So put me in the camp in support of the union supporters in Wisconsin. I find it absolutely incredible that people that want to keep the top 2% of American's income, i.e. those that make over $250,000, at a lower tax rate, they get to keep a whole $5,000 or so a year (yes, more for those that make $1,000,000 - oooo, I bet they really feel the pain), and instead are trying to take away the wages and benefits of people that make $50,000 a year. Yes, these teachers that make a fifth, or even less of the richest people in America, those are the people that are the "blame" for our country's budget woes. As Stephen Colbert states, damn those rich teachers and their 93 Sentras. Totally makes sense to go after people driving almost 20 year old cars instead of those that, you know, own several 2011 Rolls Royces, or Bently's, or Mercedes, or Porches.
Now the unions in Wisconsin are willing to compromise. They are willing to accept less in wages and less in benefits. They understand that everyone needs to contribute in these hard economic times to help balance budgets. But what they are not willing to accept is their absolute destruction, the complete inability to later bargain and negotiate to get those benefits and wages back when economic conditions improve. These people will sacrifice some money now, but want the right to get it back later. Compare this to bankers, who didn't even have to sacrifice their money, not one single penny of it, now. The bankers got bailed out in the billions. They got their six figure bonuses. Did you get a bonus for Christmas this year? Or last year? Did you get a raise? Bankers did, teachers did not. Teachers are giving up their ability to trade in their 18 year old car for a 10 year old car, whereas bankers are trading in their 2010 RRs for the new 2011 model. Cry me a friggin river you top 2%.
Oh, but those teachers get 3 months vacation and only work till 3pm. Well, let me say Bullshit! My mother was a teacher. She worked well past 3pm. At home, she was always grading papers, getting lesson plans together, making bulletin board displays. She worked summer schools often. I remember seeing many of my teachers working in grocery stores over the summer because they just couldn't last 3 months without a paycheck. That's right, its not like these teachers get 3 months "paid vacation." They get 3 months without a paycheck. You try living 3 months without a paycheck.
QUIT BALANCING OUR BUDGET ON THE BACKS OF TEACHERS AND KIDS! We have to pay teachers well to encourage more to enter the field. I've constantly heard the excuse by big companies. Oh, we have to pay our CEOs these millions of dollars to encourage them to stay/come to our company. That's what "big lawfirms" say to excuse their $160,000 paychecks to top law students. Why not use that same excuse to attract more teachers to the profession?
Maybe, just maybe, if more teachers entered the profession and could make living wages, our kids would be better educated. I've heard arguments that teachers are so secure in their jobs, so they don't try. How about, our teachers are so overwhelmed with 35+ student classes, having to find ways to get school supplies, even paying for them out of their own pocket (there's a special tax write off for that too, you think that would be necessary if teachers were getting such supplies from the school?), having to be babysitters as well as teachers because both parents (to the extent there are two parents) are working long hours trying to pay the rent or mortgage and put food on the table. These teachers are exhausted, and so are the parents. Meanwhile the poor top 2% are having to "sacrifice" by canceling one of their ten trips to Europe this year and only being able to buy 10 new pairs of shoes this year instead of 15. Lets get that violin out.
A poor education leads to poorly trainable workers. A recent article in my local paper talked about problems with the new Septa rail cars. They have a lot of defects. They're being made in America (which we're all supposed to encourage, right, rather than having them made in Mexico?), but the Korean supervisors are complaining that all the workers are unskilled and they are difficult to train. Maybe if they could read and do math better, they'd be better workers. And maybe if those workers had better education in school they could read and do math better. And maybe they'd get that better education if there was more money being paid to the schools and the teachers.
Some say that "throwing money at the problem won't solve it." HOW DO THEY KNOW THAT? WE'VE NEVER TRIED IT! How about we give it a try and throw more and more money at education, and do it for like 10 years and see if things improve?
Unions may not be perfect. There may be corruption at the top. But there's no way there's more "corruption" in unions than there is at the top of big business, and no way that union bosses earn more than the CEOs of these businesses. You think CEOs "make jobs"? Yeah, maybe, but I bet half of those jobs are in other countries, Mexico, India, China. Union bosses, however, make American jobs. Union bosses fight for more wages for their union members, giving them more money, so that maybe the members can afford to eat out at Applebees once a month, thereby allowing Applebees to hire more waiters, servers, cooks and dishwashers. There, more jobs created and in America.
So I say no to abolishing unions or taking away collective bargaining rights. Frankly, I don't think they should be giving up any of their hard earned wages or benefits, not unless the top 2% make similar concessions in their taxes. You want union employees to take a 5% cut in wages and benefits, then raise the taxes 5% on the top 2%. Guess which one creates more money for state and federal budgets?
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Legal Profession?
