
you really do see the more markedly different people get into that situation.

RS> be interesting to watch how he goes over the years. Jerking staff
RS> around like he did with you aint exactly a terrific idea tho.

BG> He's still holding a MAJOR grudge about that, too.  Did I ever end up
BG> telling you the full story?  Can't remember now, so I'll do so again.

BG> I was employed to replace a fellow who had burned himself
BG> out, but after 6 weeks, he (Roger) decided to come back, so
BG> my services were no longer required. Unfortunately, he chose
BG> not to be honest about this, and used some lame excuse about my
BG> not getting on with the other technical staff.  Utter bullshit too.

Yeah, nothing more certain to piss people off than lies like
that that you can see right thru. Particularly when its so
clearly just faked up to get himself out of his predicament.

The silly thing is that many people will actually do what
he wanted in that situation anyway, albeit reluctantly.
Doing it his way is guaranteed to piss them off totally.

BG> Anyway, he called me into the office one afternoon, handed me a
BG> cheque for my pay to that date, and wished me well in the future. 
BG> What he DIDN'T do was pay me accrued holiday pay, nor a week's
BG> pay in lieu of notice, and when I claimed this amount (to which
BG> I was fully and legally entitled), he became extremely stroppy.
BG> Still had to write me another cheque for around $750 though.  :)

Yeah, they can be remarkably mean like that. Stupid
bastard should have just accepted it as a cost he had to
wear because of the mess caused by Rogers change of heart.

BG> Since then, he's attemnpted to make things really difficult for
BG> me, WRT the replacement of a faulty 1.2Gb WD drive an my father's
BG> machine.  I also returned dad's faulty MS mouse late last year,
BG> and 9 weeks later, a replacement STILL hasn't arrived!
BG> So much for their purportedly excellent customer service.

Yeah, they usually do resort to that sort of deliberately jerking you around.

BG> Re the drive, because I need to change it myself (Jack's not at all
BG> technically minded), I need to take a replacement HD with me, swap
BG> the data, then return the faulty HD to CHH.  Mike spat the dummy at
BG> this suggestion, demanding that I return the drive to CHH, pay them
BG> $40 to transfer the data, then wait until they receive a replacement
BG> HD from Westan.  Needless to say, that simply wasn't acceptable from
BG> the POV of the timeframe involved, so I suggested to him that I actually
BG> BUY a new HD outright, take it with me, do the work required, then
BG> return the faulty drive to him, at which time he either refunds the cost
BG> of the replacement drive, or just tears up my cheque, doesn't really
BG> matter either way.  He didn't like that idea either, but when I pointed
BG> out to him that there wasn't a damn thing he could do to prevent that,
BG> he finally acquiesced (then told me that as WD no longer make 1,2Gb
BG> drives, I'd have to pay $180-odd for an upgrade to a 1.6Gb drive).

Yeah, clearly in arsehole mode.

BG> Yeah, it looks like he's trying awfully hard to make life difficult
BG> for me, but if he wants to involve Jack in this pettiness, he's going
BG> to get a very nasty shock.  Maybe a few messages re his attitude
BG> in Z3_TECH or AUST_ADS would help him see the error of his ways?

BG> Fuck him, maybe I'll do so anyway.  :)

Could be amusing |-)

BG> was to test EVERY single modem they put up for sale
BG> (although I suppose DOAs _can_ be a tad embarrassing),

RS> Yeah, its a complicated argument. It certainly does really
RS> piss the customers off. OTOH it aint cheap to check the lot. And
RS> shouldnt be necessary if the manufacturing was done properly.

BG> Sure, but DOAs are simply a fact of life, avoidable only by
BG> checking every single modem as it comes off the production line.

Yes, the manufacturers are to a considerable extent just passing
that checking cost on to the retailers. Its been like that in the car
industry for many years. I find it hard to believe that it really does
make economic sense even for the manufacturer, but its certainly common.

BG> One could argue that this should be done too,
BG> but it just adds more to the overall cost anyway.

Well, I think it should be checked properly just before its boxed in
the factory. The number that die between there and the customers hands
is minimal and it makes no sense for the retailer to have to test them.
@EOT:

---