Taping conversations...against the law?

[friendofjimmyk]

You've already consented to the recording by working there and taking the call.

She can tape all she wants.

I think I have to agree with this. Your company has that "quality assurance" recording which means, as their employee, you are already being recorded on one side of the conversation (yours), so if they customer states they are recording, which is probably bullshit - there's nothing you can do.

But, exactly WHAT was she recording? Her being an asshat!? As long as you maintained composure and didn't flip out on her, what's she got proof of? Her being an asshat!

[SilverOrb]

While I agree that she was just recording herself being an asshat, I gotta admit, this would bother me too.

SC did not have permission to tape. She did not make the agent aware of it. To me, it's along the same line as taping someone in their house while going about their daily activities. Maybe they aren't getting naked or anything... But that doesn't make it ok. "Even" Customer service agents should be allowed some privacy, some protection, some respect.

[MoonChild2007]

That's funny ... call centers record the calls but do not allow the customers to do so. A little hypocritical on the part of management, no?

If it wasn't for the call centers recording calls, a lot of us would be out of the job.
A customer can say that rep hung up on them, told them that they would be get this for this price with isn't true in the least. So frankly, I am glad we record calls cause a customer can threaten us and NOBODY would know about it if the call wasn't recorded. So its not hypocritical, its a way for reps to know what they did wrong if a customer complains about us.

[Slytovhand]

Not being in the same country, my thoughts count for squat - but I have worked in call centres for about 7/8 years now.

I don't think it would be illegal to tape a 'professional' phone call, rather than a personal one.

You are providing information related to their account - they should have the right to prove what was said if it all goes sour.

I really don't see why calls should automatically be escalated just because someone says it's being recorded. Surely agents know their job well enough for it not to be a problem???



[Edit]

My company had a strict policy of not allowing customer to used taped calls as evidence for anything (ie to support you had been offered something out of the norm) because they had no way to verify the call (ie that the customers friend did not pose as a CS rep).

If they did that (customer's friend posing) that'd be called 'fraud'. Given that even if the call recording wasn't kept, there is still a record of the call being made... AND it is most likely that the phone records could verify or deny that as well, the CS would have to be pretty silly to try it!

[Broomjockey]

There you go.

So we're to take it you live in one of those places then? (You don't have your location listed.

That's funny ... call centers record the calls but do not allow the customers to do so. A little hypocritical on the part of management, no?

Well, I wouldn't have phrased it quite that way, but I share that sentiment.

While I agree that she was just recording herself being an asshat, I gotta admit, this would bother me too.

SC did not have permission to tape. She did not make the agent aware of it. To me, it's along the same line as taping someone in their house

Actually, since MC already said that the company tapes all the calls already, it's more like taping someone in their house with your camcorder while a professional news crew is already getting it all with the homeowner's permission.

As I understand the consent laws for recording, since the call's already being recorded by one party, and everyone involved in the call is aware of it, then there's no legal issue with another party in the conversation recording it and not stating it upfront. Because everyone already knew a recording was being made, and had no problem with that, it's assumed that there's no issue with multiple copies being made, as that way it's a level playing field. Neither party can claim something that isn't supported by the tape because each party has an independant copy. There isn't such a thing as "conditional consent" in a situation like this. You can't agree to be recorded by one party and not another. Sorry. It sucks, but if it's any comfort, I don't see the SC having the follow-through to do anything other than rage impotently at having forgot to put batteries in the recorder.
ETA:

its not hypocritical, its a way for reps to know what they did wrong if a customer complains about us.

Actually, it's the very definition of hypocritical to condemn an action while taking part in it.

[CrazedClerkthe2nd]

[Edit] If they did that (customer's friend posing) that'd be called 'fraud'. Given that even if the call recording wasn't kept, there is still a record of the call being made... AND it is most likely that the phone records could verify or deny that as well, the CS would have to be pretty silly to try it!

I don't know how it is everywhere, but where I was at front line reps had no access to call records, even the Supervisors could only pull up records for agents on their own team. In other words there's no way to check the customer recording against anything. Sure I could look to see if there are any records from when the call was supposedly made, but if my year and a bit at a call center taught me anything it's that a lot of things NEVER GET NOTED on accounts.

The old system we had used to automatically record every access to a customers account made by a rep. The new system took that out. Seems like kind of a backwards step to me but whatever.

[Slytovhand]

Well CC2nd, that may well be all true (as it is here as well), but if the CS wants to push things 'higher up', and use their recording 'as evidence', then management can pull the call at will. If it goes further (ie -court) then any and all evidence can be required to be shown - including the phone records.. which is what I was getting at.

As for "a lot of things NEVER GET NOTED on accounts" - DAMN RIGHT!!!!! I've used that line many times on callers.."oh, you say you added that vehicle back in May?? Well, last indication I've got of a phone call even being made was January - and then August...". 9 out of 10, they're making stuff up. Which is why (as you no doubt know) -when you ring a call centre to get something done - get a reference number!!!! Oh -and the agent's name!

[Snowbird]

I've never worked in a call center before, so I don't know, but isn't there a generalized recording before a customer connects that tells them they may be recorded for quality assurance issues?