Have got to cut and paste a few comments from my favorite Legal Blog, Above the Law. The article concerned how DeVry University (you know, the "institute" that provides vocational education with lots of TV spots, mostly in fields like medical billing, human resources - i.e. employment benefits mgmt, network administration, etc.) may be buying the Bar/Bri prep course business from Thomas Reuters (who instead of investing in teaching Americans how to pass the bar and practice in the US is now investing in foreign attorneys/document reviewers by buying Pangea3 - a firm that primarily handles outsourcing legal work to India).
The article's author thinks that the marriage of DeVry and Bar/Bri is perfect because its clear that lawschools don't adequately prepare students to pass the bar, let alone actually practice law. Its truly amazing that three years of education and you still need to take a six-week 'focused' course on how to pass the only test that allows you to practice law. Three years and the school can't even teach you how to pass one friggin test? Considering the profit mills that many lawschools have become, it just makes sense that a for-profit vocational "institute" takes over the only course that actually gives students the information they need to pass the Bar exam.
Seriously, the legal profession used to be looked up to as respectable and you had to be smart and dedicated to law in order to get into lawschool. Now anyone with a pulse can pay $50,000+ a year or more to get three years of crap education, then pay another $6,000 for the Bar/Bri course to learn how to pass the bar.
So anyway, here are some of the comments:
"When I read these types of articles, it makes me appreciate the fact that I left this corroded profession. The value of a JD is at its nadir. When I became a lawyer, an LLB was the key to the kingdom. Kids today cry about a $160K/year salary. When I joined this profession, I was barely making $16K a year (1/10 of what kids think they deserve today). I was able to buy my first home outright with no mortgage within 3 years of becoming a licensed attorney. I had no student loan debt and I was financially secure within 5 years from passing the bar. Folks, the sad reality is that the dream is dead and has long been dead for decades. I recall a normal partnership track being 5 years. I remember being mentored and groomed, not hectored or humiliated. Times have changed and if you still signed up for a JD today, then you are truly a masochist. Kids, do yourselves a favor and go to a trade school. Mechanics and refrigeration technicians will earn more money than you and will serve a function in society. I never thought I would be alive to see the value of a JD being equal to a diploma issued by the Sally Struthers School of "Fill in the Blank." That is all."
"Isn’t Devry one of those schools that advertise on TV at times when everyone with anything better to do is away from a television set? If you’ve ever been sick at home and stuck in front of a TV you know what I’m talking about.
If an organization I only know about from bad TV is going to buy Bar/Bri, I think it should be that ‘Feed the Children’ Christian charity. I can see the commercials now: slide after slide of somber, doe-eyed 3Ls staring up at the camera from dim and dusty library tables while that fat bearded guy’s voice tells a few of their tales: “This is Margaret. She went to Baylor. There was a time when Baylor graduates could at least count on legal staffing jobs in Houston to pay their bills. Now Margaret faces a future as the bottom rung of her aunt’s Mary Kay distributorship pyramid. For just a few dollars a day, you could help her sit for the Texas Bar. The Texas dream of a lexis may not be in her future, but with your help, she may afford the payments on her Hyundai.” "
"My point here is that the line between "professional" school and "vocational" school has substantially blurred, that it actually makes sense for DeVry to take on this responsibility, and that to the extent that people graduate from 3 year law schools still needing to go to a finishing or vocational school before they can actually practice is a damning illustration of the state (and outsized cost) of legal education.
-- The ATL comment thread is the DeVry of commenter education schools."
The article's author thinks that the marriage of DeVry and Bar/Bri is perfect because its clear that lawschools don't adequately prepare students to pass the bar, let alone actually practice law. Its truly amazing that three years of education and you still need to take a six-week 'focused' course on how to pass the only test that allows you to practice law. Three years and the school can't even teach you how to pass one friggin test? Considering the profit mills that many lawschools have become, it just makes sense that a for-profit vocational "institute" takes over the only course that actually gives students the information they need to pass the Bar exam.
Seriously, the legal profession used to be looked up to as respectable and you had to be smart and dedicated to law in order to get into lawschool. Now anyone with a pulse can pay $50,000+ a year or more to get three years of crap education, then pay another $6,000 for the Bar/Bri course to learn how to pass the bar.
So anyway, here are some of the comments:
"When I read these types of articles, it makes me appreciate the fact that I left this corroded profession. The value of a JD is at its nadir. When I became a lawyer, an LLB was the key to the kingdom. Kids today cry about a $160K/year salary. When I joined this profession, I was barely making $16K a year (1/10 of what kids think they deserve today). I was able to buy my first home outright with no mortgage within 3 years of becoming a licensed attorney. I had no student loan debt and I was financially secure within 5 years from passing the bar. Folks, the sad reality is that the dream is dead and has long been dead for decades. I recall a normal partnership track being 5 years. I remember being mentored and groomed, not hectored or humiliated. Times have changed and if you still signed up for a JD today, then you are truly a masochist. Kids, do yourselves a favor and go to a trade school. Mechanics and refrigeration technicians will earn more money than you and will serve a function in society. I never thought I would be alive to see the value of a JD being equal to a diploma issued by the Sally Struthers School of "Fill in the Blank." That is all."
