Government at Work



  • A few years ago, while I was in college, I applied to become one of those people who answer questions texted to "KGB". For those of you that have not seen the [incredibly annoying] commercials, KGB is basically a service that you can text any question to, and for the low price of $0.99 you will get an answer (I guess if you are too lazy to pull up Google on your phone). It's the same thing as cha-cha, except cha-cha is free and KGB cost money. Basically, as a person who answers questions, you pull up a web site where questions are routed to you, you research the question, send your answer, and then get paid a nickel or so for the response. (To give you an example of the types of questions we received, when I started my "shift supervisor" sent me a message containing a link to "average penis sizes by country" and informing me it will be my #1 most used reference.)



    I did this for about one night, in which I made about $8 total in the course of three hours, and then gave up (mostly because the beer I consumed while doing this cost more than the $2.67/hour I was getting paid).



    Today, years later, I get the following e-mail [mod - click to see full size - PJH]:




    Notice the enormous To: block (more than 200 email addresses in total). Now notice the line in the email about how "your identity will be kept confidential to the maximum extent possible under existing law." I guess existing law doesn't allow for using a BCC field?



    Then again, TRWTF is probably that the government is spending tax payer money on investigating a company for labor violations whose employees are subject to the horrific conditions of sitting on their asses at home in front of a computer.



    [mod: resized image, and hyperlinked to original instead - PJH]



  • Hah! Nice one.

    I don't know which is the bigger WTF, the To: field or the questions that you had to field at KGB!



    Pardon me for prying, but is that Outlook saying "Unable to log in to: Facebook" down the bottom there? Does Outlook support Facebook now?



  • @aihtdikh said:

    Does Outlook support Facebook now?

    [url=http://lmgtfy.com/?q=outlook+facebook]yes[/url]



  • UNION! UNION! UNION!

    I am totally sympathetic with those who take jobs where employers treat them like shit and make less than they are worth. I even feel bad for those who work at McDonnalds for minimum wage because they can't afford college or just lack the skills for a better job.

    But the people who signed up for this stupid job thinking it was going to pay their bills and be worth their while so much that they'll complain to Uncle Sam and waste our tax dollars investigating some "employer" who had a business plan that sounded like it was one of Krammer and Newman's zany entrepreneurial schemes gets no sympathy from me.

    Besides, there's an automated cha-cha on the interwebs already: lmgtfy.com.



  • @RHuckster said:

    Besides, there's an automated cha-cha on the interwebs already: lmgtfy.com.


    So … had you already read the post from rad131304 before you mentioned lmgtfy.com, or not? Just trying to work out whether you were being intentionally or unintentionally ironiic!



  • 1. The phrase "making an investigation" may be correct, but it feels awkward to me.  I'd suspect the email might not be a legitimate Dept. of Labor communication, had I received this.

    2. From what you've said it appears that KGB's commission structure wasn't commensurate with the amount of work required; to reach the federal minimum wage of $7.25/hour, an agent would have to generate answers at a sustained rate of one every 25 seconds.  Seems like a reasonable basis for an investigation to me.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    Was the file attachment named questionnaire.txt.vbs?



  •  @Cad Delworth said:

    @RHuckster said:

    Besides, there's an automated cha-cha on the interwebs already: lmgtfy.com.


    So … had you already read the post from rad131304 before you mentioned lmgtfy.com, or not? Just trying to work out whether you were being intentionally or unintentionally ironiic!

    I don't know. [url=http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Did+Cad+Delworth+read+the+post+from+rad131304+before+he+mentioned+lmgtfy.com]Did Cad Delworth read the post from rad131304 before he mentioned lmgtfy.com?[/url]



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    I don't know. <A title=http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Did+Cad+Delworth+read+the+post+from+rad131304+before+he+mentioned+lmgtfy.com href="http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Did+Cad+Delworth+read+the+post+from+rad131304+before+he+mentioned+lmgtfy.com" target=_blank>Did Cad Delworth read the post from rad131304 before he mentioned lmgtfy.com?

    My stack overflowed.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.