Conduent reviews

- Pay - the compensation is called RBC, which is basically impossible to keep track of to make sure you get paid correctly. And if you catch them on being wrong it’s impossible to correct. - Benefits - was promised lots of options and great packages. Options implies you have a deductible option, you do not. And you have to add every little thing on in order for your insurance to be complete which would end up costing half a weekly check at least. - They told us to not worry about contract end rumors and a month later we were laid off. - The training was sub par at best. - The systems provided worked about 75% of the time. - The office building and the cubicles provided were simply horrendous! The cubicles are literally not put together right and falling apart. The carpet is dirty. There are bugs at the office (I’m not talking about just like at a regular office but cockroaches, bed bugs, ants).

After the (very good) training phase, employees were expected to adhere to near-ridiculous quotas, with their time away from the phone literally recorded to the second. (Anxiety about the length of a bathroom visit was a very real concern, for example.) While employees were expected to give every second to the company (and if you've never sat in one position for hours on end, you don't know how rejuvenating even a 1-minute break, used to walk around the maze of cubicles, can be!), RSA had NO compunction about informing them, when work was slow, that they were taking VOLUNTARY unpaid leave. This means that if the phone system had a glitch, or calls were slow on a given day, they'd send people home without pay. Sometimes, people were fine with this. There were days when I was! But other times, it was sort of nice to have a slower day, and to be paid for it. But RSA's stance was that, if you were being paid, they were going to wring EVERY penny out of you! Then there were the ethical concerns. I started at RSA before the ACA was rolled out; then, we collected information from insurance applicants intended to help underwriters determine their eligibility for coverage and/or the rates they would be charged. With the rollout of the ACA, applicants were no longer denied coverage--or charged more--for preexisting health conditions. Yet we called them just the same, under the pretense of gathering information to better help them utilize their new coverage. Here's the thing: that was a lie. It was to gather information about their health, just as it had been pre-Affordable Care Act. Was it legal to gather the information? No. Not if it was willingly given to us. But we didn't really state the purpose honestly, so it felt unethical to gather it. You see, most people believe that insurance companies already have their complete health histories. In fact, they have very, very little information about applicants OR their insureds. Instead, they have one source of information: prescription histories. These can tell a great deal about a person---but can very easily be misinterpreted, given the many uses each drug may have. For example, the beta-blocker metoprolol can be prescribed for blood pressure, but is also often prescribed to treat anxiety. Before the ACA, the role of the MCM was to use the warehoused information about their prescription histories, and to round it out so that the insurance company had a better idea of the REAL medical history. Prescriptions alone tell only part of the story, and it can be a deceptive part. With the advent of the ACA, insurers really had no right to this information. They could still try to extrapolate info from the warehoused Rx database---but were wrong as often as not. Despite the fact they could not deny applicants coverage based on their histories, THEY STILL WANTED THAT PRIVATE MEDICAL INFORMATION---the very information we guarded so very carefully. (And yes, the records WERE safe in RSA's hands---it's just that they were gathering the information for rather dubious purposes). As a registered nurse who'd taken the Hippocratic Oath, I never felt comfortable gathering this information. My oath was to "first do no harm," yet I had no way of knowing how the insurer would use the information. Ultimately, the ethical issues pushed me to resign. It was very difficult to tell the (often angry, always confused) client, "You're right, you don't have to provide the information--but if you DO, it can help us tailor your coverage to your needs" when, in fact, there were only a very few health conditions for which tailored programs were provided, none of which really required an protracted, invasive interview. (I mean, if someone is taking three kinds of insulin, it's safe to assume s/he's diabetic and would benefit from receiving information about the program BCBS has for diabetics. They didn't need me to spend an hour gathering information about the client's ED or gynecological surgeries or depression to glean that!) And then there were the angry clients. And who could blame them? I would not ---did not! I was an enrollee, too!--speak to someone working for RSA seeking my PMI! It is confidential information no one is obligated to share, any longer, with insurers. That we asked for it was brazen--and that some applicants were pissed off was to be expected. It was not hard for me to remain pleasant and reassuring--and indeed, this "won" most clients over, so that they were willing to compete the interviews. However, I didn't ever feel as though I was benefitting anyone other than the insurer in this scenario. Had I felt the client really would benefit? I would have felt a LOT better about the job. Instead, I felt sleazy. The health benefits were abysmal, and expensive. Given the nature of the business, this is inexcusable.