"Isn’t Devry one of those schools that advertise on TV at times when everyone with anything better to do is away from a television set? If you’ve ever been sick at home and stuck in front of a TV you know what I’m talking about.
If an organization I only know about from bad TV is going to buy Bar/Bri, I think it should be that ‘Feed the Children’ Christian charity. I can see the commercials now: slide after slide of somber, doe-eyed 3Ls staring up at the camera from dim and dusty library tables while that fat bearded guy’s voice tells a few of their tales: “This is Margaret. She went to Baylor. There was a time when Baylor graduates could at least count on legal staffing jobs in Houston to pay their bills. Now Margaret faces a future as the bottom rung of her aunt’s Mary Kay distributorship pyramid. For just a few dollars a day, you could help her sit for the Texas Bar. The Texas dream of a lexis may not be in her future, but with your help, she may afford the payments on her Hyundai.” "
"My point here is that the line between "professional" school and "vocational" school has substantially blurred, that it actually makes sense for DeVry to take on this responsibility, and that to the extent that people graduate from 3 year law schools still needing to go to a finishing or vocational school before they can actually practice is a damning illustration of the state (and outsized cost) of legal education.
-- The ATL comment thread is the DeVry of commenter education schools."
Thursday, January 20, 2011
TDS and CR - RAVE!
I just love Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Their shows are just wonderful with humor, information, and satire. The last two nights have been great.
Jon did a wonderful bit about how the Dems are so curiously focused on the name of the Repubs attempt to repeal the health-care bill (about it being "job killing") that they completely miss the point that the bill substantively isn't "job killing". How about addressing the real issue Dems, instead of just the stupid name?
Then Stephen Colbert's show Tuesday night. He had a great bit about a tea party guy attempting to destroy an integrated school district because it actually was addressing the problems caused by separation.
# See, misguided government doogooders foolishly diluted the problem by addressing it. We need to ignore it so we'll pay attention to it.
# The injustices will become so apparent to everyone, that we'll put aside our differences that we worked so hard to reinstate, and join together in a new civil rights movement to undo the undoing of what we've already done.
Finally, Stephen's Palin rant was incredible. Copying it because it was so brilliant:
"Mika, you need to buck up. I know you think this story has no purpose other than keeping Sarah Palin's name in the headlines for another news cycle. I know you think she has nothing to offer the national dialogue, and that her speeches are just coded talking points mixed in with words picked up at random from a thesaurus. I know you think Sarah Palin is at best a self-promoting ignoramus and at worst a shameless media troll who'll abuse any platform to deliver dog whistle encouragement to a far right base that may include possible insurrectionists. I know you think her reality show was pathetically unstatesmanlike and at the same time, I know you also think it represents the pinnacle of her potential, and that her transparent desperation to be a celebrity so completely eclipsed her interest in public service so long ago that there would be more journalistic integrity in reporting on one of the lesser Kardashians' ass implants. I know when you arrive at the office each day you say a silent prayer that maybe, just maybe, Sarah Palin will at long last shut up for 10 fucking minutes. I know, because I can see it in your eyes."
Yes, don't we all wish that SP would shut the fuck up for 10 minutes.
OTOH, I hope both Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert keep talking for a long long time.
Jon did a wonderful bit about how the Dems are so curiously focused on the name of the Repubs attempt to repeal the health-care bill (about it being "job killing") that they completely miss the point that the bill substantively isn't "job killing". How about addressing the real issue Dems, instead of just the stupid name?
Then Stephen Colbert's show Tuesday night. He had a great bit about a tea party guy attempting to destroy an integrated school district because it actually was addressing the problems caused by separation.
# See, misguided government doogooders foolishly diluted the problem by addressing it. We need to ignore it so we'll pay attention to it.
# The injustices will become so apparent to everyone, that we'll put aside our differences that we worked so hard to reinstate, and join together in a new civil rights movement to undo the undoing of what we've already done.
Finally, Stephen's Palin rant was incredible. Copying it because it was so brilliant:
"Mika, you need to buck up. I know you think this story has no purpose other than keeping Sarah Palin's name in the headlines for another news cycle. I know you think she has nothing to offer the national dialogue, and that her speeches are just coded talking points mixed in with words picked up at random from a thesaurus. I know you think Sarah Palin is at best a self-promoting ignoramus and at worst a shameless media troll who'll abuse any platform to deliver dog whistle encouragement to a far right base that may include possible insurrectionists. I know you think her reality show was pathetically unstatesmanlike and at the same time, I know you also think it represents the pinnacle of her potential, and that her transparent desperation to be a celebrity so completely eclipsed her interest in public service so long ago that there would be more journalistic integrity in reporting on one of the lesser Kardashians' ass implants. I know when you arrive at the office each day you say a silent prayer that maybe, just maybe, Sarah Palin will at long last shut up for 10 fucking minutes. I know, because I can see it in your eyes."
