bureaucracybusters

Posts Tagged ‘CONSUMER PROTECTION’

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

COMCAST AND COMMUNICATIONS DON’T MIX

In Bureaucracy, Business, Self-Help on January 28, 2013 at 12:14 am

In 1970, Robert Townsend, the CEO who had turned around a failing rent-a-car company called Avis, published what is arguably the best book written on business management.

It’s Up the Organization: How to Stop the Corporation from Stifling People and Strangling Profits.

Product Details

Though published 42 years ago, it should be required reading–for CEOs and consumers.

Don’t fear getting bogged down in a sea of boring, theory-ridden material.  As Townsend writes:

“This book is in alphebetical order.  Using the table of contents, which doubles as the Index, you can locate any subject on the list in 13 seconds.  And you can read all I have to say about it in five minutes or less.

“This is not a book about how organizations work.  What should happen in organizations and what does happen are two different things and about as far apart as they can get.  THIS BOOK IS ABOUT HOW TO GET THEM TO RUN THREE TIMES AS WELL AS THEY DO.”

Comcast is the majority owner of NBC and the largest cable operator in the United States. It provides cable TV, Internet and phone service to more than 50 million customers.

So you would think that, with so many customers to serve, Comcast would them with an efficient way to attain help when they face a problem with billing or service.

Think again.

Consider the merits of Townsend’s short chapter on “Call Yourself Up.”

Townsend advises CEOs: “Pretend you’re a customer.  Telephone some part of your organization and ask for help.  You’ll run into some real horror shows.”

Now, imagine what would happen if Brian L. Roberts, the CEO of Comcast, did just that.

Brian L. Roberts

First, he would find that, at Comcast, nobody actually answers the phone when a customer calls.  After all, it’s so much easier to fob off customers with pre-recorded messages than to have operators directly serve their needs.

And customers simply aren’t that important–except when they’re paying their ever-rising bills for phone, cable TV and/or Internet service.

Comcast’s net income stood at $2.11 billion in October, 2012.  And Roberts himself raked in a cool $26.9 million in 2011 compensation.

So it isn’t as though the company can’t afford hiring a few operators and instructing them to answer phones directly when people phone in.

But instead of being directly connected to someone able to answer his question or resolve his problem, Roberts would hear:

“Welcome to Comcast–home of Xfinity.”

Then he would hear an annoying clucking sound–followed by the same message in Spanish.

“Your call may be recorded for quality assurance.

“To make a payment now, Press 1.  To continue this call, Press 2.”

Then he would hear: “For technical help, press 1, for billing, press 2.  For more options, press 3.”

Assuming he pressed 2 for “billing,” he would hear:

“For payment, press 1  For balance information, press 2.  For payment locations, press 3.  For all other billing questions, press 4.”

Then he would be told: “Please enter the last four digits of the primary account holder’s Social Security Number.”

Then, as if he hadn’t waited long enough to talk to someone, he would get this message: “Press 1 if you would like to take a short survey after your call.”

By the time he heard that, he would almost certainly not be in a mood to take a survey.  He would simply want someone to come onto the phone and answer his question or resolve his problem.

Then he would hear: “At the present time, all agents are busy”–and be electronically given an estimate by when someone might deign to answer the phone.

“Please hold for the next customer account executive.”

If he wanted to immediately reach a Comcast rep, Roberts would press the number for “sales.”  A sales rep would gladly sign him up for more costly products–even if he couldn’t solve whatever problem Roberts needed addressed.

Assuming that someone actually came on, Roberts couldn’t fail to notice the unmistakable Indian accent of the rep he was now speaking with.

Not Indian as in American Indian–because that would mean his company had actually hired Americans who must be paid at least a minimum American wage for their services.

No, Comcast, like many other supposedly patriotic corporations, “outsources” its “customer service support team” to the nation, India.

After all, if the “outsourced” employees are getting paid a pittance, the CEO and his top associates can rake in all the more.

Of course, the above scenario is totally outlandish–and is meant to be.

Who would expect the wealthy CEO of a major American corporation to actually wait in a telephone queue like an ordinary American Joe or Jane?

That would be like expecting the chief of any major police department to put up with hookers or panhandlers on his own doorstep.

For the wealthy and the powerful, there are always underlings ready and willing to ensure that their masters do not suffer the same indignities as ordinary mortals.

Such as the ones who sign up for Comcast TV, cable or Internet services.

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

MILEY’S SIN

In History, Politics, Social commentary on June 4, 2012 at 12:00 am

Miley Cyrus has outraged the Christian Right by committing the ultimate sin: She believes in physics.

On March 1, the singer/actress posted what hate-filled fundamentalists believe was an anti-Christian tweet.

“Beautiful,” wrote Cyrus, and posted an accompanying photo of physicist Lawrence Krauss.

It wasn’t what 19-year-old Cyrus wrote that enraged the “kill-for-Christ” types.  It was the words–from Krauss–emblazoned against the photo:

EVERY ATOM IN YOUR BODY CAME FROM A STAR THAT EXPLODED.  AND, THE ATOMS IN YOUR LEFT HAND PROBABLY CAME FROM A DIFFERENT STAR THAN THE ATOMS IN YOUR RIGHT HAND.  IT REALLY IS THE MOST POETIC THING I KNOW ABOUT THE UNIVERSE.     

