Yes, got the - email too!

Posted: Nov 1st, 2017 - 3:02 pm In Reply to: No blanks company wide? - MTmom

So do the dictators have to speak clearly now? Will anything change there? Do we get any sort of increase in our QC percentage?

My goodness--just when you think there isn't ANYTHING ELSE they can possibly take away from us, they come up with something else to take from us.

Post A Reply Reply By Email Options

Use Rich Text Editor with Full Options CLOSE

Edit/Delete Message

Report this message

X CLOSE

Complete Discussion Below: (

marks the location of current message within thread)

No blanks company wide? - MTmom (Views: 1449, 2017-11-01, 2:48 pm)
- guessing! - anon (Views: 977, 2017-11-01, 2:55 pm)
- Yes, got the - email too!
- I find this very hard to believe. - sm (Views: 999, 2017-11-01, 3:11 pm)
- It is almost Christmas and when they usually roll - out exciting changes. Merry X-Mas! (Views: 889, 2017-11-01, 3:16 pm)
- This just encourages guessing and junk sent - which contradicts their quality committment (Views: 735, 2017-11-01, 3:20 pm)
- no blanks - -- (Views: 975, 2017-11-01, 3:22 pm)
- Blank the heck out of them and send them - through. Let them explain to customers (Views: 788, 2017-11-01, 3:24 pm)
- Blanks - SpentMT (Views: 856, 2017-11-01, 3:26 pm)
- Even though I dont work here, I read this and it makes me - absolutely furious for all of you. nm (Views: 858, 2017-11-01, 3:30 pm)
- The salespeople for this company, who probably know zilch - about transcription, promise (Views: 698, 2017-11-01, 3:47 pm)
- If I get such an email I will - POLITELY (because I am not willing to stoop to the (Views: 994, 2017-11-01, 3:53 pm)
  - If you forward or publish that email, many others of us - could help respond also, with fake address. SM (Views: 943, 2017-11-01, 4:01 pm)
  - I suggest politely taking the position that any - new policy that lowers income (Views: 857, 2017-11-02, 12:09 pm)
- sounds like your OM is trying to get rid of you - just a guess nm (Views: 843, 2017-11-01, 4:10 pm)
  - No blanks, - Bobo (Views: 583, 2017-11-05, 12:43 am)
- Company wide for maybe your account - sm (Views: 769, 2017-11-01, 4:13 pm)
  - Guessing it is! - anon (Views: 794, 2017-11-01, 4:21 pm)
    - Just posting snippets is not helping us. - NM (Views: 787, 2017-11-01, 4:31 pm)
- So when does this go into effect? - mt446 (Views: 1016, 2017-11-01, 4:41 pm)
  - Cherry picking new queen - anon (Views: 1399, 2017-11-01, 4:52 pm)
    - Hmmm - .... (Views: 731, 2017-11-01, 4:57 pm)
    - So your OM said right now, no more blanks - what are your (Views: 736, 2017-11-01, 5:18 pm)
      - No blanks company wide? - MTmom (Views: 644, 2017-11-02, 8:57 am)
        right there is false info - sm (Views: 638, 2017-11-02, 9:30 am)
        ? - MTmom (Views: 908, 2017-11-02, 9:55 am)
        My point is that if your OM or whatever - said to send stuff to QA (Views: 659, 2017-11-02, 10:23 am)
        blanks - irritated MT (Views: 620, 2017-11-02, 4:16 pm)
- What platform are you on that you received this - info. The majority of my accts have always (Views: 750, 2017-11-01, 5:35 pm)
- If they are talking about just not pending - blanks to the client and (Views: 678, 2017-11-01, 5:45 pm)
- Another forceful firing.. - MTfor years (Views: 920, 2017-11-01, 6:32 pm)
  - Do as I did when I worked there for the blank problem. - DoneDealNow (Views: 978, 2017-11-01, 6:49 pm)
    - client is not supposed to get blanks - without a pending reason (Views: 690, 2017-11-01, 7:04 pm)
    - The clients need to learn. - MTfor years (Views: 1029, 2017-11-01, 7:50 pm)
- No blanks - irritated MT (Views: 699, 2017-11-01, 9:07 pm)
- If this is to be company wide protocol, then they - need to revise grid and not count (Views: 717, 2017-11-01, 10:19 pm)
  - but ... - ann (Views: 630, 2017-11-02, 12:38 am)
- No blanks policy - they are trying to get you to quit - nm (Views: 672, 2017-11-02, 1:23 am)
- no blanks - anonymousmt (Views: 998, 2017-11-02, 8:14 am)
  - They don't have to start charging us - they already do (Views: 688, 2017-11-02, 8:19 am)
- Absolutely NOT! This is a policy I would NOT comply with - in any circumstances (Views: 698, 2017-11-04, 8:28 am)