Yes, don't we all wish that SP would shut the fuck up for 10 minutes.
OTOH, I hope both Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert keep talking for a long long time.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Gun Culture
I've been surprised that not more had been said in the media about politicians and others calling for more gun control in the wake of the AZ attack. I guess I shouldn't have been. According to what I've read, any politician that suggests even the smallest bit of gun regulation apparently draws both barrels from the NRA and thensome. Apparently the NRA caused the Dems to lose Congress in 1994 and also caused Al Gore to lose the presidential election. Here we are wondering if the Tea Party is going to take over the country when the NRA has already done it. It seems the NRA controls which political party wins elections (if the NRA decides to exert itself). I'm surprised that the NRA didn't come out barrels blazing against Obama and in support of its poster-babe Palin.
It just incredible. Seriously, being able to shoot at 6 targets in a matter of seconds or a minute isn't good enough. It has to be 30. With the tragedies we've had in CO, VA and AZ, people still have no problems with having these automatic weapons available to anyone with a few bucks.
It just incredible. Seriously, being able to shoot at 6 targets in a matter of seconds or a minute isn't good enough. It has to be 30. With the tragedies we've had in CO, VA and AZ, people still have no problems with having these automatic weapons available to anyone with a few bucks.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
The Second Amendment Should be Rethought
I'm posting some comments I made on a blog or two about the recent terrorist attack in AZ. I know a lot of people think we should focus on the Republican hate-speak people like Palin, Limbaugh, Beck, etc., which may be appropriate (they at least help stir things up), but in my opinion, we should just take the damn guns away. That's right, I said it, not everyone in this country has a God given right to bear any damn assault rifle, semi-automatic rifle, and handgun they want just because we have a Second Amendment. Maybe the 2nd Amendment isn't Godspeak, you think? It was written by a bunch of men who were fighting against a tyrannical government. They never had any expectation that some nutjob would be allowed to fire 30 bullets into a crowd at a market, resulting in the death of a 9 year old girl.
What really should happen is tougher gun laws, such as banning automatic guns. Seriously, they have no purpose except killing people. So to the Repubs and the NRA, I say shut the hell up about no gun restrictions. I'm calling for a ban on all automatic and semi-automatic weapons, just like we had in 1994. I'm even calling on more restrictions on handguns, the need for everyone to get a permit for one. I'd like to see them outlawed completely, but I know that won't happen. I say that the 2d Amendment, allowing everyone and anyone a gun is just wrong.
I respectfully disagree that if we have a law banning automatic and semi-automatic weapons that people like Jared would have been able to get one by other means. In that case, the bullets shot before reloading is significantly reduced and maybe, just may...be, a little 9 year old girl, as well as several others, would be alive today.
If we have more restrictions on getting handguns as well, more waiting time, better background checks, then maybe he wouldn't have gotten one of those either.
So where would this guy have gotten a gun if certain ones were barred and others significantly more difficult to obtain? Steal one? From who? Again, if said automatic and semi-automatic weapons were banned and handguns more difficult to obtain, the people from whom Jared could have stolen a gun would be significantly fewer.
And don't give me the bullshit that if we ban weapons or make them harder to get, only criminals will have weapons (I suppose that may be true, since you'll be a criminal if you have one). If automatic and semi-automatic weapons were banned, NO ONE would have such weapons. Persons caught with such weapons (including "criminals", who are "criminals" by definition of having such guns) would be arrested and the guns take...n away and eventually destroyed.
Second, many criminals get weapons either from gun shops or from "law abiding citizens" (straw buyers or theft). Again, if certain weapons were banned and more restrictions placed on other weapons, then criminals would have a hard time getting such guns either.
Third, if permits were required for every gun and must be produced upon request, then again, many criminals would lose their guns because they would not be able to produce such permits.
The 2d Amendment is not the Bible. It is not sacrosanct just because it's in the Constitution. Slavery used to be in the Constitution too, as well as forbidding the right to vote by women and blacks. Prohibition was an Amendment. All of this was in the Constitution and later removed because they were wrong. So maybe the 2d Amendment is wrong too.
I'm hoping that this tragedy will wake up people to realize that we have to do something about this gun-loving 'I can do whatever the hell I want culture.' NO YOU CAN'T. Not when the lives of 9 year old girls, mothers, fathers and others are at risk. Ban these automatic and semi-automatic weapons and their magazines. Place better background and more restrictive checks and permit requirements on other guns. Require more than a week of waiting before you get your gun. Stop the sales of guns by unregistered dealers at gun shows. Stop the ability to buy a gun immediately at said gun shows unless one has already passed a background check and brings said paperwork to the gun show. You want a gun? Then do the homework!
