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?

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 …