4 ms·
The implication I believe is that the company is large enough that the boss would not personally know all the employees. The actor is pretending to be an employ
by novia 9y ago
The implication I believe is that the company is large enough that the boss would not personally know all the employees. The actor is pretending to be an employee that is responsible for the mistake that the hiring party made, but is not pretending to actually BE the person who hired them.
- derefr 9y agoOr, the client company never met the employee responsible for the service company’s error (they were just tracked down by an internal investigation in the service company) and so theoretically the service company could have sent anybody and the client company wouldn’t have known the difference. The service company wants to send the error-committer, because going through this process is a punishment of sorts; but the client company doesn’t know/hasn’t met who they’re being sent, so the error-committer can fake things along the way. They could probably correct the problem by just sending an escort along with the error-committer, but maybe this kind of thing doesn’t happen enough for them to really care.
- Cerium 9y agoWonderful side effect: the company can honestly say that they fired them after the incident!