Skip to main content

could the postman at least ring once?

me :: hello, is this canada post customer service?

csr :: yes

me :: i got a notice that there was an attempt to deliver a package today.

csr :: it should say where you can pick it up.

me :: yes, i know how that works, thanks, but what i'm wondering is why the deliverer didn't just ring the doorbell. we've been home all day. and this is actually the second time i've had to call, because we got another package delivered a couple of weeks ago, except that the guy forgot to leave the first notice, so we only got a final notice.

csr :: i'm sorry, that's not supposed to happen.

me :: well thank you, i already spoke to someone who apologised, which is cool and all, but the thing is that the apology doesn't mean much if you keep doing the same thing, that is, leaving us notices saying that there was a delivery attempt, but not actually attempting to make a delivery.

csr :: well it's now canada post policy that we don't ring doorbells when we're delivering a package unless we can be sure that the apartment is on the ground floor.

me :: i don't understand. how do you expect to deliver the package if you don't ring the doorbell.

csr :: it's just that the mail carriers don't have time to be going into buildings to deliver packages.

me :: isn't that their job?

csr :: no, they have to complete their route in a certain period of time and if they have to go upstairs to deliver packages, that slows them down.

me :: um, ok, but by that logic, they could just drive the route and not deliver anything at all and get finished even faster.

csr :: well, yes, but then they wouldn't be doing their job.

me :: but part of their job is to deliver packages.

csr :: yes, but they do that by leaving the notice and then you go have to pick the package up. it's a way of making things more efficient.

me :: for whom? [pause] hey, did i mention that these packages we're receiving are medical devices? my husband was just diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. the stuff we've been receiving is stuff he kind of needs so that he can do things like leave the house. oh, and while we're at it, i had surgery a few weeks ago. i'm doing ok, but i'm not actually supposed to lift anything heavier than a couple of pounds for a little while longer.

csr :: and is the box you received very heavy?

me :: i don't know, because i haven't received it yet. it could be. or it could be light. my point is that i have no way of finding out until i go to the post office to collect it, at which point, i'm kind of stuck.

csr :: ok, would you like me to try to arrange for a second delivery?

me :: what does that mean?

csr :: the package would have to be shipped back to our depot and then it's sent out again for delivery.

me :: with the same postal carrier?

csr :: yes. but there will be a note on the file that says he should ring the doorbell.

me :: will he read the file? [note :: i'm not sure if this carrier is a man or not. i'm just simplifying.]

csr :: he'll have access to it.

me :: sure, but i know what happens when you mark a package 'fragile' and how much difference that makes.

csr :: well at canada post we don't deliver fragile packages anymore.

me :: i see. i guess that's one way around the problem. [pause] so, if you send this package for re-delivery, is the carrier likely to just fill out another card and drop it in my box without ringing the bell?

csr :: that could happen, yes.

me :: and this will take how long?

csr :: it depends. a few days to get back to the depot and then to send it out for delivery again.

me :: when does the efficiency happen?

csr :: pardon?

me :: sorry, rhetorical question.

csr :: so would you like me to go ahead and arrange for re-delivery?

me :: no, because i'll probably end up just having to call back again to find out why the carrier dropped off a notice without ringing the doorbell.

csr :: i understand, but like i said, it's our policy that we no longer ring the doorbell when there's a package to be delivered.

me :: so why does the delivery card that i received have a check mark next to the box that says "no answer"?

csr :: [pause] i can't really do anything to change the policy, but i'll note the complaint and pass it along.

me :: thank you.

[note :: the csr was completely polite and patient with me, even when i was being sarcastic, so i want to make it clear that what makes me angry is not canada post's customer service people. i truly believe that she was doing what she could. and i did pause in my snarking at one point to tell her that i knew it wasn't her and that i didn't want to make her feel bad, or be that person who takes out all their frustration at a stupid corporate policy on the person tasked with answering customer calls. that's not fair.]

Comments

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

jihadvertising?

i keep seeing this ad for tictac candies:



am i the only one who finds the suicide bomber clown at the end a little unnerving? all the nice natural things like the bunny and the [extinct] woolly mammoth and the fruit get devoured by a trying-to-appear-nonthreatening-but-obviously-psychotic clown who then blows himself up. congratulations, tictac, i think this ad has landed you on about a dozen watch lists.

oh and by the way, showing me that your product will somehow cause my stomach to explode in a rainbow of wtf makes me believe that doing consuming tictacs would be a worse dietary decision than the time i ate two raw eggs and a half a bottle of hot sauce on a dare.

making faces :: hot stuff, comin' through

i don't even know what to say about the weather. the end of september saw temperatures at a scalding 36c/ 97f outside. this is especially annoying because we've had a moderate summer. most days it rained a little in the morning, the temperatures didn't creep into the 30s too often and there wasn't the normal stretch of a few weeks when it felt like we were living on the sun. now, we've receded into more normal fall weather, although it's still on the warm side for mid-october. that climate change thing is a bitch.

trying to think of something positive in the situation, it does put me in a perfect frame of mind to write about urban decay's naked heat palette. it's the latest in what appears to be an endless series of warm neutral and red eyeshadow palettes that have followed in the footsteps of anastasia's modern renaissance. [which i ultimately decided i didn't need after doing a thorough search of my considerable stash.] i do think that it'…

i agree, smedley [or, smokers totally saved our planet in 1983]

so this conversation happened [via text, so i have evidence and possibly so does the canadian government and the nsa].

dom and i were trying to settle our mutual nerves about tomorrow night's conversion screening, remembering that we've made a fine little film that people should see. which is just about exactly what dom had said when i responded thusly:

me :: i agree smedley. [pauses for a moment] did you get that here?

dom :: no?

me :: the aliens who were looking at earth and then decided it wasn't worth bothering with because people smoked even though it was bad for them?
come to think of it, that might mean that smokers prevented an alien invasion in the seventies.

dom :: what ?!?!?

me :: i've had wine and very little food. [pause] but the alien thing was real. [pause.] well, real on tv.

dom :: please eat something.

of course, i was wrong. the ad in question ran in 1983. this is the part where i would triumphantly embed the ad from youtube, except that the governmen…