Lawrence Krauss Pic

YOU ARE ALL STARDUST.

YOU COULDN’T BE HERE IF STARS HADN’T EXPLODED, BECAUSE THE ELEMENTS [THE CARBON, HYDROGEN, OXYGEN, ALL THE THINGS THAT MATTER FOR EVOLUTION] WEREN’T CREATED AT THE BEGINNING OF TIME, THEY WERE CREATED IN STARS.

SO FORGET JESUS.  STARS DIED SO YOU COULD LIVE.

And, of these words, it was those three–“SO FORGET JESUS”–that roused right-wing Christians to deluge Cyrus’ twitter account with insults and death threats.  Among these:

“So are you no longer a Christian? Forget Jesus??? Seriously? What has happened to you out there in the famous world? What????”

“You seriously believe that crap? It’s so ridiculously stupid. Go to hell.”

Cyrus quickly made it clear she didn’t intend to meekly accept such aggression.  She tweeted:

“U have nothing better 2 do than hate? That saddens me. Im surrounded by love Im sorry 4 whatever happened 2 make u so bitter.

“How can people take the love out of science and bring hate into religion so easily?” she asked and then quoted Albert Einstein: “It makes me sad to think the world is this way. Like Einstein says ‘Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.’”

She has demanded that Twitter police itself against the cyber-bullies who often use its service.

Twitter says that uesrs should just block their harassers.

That ignores the question: If you start getting scores–or hundreds–of insulting and threatening tweets, are you supposed to take the time to block each one?

Twitter says that it will investigate violent threats, but then slops the problem back onto the victim.  According to the Twitter Help Center:

“Contact local Law Enforcement or Trusted Individuals: We will investigate reports of violent threats but please remember we are not the police and we cannot actively work with the police to report incidents that you report to us.

“If something has gone beyond the point of a personal conflict and has turned into actual violent threats that you feel are credible, call the police.”

In short, you’re on your own.

All of which raises the question: Why do so many people who claim to be filled with Christian love instantly resort to insults, threats or violence simply because someone has dared to express a different religious opinion?

Could it be that then-Senator Barack Obama was more insightful than many fundamentalist Christians wanted to admit?  It was at an April 6, 2008 San Francisco fundraising event that the Presidential candidate said:

“You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them….

“So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Of course, if Obama had said this about conditions in the Arab world, millions of these same fundamentalist Christians would have wildly applauded.

Obama took a lot of heat from Christian fundamentalists for his comment.  But it remains true that the anger so many of these people have aimed at Cyrus is out of all proportion to the “damage” inflicted by her single word: “Beautiful.”

She was not

  • preventing anyone from worshipping as s/he pleased;
  • urging the Federal Government to ban religious worship;
  • promoting some other faith–such as Islam–over that of Christianity.

She was merely agreeing with an observation–and an opinion–of an internationally-renowned physicist.

You can agree with her.  Or disagree with her.  Or ignore her completely.

But Cyrus has every right to believe as she wishes.

As do fundamentalists–who believe that a man who died 2,000 years ago is going to magically return from the grave to make everything wonderful.

Clearly, many religious people–of all faiths–desperately need to remember the words of the French philosopher Voltaire: “I do not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”

And he warned: “Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices.”

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

BENEDICT ARNOLD: CAPITALIST HERO – PART FOUR (END)

In Business, History, Politics, Social commentary on May 31, 2012 at 12:00 am

In a May 13 Op Ed column, Forbes magazine declared: “For De-Friending the U.S., Facebook’s Eduard Saverin is an American Hero.”

From that column by John Tamny:

“The unconsumed dollars kept from the hands of government will reach today’s and tomorrow’s businessmen.”

Throughout, the editorial implies that Americans would be so much happier if only:

  • the few taxes now levied on billionaires were abolished, and
  • that money stayed firmly in their trustworthy hands.

This utterly ignores the 2008 Wall Street “meltdown,” which occurred following an eight-year period of Republican “hands-off-the-market” regulatory policies.

It also ignores the even more recent loss of at least $2 billion by JPMorgan/Chase bank, in what amounted to a case of legalized gambling.

In addition, it utterly ignores the well-documented pattern of hedonistic and corrupt behavior among the rich.  As Robert Payne (1911-1983) the respected British historian warned in his book, The Corrupt Society, in 1975:

“Nor is there any likelihood that the rich will plow back their money into services to ensure the general good.  They have rearely demonstrated social responsibility, and they are much more likely to hold on to their wealth at all costs than to renounce any part of it….

“The rich are usually the last to observe the social pressures rising from below, and when those social pressures reach flashpoint, it is too late to call in the police or the army….A single authoritive sentence suffices to expunge all private wealth and restore it to the service of the nation.

“A nation’s wealth is too serious a matter to be left to the wealthy.  The riches of a nation belong to us all, to be shared among all for the general welfare.

