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.

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)

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

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!

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