A gun has no purpose except to kill. Drugs can be helpful or harmful, and we regulate those, why the hell can't we regulate something that has a very small helpful purpose (hunting animals)?
See http://abovethelaw.com/2011/01/sarah-palin-doesnt-kill-people-guns-on-the-other-hand/#more-52245
What really should happen is tougher gun laws, such as banning automatic guns. Seriously, they have no purpose except killing people. So to the Repubs and the NRA, I say shut the hell up about no gun restrictions. I'm calling for a ban on all automatic and semi-automatic weapons, just like we had in 1994. I'm even calling on more restrictions on handguns, the need for everyone to get a permit for one. I'd like to see them outlawed completely, but I know that won't happen. I say that the 2d Amendment, allowing everyone and anyone a gun is just wrong.
I respectfully disagree that if we have a law banning automatic and semi-automatic weapons that people like Jared would have been able to get one by other means. In that case, the bullets shot before reloading is significantly reduced and maybe, just may...be, a little 9 year old girl, as well as several others, would be alive today.
If we have more restrictions on getting handguns as well, more waiting time, better background checks, then maybe he wouldn't have gotten one of those either.
So where would this guy have gotten a gun if certain ones were barred and others significantly more difficult to obtain? Steal one? From who? Again, if said automatic and semi-automatic weapons were banned and handguns more difficult to obtain, the people from whom Jared could have stolen a gun would be significantly fewer.
And don't give me the bullshit that if we ban weapons or make them harder to get, only criminals will have weapons (I suppose that may be true, since you'll be a criminal if you have one). If automatic and semi-automatic weapons were banned, NO ONE would have such weapons. Persons caught with such weapons (including "criminals", who are "criminals" by definition of having such guns) would be arrested and the guns take...n away and eventually destroyed.
Second, many criminals get weapons either from gun shops or from "law abiding citizens" (straw buyers or theft). Again, if certain weapons were banned and more restrictions placed on other weapons, then criminals would have a hard time getting such guns either.
Third, if permits were required for every gun and must be produced upon request, then again, many criminals would lose their guns because they would not be able to produce such permits.
The 2d Amendment is not the Bible. It is not sacrosanct just because it's in the Constitution. Slavery used to be in the Constitution too, as well as forbidding the right to vote by women and blacks. Prohibition was an Amendment. All of this was in the Constitution and later removed because they were wrong. So maybe the 2d Amendment is wrong too.
I'm hoping that this tragedy will wake up people to realize that we have to do something about this gun-loving 'I can do whatever the hell I want culture.' NO YOU CAN'T. Not when the lives of 9 year old girls, mothers, fathers and others are at risk. Ban these automatic and semi-automatic weapons and their magazines. Place better background and more restrictive checks and permit requirements on other guns. Require more than a week of waiting before you get your gun. Stop the sales of guns by unregistered dealers at gun shows. Stop the ability to buy a gun immediately at said gun shows unless one has already passed a background check and brings said paperwork to the gun show. You want a gun? Then do the homework!
A gun has no purpose except to kill. Drugs can be helpful or harmful, and we regulate those, why the hell can't we regulate something that has a very small helpful purpose (hunting animals)?
See http://abovethelaw.com/2011/01/sarah-palin-doesnt-kill-people-guns-on-the-other-hand/#more-52245
Thursday, December 23, 2010
So, You Didn't Think It Gets Busy For Christmas?
Given that this year both my husband and I got raises at work, even though we're still burdened by our student loan and credit card debt, I felt better off than others in this economy. So I wanted to share some Christmas cheer.
Our neighbors, with whom we share a driveway, are retired and home almost all day. They get up early and when they go out to the front of the driveway to get their newspaper, they grab mine as well and place it on my backdoor step. The first few months we lived at the house, I didn't know they did that and I, believing it was great service from my newspaper delivery guy, sent him a nice Christmas tip with a letter saying "thanks for the door delivery." I bet he was confused. Now, knowing its not him, but my neighbors, I still send a tip, which I suppose at least keeps my papers coming to me dry (wrapped twice on rainy/snowy days), but no note.
Its nice that by the time I'm up, dressed, downstairs getting coffee, my newspaper is right on my backdoor step so I don't have to go outside to get it. A few times, I happen to be the first one outside, so I reciprocate for my neighbors, but its me 10%, them 90%.
Similarly, our neighbors help with the trashcans. Our trash is always picked up after both Stephane and I are gone to work. Instead of coming home and hoping our trash cans are still in the vicinity of our house (even if the trashmen leave them in the driveway, sometimes the wind can blow them away), my neighbors will grab my trash can and bring it back to our backyard when they get their own trashcan.
I really appreciate their help, so I wanted to buy them something for Christmas this year. Not really knowing their tastes, I thought to buy them something from a gift-food place. They used to have a local store at our mall (which I frequented every few months for cocoa, chocolate covered cherries and other items), but it closed a few months ago. So I had to use their online service.