“A country ruled by a small nucleus of rich men is obviously in a state of crisis; such a government cannot endure except by the use of armed force and draconian laws.  Ultimately these instruments prove to be ineffective and useless.”

Finally, Tamny ignores the dire warning of Niccolo Machiavelli, the father of political science, on the threats posed by the nobility to a republic.  (Today’s “nobility” consists of the richest 1% of the American population.)

In The Prince, he writes:

“…It is impossible to satisfy the nobility by fair dealing and without inflicting injury upon others, whereas it is very easy to satisfy the mass of the people in this way.

“For the aim of the people is more honest than that of the nobility, the latter desiring to oppress, and the former merely to avoid oppression….

“The worst that a prince has to expect from a hostile people is to be abandoned.  But from hostile nobles he has to fear not only desertion but their active opposition.”

The Forbes column ends with this salute:

“Let’s raise a glass to Eduard Saverin.”

Forbes‘editors might just as well have invited Americans to “raise a glass” to Benedict Arnold.

In 1778, Arnold, a trusted hero of the American Revolution, sought to “better himself” by “de-friending” America in his own way.  He offered to betray West Point and its 3,000 defenders to the British for 20,000 pounds (about $1 million today).

“He’s a true American hero.”

If this is true, America has traveled a long way from the most famous line of John F. Kennedy’s Inaugral Address:

“Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”

And from these words spoken by Robert F. Kennedy on March 18, 1968, during hs brief candidacy for the Presidency:

“Too much and for too long, we seemed to have surrendered personal excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things.  Our Gross National Product now is over $800 billion a year….

“Yet the Gross National Product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play.  It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials.

“It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country.

“It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.  And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.”

And if Eduardo Saverin is a “true American hero,” America has traveled a long way–downhill–from the patriotism of Stephen Decatur.

It was Decatur, the naval hero of the War of 1812, who famously said: “Our country, right or wrong.”

Billionaire traitors like Eduardo Saverin have coined their own motto.  And so have their traitor-loving cronies like Rush Limbaugh, Grover Norquist and the editors of Forbes:

“My wallet–first and always.”

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

BENEDICT ARNOLD: CAPITALIST HERO – PART THREE (OF FOUR)

In Business, History, Politics, Social commentary on May 30, 2012 at 12:20 am

Christopher Lasch was not the only author to warn of America’s coming abandonment by its privileged classes

Another was Robert Payne, the distinguished British historian.

Payne authored more than 110 books. Many of these were biographies. Among his subjects were Adolf Hitler, Ivan the Terrible, Winston Churchill, Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Lenin, William Shakespeare, Leon Trotsky and Leonardo da Vinci.

In 1975, he published The Corrupt Society: From Ancient Greece to Present-Day America. It proved a summary of many of his previous works.

Among the epochs it covered were the civilizations of ancient Greece, Rome and China; Nazi Germany; the Soviet Union; and Watergate-era America.

In his chapter, “A View of the Uncorrupted Society,” Payne warned: Power and wealth are the main sources of corruption.

“The rich, simply by being rich, are infected with corruption. Their overwhelming desire is to grow richer, but they can do this only at the expense of those who are poorer than themselves.”

Their interests conflict with those of the overall society. They live sheltered from the constant anxieties of the poor, and thus cannot understand them.  Nor do they try to.

“Inevitably they come to fear and distrust the poor, and, just as inevitably, their fear and distrust are translated into legislation that protects them against the poor.”

But Payne foresaw an even greater danger from the rich and powerful than their mere isolation from the rest of society:

“The mere presence of the rich is corrupting. Their habits, their moral codes, their delight in conspicuous consumption are permanent affronts to the rest of humanity. Vast inequalities of wealth are intolerable in any decent society.”

Writing in 1975, Payne noted that a third of the private wealth was possessed by less than 5% of the population–while about a fifth of the populace lived at the poverty level.

“The tendency is toward greater and greater concentrations of wealth in private hands.

“Unless this accumulation is checked by law or by violent social change, about two-thirds of the national wealth will be in the hands of 5% of the population in the year 2000, while at the same time considerably more than half the population will be below or near the starvation level. These estimates portend disaster.”

Payne has proven to be an uncanny prophet.

On November 1, 2011, Forbes magazine reported that, in 2007, the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country’s total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%.

Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country’s wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%.

In its May 13Op-Ed column, Forbes magazine declared: “For De-Friending The U.S., Facebook’s Eduardo Saverin Is An American Hero.”

The editors could have been more accurately entitled it: “Let Us Now Praise Famous Traitors.”

From the editorial:

“In Saverin’s case, his decision to renounce his U.S. citizenship will have a definite impact, and for that, those of us who seek smaller government should view him as a hero.”

“Those of us who seek smaller government” include mega-corporations that seek to pollute, avoid paying any taxes, market unsafe goods, gouge customers, and exploit their employees. But, by more than coincidence, this brutal truth is deftly omitted from the editorial.

“Saverin’s decision will starve the feds of revenue they would almost certainly waste….”

It is the legal responsibility of government–not private robber barons–to determine what lies in the national interest. During the Vietnam War, many anti-war protesters refused to pay taxes, claiming they wouldn’t “finance” an “immoral” conflict. But that didn’t stop the IRS from going after the monies that were legally owed.

