[flagged]
Bank forced to rehire workers after lying about chatbot productivity, union says
11–20 of 132 posts
Re: Bank forced to rehire workers after lying about chatbot productivity, union says
#12[flagged]
Weird take, considering that according to the text of the article the "innovation" didn't bring any productivity gains.
Re: Bank forced to rehire workers after lying about chatbot productivity, union says
#13[flagged]
[dead]
Re: Bank forced to rehire workers after lying about chatbot productivity, union says
#14[flagged]
[dead]
Re: Bank forced to rehire workers after lying about chatbot productivity, union says
#15[flagged]
Weird take, considering that according to the text of the article the "innovation" didn't bring any productivity gains.
The chatbots did bring productivity gains, the union argued that it wasn't significant enough for them to lay off people. I'm not as familiar with Australian union laws, but companies shouldn't be afraid to innovate like this. Wages don't go up through government force, they go up through innovation and increased efficiency
Re: Bank forced to rehire workers after lying about chatbot productivity, union says
#16[flagged]
I grew up in the rust belt. I've never heard of anyone leaving to "escape unions" but rather there just being not many jobs, lots of historic pollution to deal with, and a poor future economic outlook.
Why were unions specifically to blame for your family leaving?
Re: Bank forced to rehire workers after lying about chatbot productivity, union says
#17> Now, CBA has apologized to the fired workers. A spokesperson told Bloomberg that they can choose to come back to their prior roles, seek another position, or leave the firm with an exit payment. So no real consequences to the Bank for these underhanded tactics, since this just returns everything back to status quo before the layoffs, perhaps with reduced overall headcount as some workers choose not to return and ta…
True, but the union protected its workers from those at the bank. That is the value in the union. In jurisdictions without a union or parity labor policy, these workers would have no recourse for this fraud and the lies.
Re: Bank forced to rehire workers after lying about chatbot productivity, union says
#18How many times has a chatbot successfully taken care of a customer support problem you had? I have had success, but the success rate is less than 5%. Maybe even way less than 5%. Companies need to stop looking at customer support as an expense, but rather as an opportunity to build trust and strengthen your business relationship. They warn against assessing someone when everything is going well for them - the true me…
The only time a chatbot worked for me is Amazon's, of all things. It auto approved my return after I answered a few questions. I haven't had any chatbot outside that be useful to me. I always end up getting to the end of all the prompts only to be told I need to speak to a human or the chatbot going in a circle, in which I have to reach out to a different layer of support.
Sounds like a downgrade to me considering the previous return flow was to just press the return link and answer one multiple choice question.
Re: Bank forced to rehire workers after lying about chatbot productivity, union says
#19Change rarely works, it's the new companies that use AI in these sorts of areas that will show it works and then everyone will follow.
Re: Bank forced to rehire workers after lying about chatbot productivity, union says
#20How many times has a chatbot successfully taken care of a customer support problem you had? I have had success, but the success rate is less than 5%. Maybe even way less than 5%. Companies need to stop looking at customer support as an expense, but rather as an opportunity to build trust and strengthen your business relationship. They warn against assessing someone when everything is going well for them - the true me…
I had an experience recently where the chatbot gathered details about my problem, but then referred me to a knowledgebase article. I just replied "human" and it connected me with a human, but the AI must have given them a detailed summary, because they joined the chat, said "I understand the issue, let me see what I can do," and then two minutes later, said "I went ahead and fixed that for you on the backend."
One way to look at that anecdote is "the AI failed." Another way is "the AI made the human agent about 100% more efficient." I'm pretty sure CS agents don't love gathering basic info.