I inadvertently got my neighbor's address incorrect. I only ever knew their first names, but I needed their last names for the delivery. So I went to look up their last name via whitepages.com since I knew the address. However, I put in the wrong number, I mixed it up with the address of the house on the other side of us (which is also a nice family, btw). Later than night, I realized I put in the wrong address on the order. I tried to call the place, but the "on-hold" time was more than a hour because "Christmas is busy." I didn't have that kind of time, so I sent an email, which promised to "get back to me within 24 hours."
The next day, I got an email saying they got my email and would respond "within 24 hours." Already slow. Another day passes and I get an email that said "Hey, you know it's Christmas and we're busy, so we'll respond to you as soon as we can." I'm thinking, ah oh, problem. I tried to call again. Now its "so busy" the customer service can't take more calls, try back later or go on our website for responses "within 24 hours."
Well, sure enough, the next day I get an email saying my order has been shipped. :p Great. Now my other neighbors are getting the gift. Now, they're nice people and all, and we've exchanged pleasantries, they have a boy just a little younger than Elise, so its entirely possible we'll eventually get to know them better. But still, I think they're going to be quite curious as to why out of the blue they're getting a fruit/chocolate/cookie box from us. Oh well, guess we're being extra generous this season. Of course, now I wonder if this is going to cause them to feel they have to reciprocate (at least for next year) and we start some fake gift exchange because we feel we 'have to for appearances sake, even if we don't really want to' all because I made a mistake.
I went out and bought something from a brick and mortar shop for my retired neighbors (these wonderful chocolate covered apple slices and strawberries from Edible Creations) and delivered it myself. I should have done that in the first place, I know, but the other place offered free delivery and hey, I'm a busy full time working mom.
Several days later, I finally get an email from the on-line place. "Oops, sorry about your order, but its Christmas and we're busy and didn't get to it in time to cancel/fix your order. Hope you accept our apologies and Merry Christmas." :p Gee thanks. Only took you a week to respond to my email. Quite a bit beyond your "24 hour" promise, you think?
Yeah, I get Christmas is busy. Perhaps one of the busiest of year. You think I don't know that? Don't they know that too? These companies know (or should know, seriously) that Christmas is busy. Why didn't they oh maybe take a stab at lowering the unemployment rate (even if just temporarily) and hire more people so they could fix orders, or get orders out on time, respond promptly to emails, etc.? I'm sorry, but 7 days to respond to an email that was promised a response in 1? You're that busy and backed-up on responding to customer service questions?? Perhaps you should have hired an additional person, which could have cut that response time to maybe 3 days, or hire 2 to cut it down to the promised 1? Oh, and hire more telephone operators too maybe, so I could get through the telephone lines without having to sit around on my butt for over an hour, or even just get told to "call back later."
I know this food company isn't the only one that is using the "Christmas is busy" excuse either. I've seen complaints on other consumer websites as well about problems with other on-line order places. Seriously, there is no excuse for the "we're too busy because its Christmas" line for on-line companies that can friggin hire people in India for pennies if they don't want to pay Americans living wages (though I think those that do that should be taxed to make up for it).
Maybe these companies will make nice big profits this year, because they've cut their labor force to the bare minimum, but they're losing a lot of future customer orders in the process. I know I'm not exactly itching to place another on-line order with this company, which means they could loose at least few more orders each year (I've used the on-line service in the past for deliveries in CA and other places in PA). I haven't tried out the Edible Creations delivery service, maybe I'll do that next year (although I think its just local delivery, but that will work for most of my orders, or I can actually pick up my order at a physical store).
With unemployment bouncing against 10%, there's no excuse for the "its Christmas, we're busy" ploy to excuse poor service. Hire people! Companies keep saying they can't hire people because they don't have the orders, but then when they do get inundated with orders, for *surprise* Christmas, they can't provide the service. Seriously, you knew Christmas was coming, its the same date every year. Plan for it. Hire a couple more people, heck, even temporarily. People will take a decent paying job, then go back on unemployment afterward, if necessary.
Maybe if more companies quit thinking about bonuses for executives and CEOs and more about their employees and customers, we'd have less unemployment and more happy customers.
Our neighbors, with whom we share a driveway, are retired and home almost all day. They get up early and when they go out to the front of the driveway to get their newspaper, they grab mine as well and place it on my backdoor step. The first few months we lived at the house, I didn't know they did that and I, believing it was great service from my newspaper delivery guy, sent him a nice Christmas tip with a letter saying "thanks for the door delivery." I bet he was confused. Now, knowing its not him, but my neighbors, I still send a tip, which I suppose at least keeps my papers coming to me dry (wrapped twice on rainy/snowy days), but no note.