“[Saverin’s decision] will force a rethink of a tax code that penalizes income and investment success….”

If it’s true, as Mitt Romney claims, that corporations are people, then they are exceptionally greedy and selfish people.

A December, 2011 report by Public Campaign makes this all too clear.

Public Campaign is a national nonpartisan organization dedicated to reforming campaign finance laws and holding elected officials accountable.

The report–which highlighted corporate abuses of the tax laws–offered the following revelations:

  • The thirty big corporations analyzed in this report paid more to lobby Congress than they paid in federal income taxes between 2008 and 2010, despite being profitable.
  • Despite making combined profits totaling $164 billion in that three-year period, the 30 companies combined received tax rebates totaling nearly $11 billion.
  • Altogether, these companies spent nearly half a billion dollars ($476 million) over three years to lobby Congress. That’s about $400,000 each day, including weekends.
  • In the three-year period beginning in 2009 through most of 2011, these large firms spent over $22 million altogether on federal campaigns.
  • These corporations have also spent lavishly on compensating their top executives ($706 million altogether in 2010).

And according to an analysis by the Associated Press, the head of a typical public company made $9.6 million in 2011.

That was up more than 6% from 2010, and was the second year in a row of increases.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

BENEDICT ARNOLD: CAPITALIST HERO – PART TWO (OF FOUR)

In Business, History, Politics, Social commentary on May 29, 2012 at 12:00 am

On May 13, Forbes magazine ran an Op-Ed piece under the headline: “For De-Friending The U.S., Facebook’s Eduardo Saverin Is an American Hero.”

Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer of New York angrily disagreed.

“It is scary. It is a scary, absurd place where even a tax dodger who renounces America for his own 30 pieces of silver is celebrated as a patriot and an American hero. It is perverse. I am appalled by making heroic a man who renounces citizenship to escape a tax rate of capital gains of 15%.

“No one gets rich in America on their own,” Schumer said. “And when people do well in America, they should do well by America. I believe the vast majority of Americans believe this too.”

From that Op-Ed piece:

“Saverin’s flight from the U.S. is yet another reminder of the superiority of a national consumption tax that in a perfect world would be implemented in concert with the abolition of the I.R.S.”

It’s tempting to imagine a world without an agency to collect taxes. But it’s nightmarish to contemplate a world where there were no taxes to pay for

  • a powerful military to protect us;
  • an FBI to combat terrorism and organized crime;
  • an FAA to safely regulate airline traffic;
  • agencies to repair roads;
  • agencies to erect public buildings (such as schools, courts and libraries) and
  • agencies (such as the EPA and FDA) to protect us from predatory businessmen.

The Op-Ed piece continues:

“A limited federal government is a difficult concept to achieve so long as that same government can grant itself the legal right to tax a certain portion of our incomes.”

Every nation in history–whether a democracy or a dictatorship, whether capitalist, socialist or communist–has understood the absolute necessity for collecting public revenues. And it has created means by which to do so.

“When individuals resist governmental hubris, we should exalt their actions.”

We should, in short, celebrate those who come to the United States to make fortunes they could not make anywhere else–and then, when they do, turn their backs on their adopted country. We should rejoice that they have stuffed billions of dollars more into their already-fat pockets and left their supposed fellow countrymen to shift for themselves.

“Ideally…we’ll implement a consumption tax through which we can limit what we hand over to them to spend. And if the tax is regressive or hits low incomes at the same percentage as high ones, all the better. Everyone should know intimately the cost of government.”

Of course we should have a “regressive” tax that “hits low incomes at the same percentage as high ones.” Of course, those who are barely able to feed their families or can’t afford medical care should pay as much in taxes as a rich parasite who, like Mitt Romney, throws out $10,000 bets like so many dimes.

“And if the loss of Saverin’s millions means fewer government programs will achieve funding, U.S. taxpayers will make up for the Saverin shortfall in spades given the seeming inability of Congress to ‘sunset’ any program.”

For billionaires like Saverin and the well-heeled types who subscribe to Forbes, it doesn’t matter that “fewer government programs will achieve funding.”

Greed-obsessed “swells” like Saverin:

  • don’t depend on Medicare–they can easily afford the best doctors money can buy;
  • don’t have to depend on Social Security to see them through old age;
  • don’t have to worry about standing in food bank lines;
  • don’t need to rely on police departments–if they’re threatened, they can easily afford round-the-clock bodybuards;
  • don’t need consume protection agencies; if they’re victimized by unscrupulous businessmen, they can hire platoons of lawyers and private detectives.

A contemporary writer who warned of America’s abandonment by its privileged classes was Christopher Lasch.  In his posthumously published last book, The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy [2005] he wrote:

The Revolt Of The Elites And The Betrayal Of Democracy

“There has always been a privileged class, even in America. But it has never been so dangerously isolated from its surroundings.

“George Bush’s [the president who served from 1989 to 1992] wonderment, when he saw for the first time an electronic scanning device at a supermarket checkout counter, revealed, as in a flash of lightning, the chasm that divides the privileged classes from the rest of the nation.”

