Thanks Trutle for that information. I never knew that was part of the ISO certification. You learn something knew everyday. Great Post
Recorded phone calls
- Thread starter jjoerger
- Start date
Thanks Trutle for that information. I never knew that was part of the ISO certification. You learn something knew everyday. Great Post
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Dave, regardless, understand that this has been hashed over by legal people for years and the best possible way to handle it is to inform people of it. The info I have is from a major corporation's communications office and it is pretty thorough and accurate.
ISO standards are just that, the certification process has zero to do with the law, respect or professionalism.
ISO standards are just that, the certification process has zero to do with the law, respect or professionalism.
Well, the ISO 9001:2008 standards don't have anything to do with the law, but they were created specifically to institute a standard of professionalism so that customers, other business and stakeholders can have confidence in the uniformity of respect of the quality management process. Obtaining the ISO 9001 certifications is not something they hand out to just anyone, and most businesses with the certification proudly proclaim the fact, as it's a measure of respect and professionalism.
Like I said i don't give two sheets to the wind if they record me. If they play it back they just might learn somthing. But then again. Like I said who cares I for one do not. Somtimes the ones on the other end forget to hang up. Like I said it don't bother me.
I will say that, at my previous carrier, the recorded phone conversations were to my benefit, many times.
I can't claim 'many' times, but when I didn't appear at a pickup because a dispatcher called while I was stuck waiting at the previous delivery, and made it sound like the customer wasn't willing to wait, and said he'd call back to let me know but never did, the recording backed me up, so I was glad to have it.
I've never had one bite me, either - but Load 1 plays the silliest stuff on hold [old tv show themes, like Green Acres] that I'm sometimes laughing when they pick it up, and they probably think I'm a little goofy, lol.
Unless I can be penalized for badly singing along to old tv show themes then I'm not too worried.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
That's all true but you can't instill professionalism into a person by a company wide certification.
Well maybe in the perfect world but in reality it isn't as important as other things. Sure quality is improved under the standard, sure you can proclaim the fact but it doesn't mean that your company hires people who care about others or is an indication on how the policies of the company are used to harm or limit others for any reason.
This subject is a good example, the ISO, like other certs can be a part of an overall quality control process to insure that the level of quality is held up for the customer but on the other hand there is a serious issue when the 'business related' recordings can be used or are used to damage someone, in our case limit a contractor's revenue. No matter how you view it, the reasoning for the recording isn't the issue, it is about the use of it and a lack of notification that matters.
14Wheeler
Seasoned Expediter
I will say that, at my previous carrier, the recorded phone conversations were to my benefit, many times.
Could comments made "during hold time" be held against you.... Legally ?
Cause if they can........ooooops, sorry Sir, I was talking to a driver in the truck next to me
ebsprintin
Veteran Expediter
I heard from another driver that the same thing happens with the qualcomm. It has a microphone in it. At least that what the other driver told me.
eb
eb
Greg, I don't care what your corporation office buddies say. The law is the law, If I call you I can record the call and it's legal. Don't your remember when Linda Tripp did it? Read over the federal law again Greg, you can't change the law Greg and neither can your corporation buddies. This is one thing I do know a great deal about when it comes to recording phone calls. Most companies will let you know, but they really don't have too. One person is already is aware the call is being recorded. No need to respond because the law clearly states everything someone needs to know.
Once again for you Greg, Federal laws states.
Who must give permission to record a telephone or in-person conversation?
Federal law permits recording telephone calls and in-person conversations with the consent of at least one of the parties. See 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d). This is called a "one-party consent" law. Under a one-party consent law, you can record a phone call or conversation so long as you are a party to the conversation. Furthermore, if you are not a party to the conversation, a "one-party consent" law will allow you to record the conversation or phone call so long as your source consents and has full knowledge that the communication will be recorded.
In addition to federal law, thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia have adopted "one-party consent" laws and permit individuals to record phone calls and conversations to which they are a party or when one party to the communication consents. See the State Law: Recording section of this legal guide for information on state wiretapping laws.
When must you get permission from everyone involved before recording?
