fluffythewondercat
|
posted on October 23, 2002 12:20:20 PM
Some of you may remember a couple of months ago a city employee using city computer resources was giving me static.
Now, an employee of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (an independent federal government agency) using federal computing resources during her work hours, is threatening to bring the resources of the CPSC down on me because she didn't receive the $5 charm bracelet I sent her.
She didn't insure the shipment. (You saw that coming, right?)
The funny thing is, she doesn't seem very well-informed about what her own agency does. CPSC only has jurisdiction over product safety, nothing else.
I've contacted the EEO office at CPSC, and a very nice woman there will be pursuing my complaint with the office of the inspector general, once I fax the emails to her.
I guess it takes all kinds, but people like my "customer" should not be sucking off the public teat.
-
fluffythewondercat, PowerSeller times two
[ edited by fluffythewondercat on Oct 23, 2002 12:21 PM ]
|
Reamond
|
posted on October 23, 2002 12:46:35 PM
While I can see a stretch to the Consumer Product Safety Commission giving a seller some static, what I find stranger is contacting the EEO office about a problem employee.
What would an Equal Employment Opportunity Office have to do with this situation ?
|
fluffythewondercat
|
posted on October 23, 2002 01:57:21 PM
That's who I was referred to when I called the office of the executive director.
It seemed strange to me, too, but this was a judgment call from the switchboard operator, apparently.
Anyway, the folks at the EEO office are going to work with the inspector general on this case. Should be fun.
|
lovepotions
|
posted on October 23, 2002 02:35:48 PM
You may have better luck to call human resources for that agency and file a complaint there. They have files on all current employees and direct connections to their supervisors etc etc.
They should be informed if their employees are for one using company resources for personal business and for abusing the name of the agency of small petty personal matters.
Save the emails to show how you recieved them during office hours....in case they want forwarded copies in their internal investigation.
Good luck.
http://www.lovepotions.com
|
tomyou
|
posted on October 23, 2002 02:50:51 PM
sweet jesus man it is a five dollar threat just ignore and move on and nothing will ever come of it. youve probably already pent more than $5 worth of time screwing around with it.
|
bear1949
|
posted on October 23, 2002 02:59:28 PM
tomyou
It's the principal of the thing.
When someone using govenment time & resourses to make a online purchase & then makes threats is just leaving themselves open for all types of problems.
I don't retaliate, I tend to Escalate.
More power to you Fluffy
|
ahc3
|
posted on October 23, 2002 03:15:35 PM
It's more than $5, this person is in the wrong for several things, and threatened the seller. I certainly would try to make their life miserable so that they don't consider doing something like this again...
|
MAH645
|
posted on October 23, 2002 03:23:55 PM
I would have done what you did fluffy,some people will do anything.They really have a nerve.
|
uaru
|
posted on October 23, 2002 03:29:04 PM
It's the principal of the thing.
For $5.00 plus shipping it's not worth the fight from a business standpoint. If you're a crusader, fighting for the principal makes sense. If your a businessman spending more than 10 minutes over that amount doesn't make sense.
If you want to be a crusader with your business then expect business to suffer.
[ edited by uaru on Oct 23, 2002 03:30 PM ]
|
thchaser200
|
posted on October 23, 2002 04:23:44 PM
:
|
fluffythewondercat
|
posted on October 23, 2002 04:25:45 PM
I don't quite understand the objections to me reporting this woman's threats.
I'm not out $5; she is, apparently.
It did cost me $3 to fax copies of her email to the relevant folks at the Consumer Product Safety Commission, but I consider it money well spent as well as tax-deductible.
This woman is violating Federal law. She is an employee of a Federal agency who is threatening me with Agency sanctions if I don't cough up money or goods for her personal use. It's blatantly illegal.
Also, she is (stupidly) using Government computers and a Government email address during business hours to a) bid on eBay and b) harass a private citizen.
-
fluffythewondercat, PowerSeller times two
[ edited by fluffythewondercat on Oct 23, 2002 04:26 PM ]
|
Libra63
|
posted on October 23, 2002 06:09:59 PM
I agree with what you have done fluffy. Obviously that person has a lot of free time and if that is so then that position should be vacated and the money put to a much better use. I am sure that everyone that has disagreed with you and had a business would feel differently if it happened to them. Yours is probably not the only auctions that she is bidding on.
|
tomyou
|
posted on October 23, 2002 06:16:25 PM
I don't have any objections at all to you reporting the matter. My thinking is more on the lines of uara's thinking. It isn't practical from a business sense to pursue. Maybe you have time on your hands and are not that busy but if you spent time worrying about those flakes like this you will quickly lose pace with those postive e-bayers and your business could suffer. Anyways good luck however you pursue the matter.
|
sanmar
|
posted on October 23, 2002 06:57:14 PM
As far as I can see, you are doing the right thing. She is trying to intimidate you & I hope it backfires.
|
fluffythewondercat
|
posted on October 24, 2002 09:55:17 AM
tomyou: I see your point. No hard feelings. As it happens I am waiting for a new shipment to arrive (today, TODAY!) and so it is slow because I'm not listing anything.