Until recently, writes Lasch, American cultural and economic elites willingly shouldered civic responsibilities.  But in post-modern capitalism, a professional elite defines itself as entirely separate from civic concerns:

“The markets on which the fortunes of the new elites rely are tied to enterprises that operate across international borders….They have more in common with their counterparts in Brussels or Hong Kong than with the masses of people in their own country who are not yet plugged into the network of global communications.”

Thus, the privileged class in America–the top 1%–has separated itself from the crumbling public services and industrial cities that are used and lived in by the rest of the country’s citizens.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

BENEDICT ARNOLD: CAPITALIST HERO – PART ONE (OF FOUR)

In Business, History, Politics, Social commentary on May 28, 2012 at 12:05 am

On May 15, Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin renounced his U.S. citizenship.

Born in Brazil, the 30-year-old Saverin became a U.S. citizen in 1998 but has lived in Singapore since 2009.

Giving up his citizenship allowed him to avoid paying taxes on billions of dollars on capital gains when Facebook launched its IPO n May 18.  Singapore does not have a capital gains tax.

And America’s fascist Right couldn’t be happier.

Take Rush Limbaugh, the right-wing talk-show host.  The Rush Limbaugh Show airs throughout the U.S. on over 400 stations and is the highest-rated talk-radio program in the United States. When Limbaugh speaks, his “dittohead” audience listens—and acts as he decrees.

“So if it’s a more favorable tax haven that you can find elsewhere and you go there,” asked Limbaugh, ”why is it automatically that you are unpatriotic? Why is it automatically that you are a coward, that you are not paying your fair share? It’s this whole class envy thing rearing its head again.”

For Limbaugh, the villain isn’t a billionaire who turns his back on the country that gave him the opportunity to become one.  No, the villain lies in those who believe that even wealthy businessmen should behave like patriots–instead of parasites.

“But [Barack Obama is] out there demonizing successful people every day, targeting successful people every day, running a presidential campaign based on class warfare, trying to get the 99% of the country who are not in the top 1% to hate the 1%, to literally despise ‘em.”

Consider the implications of this:

On November 1, 2011, Forbes magazine reported that, in 2007, the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country’s total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%.

Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country’s wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%.

According to Limbaugh’s philosophy, the bottom 80% of the popularion owning 15% of the country’s wealth should pay homage to the top 20% of Americans who own 85% of the country’s wealth.

In short, they should “know their place” and not expect the moneyed few to pay their fair share of taxes.

Of course, this is to be expected of Limbaugh–whose own wealth makes him a multi-millionaire.  In 2001, U.S. News & World Report noted that Limbaugh had an eight-year contract, with Clear Channel Communications, for $31.25 million a year.

And according to a July 2, 2008, Matt Drudge column, Limbaugh signed a contract extension through 2016 that is worth over $400 million.

And Limbaugh isn’t alone in his praise for Saverin.

Another right-winger who defends those who run out on their country is anti-tax activist Grover Norquist,

On May 7, two Democratic Senators—Chuck Schumer of New York and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania—introduced legislation designed to tax expatriates even after they have left the country.

Their “Ex-PATRIOT Act” would impose a mandatory 30% tax on American investments for those who renounce their citizenship and would also prohibit individuals like Saverin from re-entering the country.

“Saverin has turned his back from the country that welcomed him, kept him safe, educated him and helped him become a billionaire,” Schumer said at a press conference. He added that it was time to “de-friend” the Facebook co-founder.

Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform (ATF) said the targeting people that turn in their passports reminded him of regimes that had driven people out of the country, only to confiscate their wealth at the door. 

“I think Schumer can probably find the legislation to do this. It existed in Germany in the 1930s and Rhodesia in the ’70s and in South Africa as well,” said Norquist. “He probably just plagiarized it and translated it from the original German.”

On the floor of the Senate, Schumer denounced Norquist in return:

“I know a thing or two about what the Nazis did. Some of my relatives were killed by them.  Saying that a person who made their fortune specifically because of the positive elements in American society, in turn, has a responsibility to do right by America is not even on the same planet as comparing to what Nazis did to Jews.”

Schumer added that he found it troubling that conservatives would lionize someone like Saverin, who was called “an American hero” by Forbes magazine.

On May 13, Forbes–which describes itself as “The Capitalist Tool”–had run an Op-Ed piece under the headline: “For De-Friending The U.S., Facebook’s Eduardo Saverin Is an American Hero.”

“Can you believe it?” asked Schumer.  “An American hero? Renouncing your citizenship now qualifies as heroic for the hard right-wing?”

“This has gone so far, this idolatry they have taken to such an extreme end, they make Eduardo Saverin into their patron saint.  In the name of low taxes for the wealthy, they have lionized an inherently unpatriotic person.”

, , , , , , , , ,

HANGING UP ON THE PHONE COMPANY

In Bureaucracy, Self-Help on February 6, 2012 at 10:30 pm

Do you want to remove a service or dispute a charge on your AT&T bill?

Then good luck, because AT&T doesn’t want to hear from you.

And to make sure they don’t, they’ve designed their phone system to keep you from reaching anyone who can resolve your problem.

