(no subject)

[http://users.livejournal.com/shiara_/]

Every once in a while, I tend to think that what I do is rather, oh, blatantly obvious, but one of my coworkers reminds me, in her own way, that I really do have to spell things out for her because she's too stupid to think that if I say nothing about it, it automatically means that I'm slacking off on my job and am not doing my job.

For example, with the cleanup project that I'm currently working on, every Monday/Tuesday, I send a list of policies to the MGA that have had the cleanup done on them. If there are any policies that I feel require manual intervention, I ask the MGA to 'hold' the transactions on their end (since we can't do it on ours) until I can process all of the necessary manual transactions. This way, we coordinate the transactions and they are seemless to the agent. This cleanup has been going on since January 14th. Recall, techsupport readers, that Z.A. has been on vacation the entire month of January, and apparently still has not read all of the email sent from that time period or else she would see a pattern here.

So I provide now for your reading pleasure the email exchange that ensued on this topic. I thought that this was pretty straightforward, but hey, I'm OBVIOUSLY wrong. Here it is with names changed to protect everyone, and the policy numbers removed for obvious reasons.

I sent the following email on Monday, Feb 28th, at 5:54pm:


-----Original Message-----
From: Shiara
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 5:54 PM
To: 'H.N.@MGA.com'; 'D.L.@MGA.com'
Cc: Z.A.; M.M.; R.H.
Subject: RE: Recent AIBE/AIRR implementation into production

Hello, H.N. and D.L.:

I am writing this email to advise you that the following policies had AIBE/AIRR cleanup processed on them on Monday, February 28th:

policy_number
------------------------
>insert list of 20 policies here<

Could you please continue to "hold" the transactions on policy 1 and policy 2?

Many thanks,
Shiara
>insert corporate babble here<


Maybe I'm dumb. Maybe I make an assumption that, if I don't list any policies that need to be held other than the two above (which were from almost a month ago), everything is fine?

I get this email back:


-----Original Message-----
From: Z.A.
Sent: March 2, 2005 12:58 PM
To: Shiara
Cc: R.H.; M.M.
Subject: FW: Recent AIBE/AIRR implementation into production

Hi Shiara,

Could you please let us know if you have verified the result on the AIBE/AIRR implementation occurred last weekend.
The reason why I am asking you this question again is because you have not advised MGA to hold any entries on policies mentioned below.

Thanks,
Z.A.


I gave up at this point and my exasperation obviously shows.


-----Original Message-----
From: Shiara
Sent: March 2, 2005 1:31 PM
To: Z.A.
Cc: R.H.; M.M.
Subject: RE: Recent AIBE/AIRR implementation into production

Hi, Z.A.

If I don't ask MGA to hold any of the entries, it usually means that I've verified the results and that they are as expected. However, please be advised that I have reviewed the commission generated on the policies below and it is 'as expected', meaning that it matches the results in test and is correct.

Thank you,
Shiara
>insert corporate babble here<



Maybe I'm being dense when I don't specifically say that I've verified all of the policy results. However, I tend to think that the sequence of events would make one, oh, I don't know, think that if I were to send a list of policies to the MGA without any additional instruction, it would mean that the policies in question are 'as expected' and nothing further needs to be done.

I sent Z.A. an email last night at 8:04pm about a particular help desk ticket that I'm working on, and as of writing (3:13pm) she has not responded back to me. I know she's read the email because I have the read-receipt, so I'm waiting until about, oh, 4:30 or thereabouts, to send her an email asking her whether she's "gotten around" to checking whether this particular policy is on a spreadsheet that she exclusively looks after. It's bad of me to play tit-for-tat, but you know, the hell with it.

Comments

[litch.livejournal.com]

so how much trouble would you get in if you just started igorning her stupid questions?

the idea being that either she'd stop asking them or she'd escalate to your management and you have documented official managerial awareness of her stupidity?

The question is...

[geekgrrl-ca.livejournal.com]

Can you go to HR about her minding your job.

I had a cow worker who always made noises and faces if I was 2 or 3 minutes late (we have 5 minutes grace). He not being my supervisor he has no place making such noises and faces. I think he's also the one that bitched about my skirt being too short... (see my live journal about that).

[http://users.livejournal.com/shiara_/]

Well, management already knows that she and I don't get along and that there is a flame email war going on (or pissy email war). But with all of the changes in management, I don't know whether it would make any sense to bring this matter up.

I just find her stupidity factor really amusing. The best part is that when I sent off my email, she didn't reply back to it.

Whereas, if I screw up in an email, I do apologize for it. Like, "Oh, sorry, didn't see that you'd sent me a response at X time. Been busy all day with X project." etc.