Its nice that by the time I'm up, dressed, downstairs getting coffee, my newspaper is right on my backdoor step so I don't have to go outside to get it. A few times, I happen to be the first one outside, so I reciprocate for my neighbors, but its me 10%, them 90%.
Similarly, our neighbors help with the trashcans. Our trash is always picked up after both Stephane and I are gone to work. Instead of coming home and hoping our trash cans are still in the vicinity of our house (even if the trashmen leave them in the driveway, sometimes the wind can blow them away), my neighbors will grab my trash can and bring it back to our backyard when they get their own trashcan.
I really appreciate their help, so I wanted to buy them something for Christmas this year. Not really knowing their tastes, I thought to buy them something from a gift-food place. They used to have a local store at our mall (which I frequented every few months for cocoa, chocolate covered cherries and other items), but it closed a few months ago. So I had to use their online service.
I inadvertently got my neighbor's address incorrect. I only ever knew their first names, but I needed their last names for the delivery. So I went to look up their last name via whitepages.com since I knew the address. However, I put in the wrong number, I mixed it up with the address of the house on the other side of us (which is also a nice family, btw). Later than night, I realized I put in the wrong address on the order. I tried to call the place, but the "on-hold" time was more than a hour because "Christmas is busy." I didn't have that kind of time, so I sent an email, which promised to "get back to me within 24 hours."
The next day, I got an email saying they got my email and would respond "within 24 hours." Already slow. Another day passes and I get an email that said "Hey, you know it's Christmas and we're busy, so we'll respond to you as soon as we can." I'm thinking, ah oh, problem. I tried to call again. Now its "so busy" the customer service can't take more calls, try back later or go on our website for responses "within 24 hours."
Well, sure enough, the next day I get an email saying my order has been shipped. :p Great. Now my other neighbors are getting the gift. Now, they're nice people and all, and we've exchanged pleasantries, they have a boy just a little younger than Elise, so its entirely possible we'll eventually get to know them better. But still, I think they're going to be quite curious as to why out of the blue they're getting a fruit/chocolate/cookie box from us. Oh well, guess we're being extra generous this season. Of course, now I wonder if this is going to cause them to feel they have to reciprocate (at least for next year) and we start some fake gift exchange because we feel we 'have to for appearances sake, even if we don't really want to' all because I made a mistake.
I went out and bought something from a brick and mortar shop for my retired neighbors (these wonderful chocolate covered apple slices and strawberries from Edible Creations) and delivered it myself. I should have done that in the first place, I know, but the other place offered free delivery and hey, I'm a busy full time working mom.
Several days later, I finally get an email from the on-line place. "Oops, sorry about your order, but its Christmas and we're busy and didn't get to it in time to cancel/fix your order. Hope you accept our apologies and Merry Christmas." :p Gee thanks. Only took you a week to respond to my email. Quite a bit beyond your "24 hour" promise, you think?
Yeah, I get Christmas is busy. Perhaps one of the busiest of year. You think I don't know that? Don't they know that too? These companies know (or should know, seriously) that Christmas is busy. Why didn't they oh maybe take a stab at lowering the unemployment rate (even if just temporarily) and hire more people so they could fix orders, or get orders out on time, respond promptly to emails, etc.? I'm sorry, but 7 days to respond to an email that was promised a response in 1? You're that busy and backed-up on responding to customer service questions?? Perhaps you should have hired an additional person, which could have cut that response time to maybe 3 days, or hire 2 to cut it down to the promised 1? Oh, and hire more telephone operators too maybe, so I could get through the telephone lines without having to sit around on my butt for over an hour, or even just get told to "call back later."
I know this food company isn't the only one that is using the "Christmas is busy" excuse either. I've seen complaints on other consumer websites as well about problems with other on-line order places. Seriously, there is no excuse for the "we're too busy because its Christmas" line for on-line companies that can friggin hire people in India for pennies if they don't want to pay Americans living wages (though I think those that do that should be taxed to make up for it).
Maybe these companies will make nice big profits this year, because they've cut their labor force to the bare minimum, but they're losing a lot of future customer orders in the process. I know I'm not exactly itching to place another on-line order with this company, which means they could loose at least few more orders each year (I've used the on-line service in the past for deliveries in CA and other places in PA). I haven't tried out the Edible Creations delivery service, maybe I'll do that next year (although I think its just local delivery, but that will work for most of my orders, or I can actually pick up my order at a physical store).
With unemployment bouncing against 10%, there's no excuse for the "its Christmas, we're busy" ploy to excuse poor service. Hire people! Companies keep saying they can't hire people because they don't have the orders, but then when they do get inundated with orders, for *surprise* Christmas, they can't provide the service. Seriously, you knew Christmas was coming, its the same date every year. Plan for it. Hire a couple more people, heck, even temporarily. People will take a decent paying job, then go back on unemployment afterward, if necessary.
Maybe if more companies quit thinking about bonuses for executives and CEOs and more about their employees and customers, we'd have less unemployment and more happy customers.