Twelve states require the consent of every party to a phone call or conversation in order to make the recording lawful. These "two-party consent" laws have been adopted in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Although they are referred to as "two-party consent" laws, consent must be obtained from every party to a phone call or conversation if it involves more than two people.
Federal Law is above state and Local laws and I think your missing the whole point here.
mcavoy33
Seasoned Expediter
I can't claim 'many' times, but when I didn't appear at a pickup because a dispatcher called while I was stuck waiting at the previous delivery, and made it sound like the customer wasn't willing to wait, and said he'd call back to let me know but never did, the recording backed me up, so I was glad to have it.
I've never had one bite me, either - but Load 1 plays the silliest stuff on hold [old tv show themes, like Green Acres] that I'm sometimes laughing when they pick it up, and they probably think I'm a little goofy, lol.
for us non h/w teams, I don't think there is anything bad that they can catch us on hold. I think only teams really can be caught saying stuff on hold unless your a little bit crazy and talk to yourself out loud.
I remember my shrink telling me its ok to talk to yourself, as long as you don't answer yourself. if you do, then you got problems she said.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Well first Dave, read what I said - federal law does not trump state law in cases of intrastate calls, if the carrier is in Michigan (Express-1 or Load-1) and they are in a phone conversation with a contractor in Michigan, the Michigan law states that they have to tell the person and get permission to record the call. Nothing to do with federal law.
BUT if it is an interstate call, it is the federal law that supersedes the state law. This was confirmed by the 10 circuit court - not the supreme court.
The book I got, it is a book with 300 plus pages, is written by the corporate legal division of my former employer and covers in detail of the situations we are discussing right here. They are not trying to re-write laws, or for that matter tell people how it is but they, like the legal consul that FedEx/Panther/others have will say the exact same thing - disclose it and used it for strict business purposes that does not harm the contractor.
Now Linda Tripp did not fall under federal law, seeing you brought her up, she violated Maryland's wiretapping law by recording the conversation and not telling the other party that she recorded it. Most right leaning/conservative Clinton haters will twist the truth to make it out like she was not liable for her actions under federal law when in fact she isn't covered under federal law. Not only that but prosecution under federal law has been few and far between.
Really?
Then why are you cutting and pasting things?
Most companies do not tell you unless it is a part of a DOT required disclosure - one example is a drug test. Outside of that, they don't.
The point isn't the law, the point is the respect that they show the contractor, which seems not to be there at all.
LOOK at what the state statues say and the court cases that define them.
I added the link in the quote for others to read.
You forgot to cut and paste the first paragraph, which seems to be relative to the entire subject -
If you plan to record telephone calls or in-person conversations (including by recording video that captures sound), you should be aware that there are federal and state wiretapping laws that may limit your ability to do so. These laws not only expose you to the risk of criminal prosecution, but also potentially give an injured party a civilhttp://www.citmedialaw.org/glossary/8/letterc#term206 claim for money damageshttp://www.citmedialaw.org/glossary/8/letterd#term210 against you.
By the way, using information for media professionals is a lot different than using it for business professionals. There are issues that have to do with the First Amendment and the Eighth Amendment that kind of effect the info you posted when put into a context of the work.
Well you wish that were true, it isn't. The 10th circuit court found that the state has the right to limit the wiretapping of phones and the federal law only applies to those who make interstate calls, not intrastate calls.
The ISO certification isn't about instilling professionalism into a person, it's about instilling professionalism into how the company approaches, tracks and resolves quality control issues. Some of the methods required by the standards actually engender unprofessional behavior because the individuals are more focused on the procedure than they are on the actual problem resolution. Like, sometimes a problem can be resolved with a simple two minute phone call, but the details and the problem resolution steps aren't likely to be recorded for auditing purposes, so, it becomes, "I don't care about your problem, I have to take my notes and send my e-mail so someone else can do the research on it and they will then bump it up to someone else who will review it and then they will make a decision and get back to you," which takes three days. But, it's all recorded and tracked according to the standards, which is all that matters. In many cases, as long as the process is done according to standards, the actual resolution outcome is irrelevant. Kind of like in math class where you can get the answer wrong, but as long as you showed your work it's OK.
