">
What Mrs *** said is
true in that there was a lack of clarity on our
work-mans part
Here is the
misunderstandingOur man had two different sets of paperwork
We had a standing
price for two men in close geographical proximity, (in reasonable driving
conditions),
to do emergency snow and ice removal for $for that first hour In a typical year, we are removing ice buildup
and the snow behind it
This year, this weather event was quite a bit
differentOur ability to get to areas was becoming less certain, we began to
ask about travel time pay for our menWe determined to include part of that in
the initial cost, thereby increasing the overall cost The amount of time it took to remove enough
snow to make a difference also increased, so we started running some of the
crews at men, while others, were still two menWe chose to set the pricing
simply at $560, which would cover a three man crew for one hour, and a two-man
crew for an hour and a halfThis decision addressed the sense that more time
or people were needed to do enough good for the people we were trying to help
Mrs*** feels we
tried to pull a fast one on her, and, that we purposely ignored her sons
situation
What we actually did was,
worked at providing relief at a reasonable cost, paying our men a premium wage
due to the dangerous, difficult job, (paying insurance and taxes etc). Our man was trying to clarify his
misunderstanding by showing the different sheets that showed lower time
commitment and therefore lower costThat attempt possible made things more
confusing Also, our man ran out of time to reach her son that
night, and his work order went into the group system we were using. We did not get to him, like so many others
We tried to help as many
as we could in an imperfect situation
We succeeded. And we failed
But we tried. And we took risks. And we didn't gouge
And we're trying to work
with this customer to help her feel she was taken care of
Thanks for your
consideration.
*** Rott General Manager
">
What Mrs *** said is
true in that there was a lack of clarity on our
work-mans part
Here is the
misunderstandingOur man had two different sets of paperwork
We had a standing
price for two men in close geographical proximity, (in reasonable driving
conditions),
to do emergency snow and ice removal for $for that first hour In a typical year, we are removing ice buildup
and the snow behind it
This year, this weather event was quite a bit
differentOur ability to get to areas was becoming less certain, we began to
ask about travel time pay for our menWe determined to include part of that in
the initial cost, thereby increasing the overall cost The amount of time it took to remove enough
snow to make a difference also increased, so we started running some of the
crews at men, while others, were still two menWe chose to set the pricing
simply at $560, which would cover a three man crew for one hour, and a two-man
crew for an hour and a halfThis decision addressed the sense that more time
or people were needed to do enough good for the people we were trying to help
Mrs*** feels we
tried to pull a fast one on her, and, that we purposely ignored her sons
situation
What we actually did was,
worked at providing relief at a reasonable cost, paying our men a premium wage
due to the dangerous, difficult job, (paying insurance and taxes etc). Our man was trying to clarify his
misunderstanding by showing the different sheets that showed lower time
commitment and therefore lower costThat attempt possible made things more
confusing Also, our man ran out of time to reach her son that
night, and his work order went into the group system we were using. We did not get to him, like so many others
We tried to help as many
as we could in an imperfect situation
We succeeded. And we failed
But we tried. And we took risks. And we didn't gouge
And we're trying to work
with this customer to help her feel she was taken care of
Thanks for your
consideration.
*** Rott General Manager