Friday, December 3, 2010
More Bits
And another month gone by. Was busy this last month, had to write an appellate brief for the Third Circuit, which took pretty much an entire week of work. I'm pretty jazzed, my boss says I can do the oral argument in February. The damages at issue are in the seven figures, so chances are good that whoever loses will appeal to the US Supreme Court. The case involves the UCC, so it could have potential for acceptance. Now that would be exciting, to go to the SCOTUS.
Then I almost got to go to Germany for two witness depositions, that got canceled at seriously the last minute. I had always figured my boss would go, but the trip conflicted with a vacation he had and at least originally the depos couldn't be rescheduled. That only happened because my opposing counsel found out he had cancer and even then we weren't sure the German courts would allow the rescheduling. I was a bit nervous about going by myself, traveling a few states over for a couple of nights is one thing, going across the ocean for five days a bit more. So now the trip has been rescheduled for January (and may get rescheduled again for March). Not sure if I'll still get to go, or if my boss will want to do it. It will almost certainly need to be done, one witness is crucial to our defense and somehow I just don't see the plaintiff coming down in his settlement demands (currently in the seven figures) to anything near where the insurance carrier will consider paying (which is currently five figures, which may go up to low six, maybe). In the meantime, I spent several days getting stuff ready for the trip, that got canceled.
My Warcraft guild finally killed the main boss at the end of the current expansion. Always a fun accomplishment. A new expansion is coming out Tuesday, with level increase to 85. I expect to be spending most of my free time playing WoW over then next few months. New dungeons and boss mobs to overcome.
So trying to catch/keep up on my TV shows. I'm out of my Survivor pool now, my pick Brenda was betrayed by her alliance, one member of which then quit the next week. Bah! There's several shows I like, but nothing is OMG I MUST WATCH NOW the way Lost was for me. Couple shows are trying and I do watch, but sometimes several weeks are saved on my DVR before I get around to it.
I watched Dennis Miller's new show the other day. I really used to love his stuff, but he moved too far to the right, and I've moved more left, so half his show isn't funny to me anymore, since he got a bit more political in his comedy. I get my political comedy from Jon Stewart and Robert Colbert now.
Thanksgiving was "exciting" in that Cami fell against a table, cut her lip and needed three stitches at the hospital. :p
Now just a few more short weeks until Christmas. Kids' shopping is nearly done and I know what I'm getting Stef. I have my sister's family's list, so I just have to sit down and decide if I'm ordering on line or going shopping. So just a few other miscellaneous gifts to get and I'm done. Still need to get Christmas cards out, maybe this weekend.
Its a bit slower at work now, so maybe I'll have more time to write later.
Then I almost got to go to Germany for two witness depositions, that got canceled at seriously the last minute. I had always figured my boss would go, but the trip conflicted with a vacation he had and at least originally the depos couldn't be rescheduled. That only happened because my opposing counsel found out he had cancer and even then we weren't sure the German courts would allow the rescheduling. I was a bit nervous about going by myself, traveling a few states over for a couple of nights is one thing, going across the ocean for five days a bit more. So now the trip has been rescheduled for January (and may get rescheduled again for March). Not sure if I'll still get to go, or if my boss will want to do it. It will almost certainly need to be done, one witness is crucial to our defense and somehow I just don't see the plaintiff coming down in his settlement demands (currently in the seven figures) to anything near where the insurance carrier will consider paying (which is currently five figures, which may go up to low six, maybe). In the meantime, I spent several days getting stuff ready for the trip, that got canceled.
My Warcraft guild finally killed the main boss at the end of the current expansion. Always a fun accomplishment. A new expansion is coming out Tuesday, with level increase to 85. I expect to be spending most of my free time playing WoW over then next few months. New dungeons and boss mobs to overcome.
So trying to catch/keep up on my TV shows. I'm out of my Survivor pool now, my pick Brenda was betrayed by her alliance, one member of which then quit the next week. Bah! There's several shows I like, but nothing is OMG I MUST WATCH NOW the way Lost was for me. Couple shows are trying and I do watch, but sometimes several weeks are saved on my DVR before I get around to it.
I watched Dennis Miller's new show the other day. I really used to love his stuff, but he moved too far to the right, and I've moved more left, so half his show isn't funny to me anymore, since he got a bit more political in his comedy. I get my political comedy from Jon Stewart and Robert Colbert now.
Thanksgiving was "exciting" in that Cami fell against a table, cut her lip and needed three stitches at the hospital. :p
Now just a few more short weeks until Christmas. Kids' shopping is nearly done and I know what I'm getting Stef. I have my sister's family's list, so I just have to sit down and decide if I'm ordering on line or going shopping. So just a few other miscellaneous gifts to get and I'm done. Still need to get Christmas cards out, maybe this weekend.
Its a bit slower at work now, so maybe I'll have more time to write later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)