What lack of notification? "This call may be recorded or monitored for quality or training purposes," seems like a reasonably well announced notification to me. If you lease on with a company that is ISO certified, that should tell you that all phone calls in and out are recorded, as well as those calls made within the company. As for the "use of it", I'm not sure what you mean, but in a face-to-face conversation or in a recorded phone conversation, anything you say can and will be used against you if the opportunity arises or it's necessary to so do for quality management or liability purposes.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
I understand ISO9001:2008, the process, the certs and even the BS 5750 which it is based on, nothing in it says anything about phone calls being recorded. With that said, I understand where you are coming from but the certification does not matter when we are talking about human behavior. You are using it as a reason behind the recording while I am saying that any reasoning behind it does not justify the use of it to retaliate or the use of it to do damage to one (a contractor) in a business relationship the company has with which can and does happen. The control of the recording is another issue, not addressed by ISO9001, even with the record's retention issues that pop up and does not even mention the use of the information derived from the recordings.
This goes to another issue, notification. ISO9001 is not clearly understood by the guy who is driving for a company, the disclosure for many of us is understood as a given but the many are not all. The company should tell the contractor in orientation that calls are recorded, and what becomes of those calls - archived or disposed of after X days.
BUT someone else brought up a good point through an email, there maybe a problem with a on hold recording due to the fact that it involves more than the person on the other end of the phone. Simply put, the conversation between the person on hold and another person may not be covered under the laws.
This goes to another issue, notification. ISO9001 is not clearly understood by the guy who is driving for a company, the disclosure for many of us is understood as a given but the many are not all. The company should tell the contractor in orientation that calls are recorded, and what becomes of those calls - archived or disposed of after X days.
BUT someone else brought up a good point through an email, there maybe a problem with a on hold recording due to the fact that it involves more than the person on the other end of the phone. Simply put, the conversation between the person on hold and another person may not be covered under the laws.
here for all who think companies don't have the right, look at the U.S section for the rules. Every time I call into LS it say this call may be recored.
Telephone recording laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Telephone recording laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Well, BS 5750 was based on DoD production military specs from the 1950s and the 1970s (one of which contains the mil specs for AGM batteries, incidentally), and only deals with the product itself, with standards for quality assurance in design, development, production, installation, and servicing, but didn't address communications at all.
The 2008 standards introduced the requirement for systems for communicating with customers, vendors, suppliers, and intra company personnel about product information, inquiries, contracts, orders, feedback, complaints and other issues. The standards do not specify how those are to be implemented, but separate guideline pamphlets for each ISO section provides suggestions (the communications pamphlet is 96 pages), and then the requirements that go along with each suggestion. One of those suggestions for telephone conversations deals with how to track those with notes and recordings, and what all must be done to implement them consistently. It's all in there.
Correct. The ISO standards and human behavior are two separate issues.
Exactly... we're saying and talking about two different things. I merely mentioned why most are doing it, and the reasons behind it. I make no comments about the justification for how that information can or is being used, because it's a separate issue.
The company can retain and use the records as they see fit, since it's their property. According to the standards they have to keep it long enough to do an audit, and then long enough to have an audit history, in order to track improvements and deficiencies.
Far as I know, they do tell contractors that in orientation, just like they tell you that everyone can read the QC messages you send, so keep it clean. Any carrier who is recording conversations, and fails to tell contractors that at orientation, are telling them with the standard announcement when the contractor calls in, anyway. Without an explicit example to go on, I really don't know what the big deal is about them using the phone conversation against a contractor, since they can do that regardless of whether the conversation is recorded. The recording just gives them more proof of what happened. But that same proof has benefited me on several occasions, where the he-said/she-said crap was settled with the recording.
I can't see how that could possibly be an issue when the announcement that the call may be recorded or monitored is made right up front to any and everybody on the phone. Everybody in the company already knows, and everyone on hold knows it from the announcement. Now, if you're on hold and you know it's being recorded, and you hand the phone to someone else and fail to tell them it's being recorded, then the onus falls upon you to make the announcement, not the company.
Like I said it don't bother me, if they play them back they just might learn somthing.