I think my nose would be a little out of joint too if someone said they taped our conversation -after- the fact. It isn't really about the fact that she did, particularly if it is being taped anyway, just that there was no warning. I think anyway, I could be wrong. That happens a lot more than I'd like.

That said, I honestly think this SC was just blowing smoke up the OP's skirt to rattle her and bully her into giving up what was wanted.

[otakuneko]

since the call's already being recorded by one party, and everyone involved in the call is aware of it, then there's no legal issue with another party in the conversation recording it

Precisely.

[Broomjockey]

I've never worked in a call center before, so I don't know, but isn't there a generalized recording before a customer connects that tells them they may be recorded for quality assurance issues?

Yes, which is why the company can get away with recording. Staying on the line is implicit concent from the customer. Employees probably have explicit concent built in to their employment agreement. This means that the call was being recorded even if the SC didn't record the conversation.

I think my nose would be a little out of joint too if someone said they taped our conversation -after- the fact.

And that's fine. I can understand both yours and the OP's annoyance at the declaration, as it sounds like they were trying to use it like a club, or something. Very annoying, to say the least. I was clearing up the "illegal" bit. There's nothing anywhere prohibiting someone from also recording a conversation they're having that's already being recorded. The italics are the key words. If the company didn't record, then the SC'd be in more trouble than just being a jerk.

[alacazar]

And in this case May is a key word.

Smaller companies may record every call, and if they do they are obligated to state somthing along the lines of "Your call Will be recorded for quality assurance"

Oddly larger companies dont record every call. They just can not do it, its not logisticly possible due to the massive ammount of storage which would be requierd. Instead they are almost militaristic in making sure people note accounts, to the point of terminating employees who leave incorrect information or don't note accounts at all.

These companies will say something along the lines of "Your call May be recorded for quality assurance"

just to put the chances of a call being recorded into perspective. Depeding on the type of work, a decent call center rep will take up to 40 call in a day, 200 calls in a week, or 800 calls in a month. Of these 800 calls, between 4 and 10 will acctualy be recorded. Unless the company has a small enough call volume to be able to keep a standing record, any recordings would also be deleted within a day of being recorded.

I guess what im basicly trying to say is watch the wording, if they say May in the adviserly, the comapny has not given the customer permission to record as there is no garontee that the call will be recorded. Also given that the recordings themselves are done ramdomly in this case, i dont even care to hazard guess the odds of a call acctualy being recorded if the word may is used.

....

Mergh

....

It would also seem that ive worked for to many differnt call centers

[Jack Doe]

As I understand the consent laws for recording, since the call's already being recorded by one party, and everyone involved in the call is aware of it, then there's no legal issue with another party in the conversation recording it and not stating it upfront.

Not so. In CA, for instance, say you call me at Awesome Cable. You are informed by our automatic system that the call may be recorded. If you stay on the line, then you imply consent to be recorded. However, if you attach a recording device to your phone and do not specify in writing, verbally, or by mechanical means that you are recording, YOU are guilty of a class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to 30 days in prison or a $2500 fine or both. Just because YOU consent to MY recording, does not mean that I consent to YOURS.

Further, per Federal law, any interstate telephone call falls under the FCC's 'two party' consent rules.
---

And in this case May is a key word.

Smaller companies may record every call, and if they do they are obligated to state somthing along the lines of "Your call Will be recorded for quality assurance"

Also, not so. The statement "May" and "Will" are, from a legal standpoint, semantically null. For instance, I say "Alacazar, I may punch you in the mouth." It is no different semantically from "Alacazar, I will punch you in the mouth" because the operative word is not may or will, it is punch. Both are threats and both will get me arrested, whether or not I actually throw the punch. The same holds true for a recording consent statement. "You may be recorded..." indicates that there is a recording apparatus attached to the system, whether or not it actually is on. A company can use "You may" as their statement if they record 100% of calls, because may or will has no actual bearing on the recording device being attached and capable of recording.

[CrazedClerkthe2nd]

At my call center, I know for a fact that not all calls were recorded, not by management, not by anybody, only certain ones were hence the "your call MAY be recorded". As I understood it they recorded a sampling of calls from each agent each week (let's say you 250 calls in a week, there might be 30 of them recorded), QA would then choose a few to review from that sample.

[marasbaras]

If it wasn't for the call centers recording calls, a lot of us would be out of the job.

Never said that call centers shouldn't record calls. I think they should record EVERY call and have a way to make them quickly and easily retrievable along with the typed notes.

A customer can say that rep hung up on them, told them that they would be get this for this price with isn't true in the least. So frankly, I am glad we record calls cause a customer can threaten us and NOBODY would know about it if the call wasn't recorded.

Those are fine reasons to keep recording the calls.

So its not hypocritical, its a way for reps to know what they did wrong if a customer complains about us.

If the call center can record, so can the caller. Only seems fair.

Further, per Federal law, any interstate telephone call falls under the FCC's 'two party' consent rules.

This could cause problems for call centers the way shrink-wrap EULAs are getting hammered for software vendors. If the only way to talk to an agent is getting recorded and you do not wish to consent, the call center is at fault.

[Broomjockey]

Okay, I realize I'm as much at fault for the detour as anyone else, but I do need to ask now that we put it aside. It's becoming very debate-y, and even more sidetracked from the SC in the original post, so I'll leave aside about recording laws and such if everyone else will too.