This company, in short, is a disgrace to both communications and customer service.

Most customers try–repeatedly–to get help through the local office of AT&T.  And the first thing they get?  A recorded message touting how wonderful the company is.

Then they’re forced to answer a seemingly endless series of recorded questions. Even repeatedly saying “agent” doesn’t bring on a live person.

If someone finally answers, s/he will require you to provide information that you’ve already given to the recorded questioner. In short  You’ve just wasted time with their automated system; now you can waste more time with their employee.

What if the customer service can’t help you?  S/he might say you’ve reached the wrong department–when it was AT&T’s own  automated phone system that routed you there.

Or s/he might say, “I’m not authorized to do that.” Then you’ll be transfered to–another endless battery of shoe-tree questions.

Even calling AT&T’s corporate offices in Dallas, Texas, doesn’t guarantee you’ll get the help you need.

I recently faced this problem when I tried to get AT&T to keep its promise to give me a $30 credit on my phone bill.

I repeatedly called AT&T’s Dallas corporate headquarters, but reached a customer service rep only once.  And she quickly said she could not resolve my problem.

Even AT&T’s own records about my problem proved inaccurate.  Last November, I had canceled the company’s Internet service.  But the rep believed that this had been an accident, and she offered to set it up again.

When I said I needed an adjustment to my phone bill, she said she couldn’t help me.  What she could do was–transfer me to yet another shoe-tree.

The rest of my calls to this company’s headquarters went unanswered, as I was blocked by one shoe-tree after another.

So what’s the solution?

First, if you can’t get satisfaction from your local AT&T office, call the president–of AT&T–at: 1-800-283-6407.

Second, if you can’t reach anyone there, call your local Public Utilities Commission (PUC), which regulates the  operations of major utilities within your state.

It doesn’t matter that the company is based outside your state. It must legally comply with state laws regulating phone companies.  If it doesn’t, it can be barred from operating there–and forfeiting all those juicy revenues.

Some states care more about protecting their consumers than others.  California, for example, has a reasonably aggressive PUC.  When it places a call to AT&T, somebody there will pay attention.

That’s what happened when I called the PUC.

Only then did someone at AT&T deign to answer the phone.  And only then did a rep from the President’s office call me to ensure I got the $30 credit promised me.

Third, if you can’t reach the PUC, call the office of your state senator or assemblyman. 

The PUC is a bureaucracy.  And, like any bureaucracy, it doesn’t always work smoothly.  It uses a shoe-tree phone system that is as effective as AT&T’s at preventing people from reaching the help they need.

Senators and assemblymen are politicians who know how vitally important it is to make constituents happy.  And nothing makes a constituent happy like having a problem resolved.

Happy constituents remember such politicians on election day.  So the assemblyman or senator will have staffers who know how to reach the PUC–and other state agencies.

Fourth, when you reach the PUC, explain why you need to contact AT&T.  And if you haven’t been able to contact them, explain that, too.

AT&T often blames its own phone system for this disconnect!  But the company designed this system.  Nobody forced it on them.  AT&T can change that system anytime it chooses.

In fact, the system has actually been designed to keep customers from reaching AT&T officials with complaints!

So if you want to disconnect your phone, cable TV or internet service–but you can’t reach anyone–you’re still stuck with that service.   And they can keep billing you for it.  

Or if there’s an error on your phone bill–but you can’t find anyone to resolve it–the error stays on your bill and you face a threat of “pay up–or else.”

Fifth, post the problems you’ve had with utilities like AT&T at consumer-protection and/or -complaint websites, such as Yelp! or Pissed Consumer.

Even giant corporations fear bad publicity.  And the Internet gives enraged consumers a powerful weapon for exacting their revenge.

If you doubt it, ask the Susan G Komen for the Cure Foundation.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

GET YOUR REFUND – PART THREE (END)

In Bureaucracy, Business, Self-Help on September 7, 2011 at 5:01 pm

-6- 

[Instead of refunding my $49, BitDefender once again falsely claimed that my refund request came in too late.   They offered to refund 75% of the money I had already paid for a product I couldn't download.]

Dear Steffen,

Thank you for your reply.

Kindly understand that we cannot process a refund for the order placed last year through Digital River, as the system with which we are working does not allow us to process the refund for an order from  July 30,  2009.

The cancellation of your subscription signifies that the auto-renewal option has been disabled. In addition, we received no requests from you last year regarding the refund of this order.

However, in this situation we would like to make an exception for the order you have placed this year on Avangate on 2010-08-02 19:21:16. If you agree, we can refund 75% of your purchase, as the order has been placed in early August and we are currently in late November.

I am looking forward to your confirmation so that we can go ahead with the refund procedure.

Best regards,
Andra C.
BitDefender Technical Support Engineer

-7- 

[Believing that I was entitled to ALL the money I had paid for a product I couldn't download, I sent another email to BitDefender.

[In it, I threatened not only legal action but the publicizing of BitDefender's refusal to offer a deserved refund.  In this I was aided by:

(1)  I had once worked for a federal prosecutor's office, though not as a prosecutor.  By citing this, I hoped BitDefender would fear that I had contacts in government agencies who would cause legal trouble for them.