The affair is really out of my hands now anyway; I did all that I could. It's up to the CPSC to deal with their own employee. The twit keeps emailing me. I ignore it.
|
meadowlark
|
posted on October 26, 2002 07:07:12 AM
Fluffy,
You go girl! If no one reports a criminal, they will never get handled and will continue to break the law. Although being an Ebay seller is all about profit, one has a moral responsibility as well to the community and themselves to not take it lying down. Our freedoms are chipped away daily by those things which we don't stand up and fight for. And it makes us each of us just a little bit less as a person each time.
I'm not for "making the person's life miserable", just for at least making some genuine attempt at correcting a person who chooses to break the law or abuse their power. Contacting the agency she works for was the correct action.
Taking personal responsibility puts one in a causative position in any difficult situation. I will agree that walking away is still advisable in some cases. But when it becomes a method of operating in life, one finds themselves becoming more and more the "effect" of things around them. Life "happens" to them, they are not controlling it.
FLUFFY, YOU ARE TO BE COMMENDED!
|
fluffythewondercat
|
posted on October 27, 2002 08:57:37 AM
Gosh. Thanks, meadowlark. Wow.
I got a chill down my spine this morning when I heard an Oklahoma teen went on a shooting rampage because his neighbors complained about his reckless driving. The neighbors did the right thing...but one paid with her life.
Not only has personal responsibility been abandoned to a large degree in the U.S., but I guess it's OK to shoot anyone who points out that you're behaving dangerously. I guess the neighbors were attacking the teen's self-esteem.
Madness.
|
stonecold613
|
posted on October 27, 2002 10:27:28 AM
And this is the same fluffy that says not to turn in ebay violators.
I don't mean to degrade the situation, as this person should have been turned in to her superiors, but you have a double edged sword.
I think echowood87's point was that eBay has so many rules and regulations, some of which directly contradict each other, that it's hard to have much respect for those rules. I can see his point. I even agree with it.
|
angelwoman
|
posted on October 27, 2002 12:16:46 PM
I wonder if anyone has thought that perhaps she is allowed to use the computer on her break time or lunch hour. I know that we are allowed this freedom where I work but only on the above times..just wondering.
|
rarriffle
|
posted on October 27, 2002 01:53:05 PM
anglewoman, if this person works for a government agency, then my tax dollars are paying her.
She does NOT have my permission to waste my tax dollars being on the internet on my computer, at my desk, using my electricity. That is why they have to keep raising taxes, because everybody keeps milking the system.
And if you are using your bosses equipment any time to do something for you and not your job, you are milking the system too.
|
Romahawk
|
posted on October 27, 2002 02:14:52 PM
Just a thought but this person may not be spending your tax dollars at all. There are several state and federal office buildings plus a military post near where I live and in some of the employee break or lunch areas there are coin operated public access terminals which those folks can use to jump on the internet and quickly check on one thing or another. Your buyer may well have been on lunch and using one of these terminals and not those of her employer.
*
http://www.romahawk.com
|
fluffythewondercat
|
posted on October 27, 2002 02:30:08 PM
stonecold: AW rules prohibit me from stating precisely what you are for misquoting me above, but if one gathered up the scum that grows on ponds, the bag one would use to keep it in bears a striking resemblance to you.
|
fluffythewondercat
|
posted on October 27, 2002 02:32:24 PM
romahawk: However, she was threatening to bring the agency down on me over a personal dispute.
It is not OK to send out threats using a government email address. It implies you are acting under the aegis of that agency.
|
koto1
|
posted on October 27, 2002 02:39:07 PM
Fluffy>>Correct. The person you're dealing with is an idiot, and blowing a lot of hot air.
"Who's tending the bar?  Sniping works up a thirst"
|
dejapooh
|
posted on October 28, 2002 11:20:11 AM
Please keep us updated. I would love to find out what happnes.
|
fluffythewondercat
|
posted on October 28, 2002 12:59:41 PM
The package was returned to us today because of an "Insufficient Address".
We had used the address the woman's boyfriend provided when he made the payment for her. (Don't ask me why she couldn't do it herself.)
|
