this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2025
64 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

10430 readers
686 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 14 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Ok, so here's what I want to know:

If they cut those call centre jobs in half, and the current rate of calls answered is only 5%, what was it before? 100% 10%?

Because that would make a huge difference to how we view this problem. If 3000 more people only resulted in 10% of calls being taken, maybe it was better to save that money (logically, not ethically).

But if nearly all calls were taken with the previous levels of staffing, then they need to bring those people back ASAP.

[–] deltapi@lemmy.world 12 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

It was WAY higher than double before cutting half the staff. I worked in Callcenter operations for a bit, and the targets we staffed to try to achieve were 80% of calls answered within 60 seconds, and 80% availability.

(Availability==true when there's someone available to answer a call)

The former could be reached with as low as 66% availability, but if it dropped much below that the call answered rate would absolutely plummet, because people would hang up and call back, thinking they were lost in the queue.

If they're answering only 5% now, doubling their staff would probably take them to 30-40% call amswered

Edit: I did not work for the CRA, I worked for a different call center, one that serviced Europeans (who pay by the minute to call in)

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

If they’re answering only 5% now, doubling their staff would probably take them to 30-40% call amswered

That, too me, would be worth getting those people back for. And if it's higher (like 80% as you say), then they absolutely should be brought back to full staffing levels!

[–] deltapi@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

Ah, I reread what I wrote - quick point of clarification, I didn't work for the CRA call center

I have seen people online recommending sending physical mail for certain matters since the service is so bad

[–] garbagebagel@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

I've seen several arguments online defending how Carney +Co are not cutting services, but only cutting gov spending. I'd like them to tell me more about how cutting gov spending doesn't gut public services please.

[–] Yezzey@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Tried to do my income tax and the service wouldn't upload my papers for turbo tax. I gave up.

[–] rbesfe@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 weeks ago

FYI Use wealthsimple tax, it's much better and doesn't push you nearly as hard for the paid features

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

The Union of Taxation Employees, which represents CRA workers, says nearly 3,300 call centre employees have lost their jobs since May 2024. Consequently, says the union, on average, fewer than five per cent of callers reach an agent.

WTF.

Brière said more job losses are expected at CRA's call centres due to Prime Minister Mark Carney's recent call for federal ministries to significantly reduce program spending. The spending targets would see cuts of 7.5 per cent in the fiscal year that begins in April 2026, followed by 10 per cent the year after and 15 per cent in 2028-29.

Oh I see.