(2)  ] had also worked as a journalist, covering courts and police.  By citing this, I hoped BitDefender would fear that I knew enough about publicity as to stir up a great deal of bad  publicity for them.

(3)  I had saved all the BitDefender emails and could thus keep track of the company’s continuing efforts to stonewall the refund of my money.

(4)  I used Andrea’s own greeting of “Kindly understand” to drive home the point that I intended to be anything but kind if that’s what it took to reclaim my money.

[With all of these factors going for me, I sent BitDefender the following reply:]

Dear Andrea,

Kindly understand that, ON AUGUST 2 OR 3, 2010, I IMMEDIATELY NOTIFIED YOUR COMPANY ON THE VERY DAY I FAILED, FOR A THIRD TIME, TO DOWNLOAD YOUR PRODUCT, THAT I WANTED A REFUND. 

You cannot alert a company to something any more promptly than I alerted yours.  I also have your email of August 10 to confirm that you had cancelled my subscription. 

It’s customary that when a company cancels a subscription at the request of the buyer, it also refunds the money that buyer initially paid.  Obviously, your company has no respect for this sort of ethic.

Frankly, I don’t give a damn that “the system with which we are working does not allow us to process the refund for an order from July 30, 2009.”  

The fact is that I made a credit card payment to your company ON AUGUST 2, 2010, for a RENEWAL of my 2009 subscription.  

YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE IT APPEAR AS THOUGH I’M SEEKING A REFUND FOR A CREDIT CARD PAYMENT MADE MORE THAN ONE YEAR AGO.

I don’t care if you have to cut me a check from YOUR OWN BANK ACCOUNT and then seek reimbursement from BitDefender.  

I paid $49.95 IN ADVANCE to download your product–and yet I WAS NEVER ABLE TO DO SO.  THAT IS THE SAME AS IF I HAD PAID YOU IN ADVANCE BUT NEVER RECEIVED IT IN THE MAIL.  

Kindly also understand that I intend to keep my promise to take the most aggressive possible action against your company both legally and in the court of public opinion.  

I have worked as a as a journalist and for the U.S. Attorney’s Office.  I am now working as a troubleshooter for clients who need to redress problems with corporations and/or government agencies.  

Since you refuse to behave responsibly on this matter, kindly tell your superiors they will soon be getting everything they deserve.

Sincerely,

Steffen White

-8-

[Finally, BitDefender decided to end its stonewalling and refund my credit card.] 

Dear Steffen White,

We have been informed by http://www.bitdefender.com regarding the cancellation of your order #7990076. Therefore the transfer of this order`s amount towards your account has now been initiated.

The total amount of the order (49.95 USD) will be returned to your bank account associated to the card after the number of days necessary for the actual bank transfer to take place, as the transaction is now refunded within the Avangate system.

Sincerely yours,

Avangate Team

http://www.avangate.com

support@avangate.com
Tel: +31 88 0000008

* * * * *

The moral of the story: When dealing with an irresponsible company: 

(1) Save ALL emails and/or letters you exchange with them;

(2) Be relentless in pressing your claim;

(3) Be legally ruthless–and make certain they know you’re willing to be.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

GET YOUR REFUND – PART TWO (OF THREE)

In Bureaucracy, Business, Self-Help on September 6, 2011 at 11:26 am

-4-

[Instead of refunding my money, BitDefender falsely claimed that I had not requested a refund within 30 days from the date of purchase.] 

Dear Steffen,

I understand that you have requested a refund for your recently purchased BitDefender, on the reason that your expectations have not been met.  Thank you for contacting us regarding this concern!

Please understand that according to our refund policy, we can issue a refund within the first 30 days from the date of purchase. Your order #7990076 has been placed on 2010-08-02.

[Then, BitDefender ignored my request for a refund--and my complaints that I have been unable, three times in a row, to download its product.  Instead, they wanted me to take yet a fourth effort at downloading their product.]

Please allow us to assist you in correcting this issue you have experience with the download of our product. . We would of course like to offer you extra validity to your key for the time invested in this situation and also add another 2 months as a compensation for your time and patience.

Below you will find a valid download link and detailed instructions of the installation / upgrade process which is free of charge.

-5-

[Refusing to be stonewalled by BitDefender, I replied as follows:]

Dear Andrea,

I do NOT want or intend to waste any more time with your company in trying to download a product I COULD NOT DOWNLOAD IN THREE LENGTHY EFFORTS. 

Moreover, I was forced to make at least a couple of these efforts during peak business calling hours and at full toll-call expense because your company refuses to provide its customers with an 800 number.  

I admit that a couple of your reps did their best to assist me in downloading the latest version of your antivirus software, but even their efforts proved futile. 

By the end of the THIRD such time-consuming effort, I was simply too worn out with fatigue and told the rep who was still on the phone that I did NOT intend to make any further efforts at this but simply wanted a refund.  She said that your company would have to “think about it.”  

At that point I sent an email to your company threatening to complain to my credit card company and the United States Attorney’s Office.  Shortly thereafter, on August 10, I got an email from your company (which you have included below) saying:  “We have recently canceled the  following subscription.”

As a result, I assumed–as would any other customer–that you had removed the $49.95 charge from my credit card.  Apparently that was expecting too much from your company.

Since I no longer had antivirus protection for my computer, I went to a nearby Staples and bought Norton Internet Security.  Yes, it took some time to install, but I didn’t have any trouble downloading it–and I most certainly didn’t have to make THREE tries to do so, let alone call the company AT MY EXPENSE AT PEAK PHONE RATES to find out how to download it.

Since I NOW ALREADY HAVE AN ANTIVIRUS PROGRAM, I see no reason to dump what seems to be working well and make another series of probably fruitless efforts to download your product.  There is also no point in throwing another $50 (the price of your product) on top of the money I had to pay for Norton.

I will no longer put up with your stonewalling.  I will give you 72 (seventy-two) hours to FULLY REFUND my credit card. 

If you do NOT do so, I will start posting the particulars of my experience with your company on a series of consumer-comment websites such as “Pissed Consumer.com,” “Yelp!.com,” “Ripoff Report.com” and “MeasuredUp.com.”  

Apparently, for your company, a consumer’s “No” means “We don’t care what you say; we have your money and we’re going to keep it, one way or another.” 

Unless you IMMEDIATELY change your policy in MY case, you will find yourselves LOSING a great deal more than $50 in lost business and attorneys’ fees.

Sincerely,

Steffen White

* * * * *

[But my efforts to gain a refund from BitDefender were not yet finished.]

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

GET YOUR REFUND – PART ONE (OF THREE)

In Bureaucracy, Business, Self-Help on September 1, 2011 at 4:56 pm

How do you deal with a company that

1.   Fails to deliver its promised product; and then

2.   Refuses to refund the money you’ve paid in advance?

Here’s how I dealt with this problem last year when I could not download the BitDefender Antivirus software for which I had paid by credit card.

I told the BitDefender rep I was speaking with by phone that I had tried to download their latest version three times–but had not been able to do so.  She told me I would have to wait for the company to decide whether it would refund my money.

Here, step-by-step, is how I finally persuaded this company to behave responsibly.  The following consists of a series of emails exchanged between BitDefender and myself.

-1-

[The credit card company, in an email, told me what I already knew: That there was “a billing dispute” between me and BitDefender.]

Dear STEFFEN X WHITE:

Why we’re writing you
This is a billing dispute update on your [credit] account for the following transaction:

o   BITDEFENDER.COM AVANGA   AVANGATE.COM NL
o   08/02/2010
o   $49.95

Some important information
We have received the information about your billing dispute and have forwarded the details to the merchant.  The merchant has 60 days to respond to the disputed charges.

We will notify you of their response as soon as possible.  In the meantime, we have issued a conditional credit to your account.  We appreciate your patience as we work with the merchant on your behalf to resolve this matter.

You’ll receive either a statement message, an email, or a letter confirming the action taken on your billing dispute.  If you have other disputes, you will receive updates through separate communication(s).

We appreciate your business and look forward to serving you.

-2-

[BitDefender ignored my previous statements that I had been unable to download their product.  Instead, the company asked me to explain in writing why I sought a refund.]

Dear Steffen White,

We are writing to you in regards to your order ref #7990076 placed on
http://www.bitdefender.com on 2010-08-02 19:21:16.

We by herein, inform you that we have received a chargeback (payment refused) notification from the issuing bank of the card used by you to pay for this order. This notification was sent to inform us that the card holder contacted his card issuing bank and requested to cancel this payment.

Please tell us the detailed reasons why you requested a chargeback at your issuing bank regarding this payment.

-3-

[Instead of refunding my money, BitDefender once again asked me to explain why I had requested a refund.]

In a message dated 11/22/2010 6:21:40 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, pay@avangate.com writes:

Dear Steffen White,

We are writing to you in regards to your order ref #7990076 placed on
http://www.bitdefender.com on 2010-08-02 19:21:16.

We by herein, inform you that we have received a chargeback (payment refused) notification from the issuing bank of the card used by you to pay for this order. This notification was sent to inform us that the card holder contacted his card issuing bank and requested to cancel this payment.

Please tell us the detailed reasons why you requested a chargeback at
your issuing bank regarding this payment.

-4-

 [I then replied as follows:]

In brief: I did so because I had paid almost $50 for a product I couldn’t download from your website.  I made three efforts to do so and after the third one I was too frustrated to make any more. 

Nor was I impressed by the fact that your company refuses to offer an 800 number to resolve such problems, so I was forced to make several calls at peak phone rates.  I give high marks to the final rep I dealt with, who tried to help me download your latest version, but this, too, failed and I simply ran out of patience (and money for more toll calls). 

My subscription had expired and I desperately needed protection for my computer.  Unable to obtain it through your company, I went to a Staples and bought Norton Antivirus. 

It took some time to install, but I did not have any trouble getting it to download.  Since doing so, I haven’t had any trouble with it. 

Steffen White

Former BitDefender Customer  

[I believed that should settle the matter.  But I was wrong.]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 49 other followers

%d bloggers like this: