Skip to main content

canada post is guaranteed to drive you a little crazy

i want to make this clear, right off the top: no one envies postal employees at this time of year. it's harsh work tramping through snow and sleet and driving in dangerous conditions or even just standing at a counter with a line up of people who are all convinced that it's your fault that they waited too long in order to mail your holiday packages. those jobs are thankless and everyone should bear that in mind when dealing with postal employees close to xmas.

however, there is a sort of mentality that seems to permeate the upper echelons of the postal organisation that i would like to characterise as an absurdist conspiracy. they're all mad there and they want you to join in the fun. to illustrate this [again] here is a conversation i had with a canada post employee when trying to ship a package to halifax.

me :: hello, i'd like to ship this box overnight to halifax

customer service rep :: we can't do that.

me :: it says on the sign behind you that you do.

csr :: [double checking] oh yes, that's our overnight service.

me :: so i'd like to ship it overnight for it to get there tomorrow.

csr :: well i don't know if that would work.

me :: it's 8 in the morning. your counter just opened. doesn't that mean that the package will go out today and arrive tomorrow?

csr :: well i wouldn't bet on it.

me :: i don't understand.

csr :: well the guaranteed next day service only applies when you're shipping to a city.

me :: halifax is a city.

csr :: yes, i know.

me :: so why wouldn't the guaranteed service be available?

csr :: it is. i just don't know if it would get there by tomorrow or not. it's very busy.

me :: so your guaranteed delivery service isn't guaranteed to get there?

csr :: well i would never guarantee that. but you can ship it for next day delivery and if they don't deliver it, you can call canada post and ask for your money back.

me :: but will they still deliver my package after?

csr :: i can't say.

me :: [ponders length of time it will get to fed ex counter and determines it is not an option] ok, well, i want to ship my package.

csr :: are you sure?

me :: yes.

csr :: and when would you like it delivered?

me :: um... how soon can you get it there?

csr :: well we have the overnight delivery service.

me :: i think i'm going to go lick an electric socket now.*

csr :: pardon?

me :: i'd like to ship it overnight.

*it's possibly definitely true that i didn't say this out loud. but i really wanted to.

note :: while checking the postal code to which i was shipping, i noticed that canada post's web site will soon be limiting the number of postal codes you can look up on line. i believe that the restrictions will only limit the number you can look up in one day, but there's very little information available. i have to wonder who in hell thought this was a good idea. looking up postal codes is one of the few things that would drive people to the canada post web site. in particular, it seems like a spectacularly bad idea for a company that is poised to start laying off thousands of employees. wouldn't they want to get people used to going on line rather than calling for this sort of information?

Comments

Bellyhead said…
Is it due to pending financial ruin that Canada Post is being so oddly peculiar? I feel like I'm reading some absurdist play reading your recent CP posts. :(
Kate MacDonald said…
Canada Post has certainly been experiencing some losses, however I think that they may be mistaken about the reasons. They are assuming that people are no longer using their services because they are sending less mail. That might be partially true, but I think that the larger problem is that people are using other services even when they do have mail to send, because they have no confidence that anything sent via CP will ever reach its destination.

On a happy note, my package did make it. So really, CP just got themselves a minor bit of bad publicity for NO REASON. Which is silly, because they've managed to generate so much bad publicity for good reasons otherwise. (More on that to come.)

as long as you're here, why not read more?

fun-raising

no, i am not dead, nor have i been lying incapacitated in a ditch somewhere. i've mostly been preparing for our imminent, epic move, which is actually not so terribly epic, because we found a place quite close to where we are now. in addition, i've been the beneficiary of an inordinately large amount of paying work, which does, sadly, take precedence over blogging, even though you know i'd always rather be with you.

indeed, with moving expenses and medical expenses looming on the horizon, more than can be accounted for even with the deepest cuts in the lipstick budget, dom and i recently did something that we've not done before: we asked for help. last week, we launched a fundraising campaign on go fund me. it can be difficult to admit that you need a helping hand, but what's been overwhelming for both of us is how quick to respond so many people we know have been once we asked. it's also shocking to see how quickly things added up.

most of all, though, the ex…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …