Everybody else already expressed their opinion better than I could ever express mine, but I will take a quick moment to point out that some of the things Hobby Lobby is objecting against covering are actually medically necessary for some people with certain issues; this has included my wife in recent times. I am glad to work for an employer who hasn't decided to attempt to restrict what I spend my health care coverage on, so that these things were available my wife affordably, who did in fact have a medical need for them.
And let's be clear; it's my health care coverage. It's a form of compensation from my employer, and it's up to me, in coordination with my loved ones, in consultation with our medical professionals, on how we want to spend it. I don't believe it to be appropriate for the employer to have a hand in what they feel is appropriately covered based on moral grounds.
Hobby Lobby's 401k plan invests in companies that make and sell many of the contraceptive devices that they themselves object to. (As well as exporting great amounts of goods from China, where abortions are much less rare than in the US.) I've seen people call this a red herring. I disagree; it matters, and here's why.
We need to start with this reasonable explanation from Jeffrey Brown explains in Forbes that Hobby Lobby's hands are tied in this regard, in that it must comply with US pension law. OK, I'm with him so far on that point.
But then, allow me to call out the addendum added to the end of the article, which he uses to respond to critics. In it, he states:
"The primary objection that I am hearing from readers is not that my analysis of current U.S. retirement plan law is inaccurate, but rather that it is a prima facie case of hypocrisy that Hobby Lobby conformed to the 401(k) laws while challenging the health care law, even though both could be construed as violating the owners’ religious freedom. I might agree with this line of reasoning if it were free to mount legal challenges. But legal challenges are anything but free: a report on Marketplace last year estimates that it takes a minimum of $250,000 – and more often millions of dollars – to take a case to the Supreme Court. Given the high cost, it seems perfectly rational for any person, company or organization – and regardless of the constitutional issue being argued – to choose cases that they believe have the highest chance of winning. I would not be surprised if their legal counsel advised them (correctly, it turns out) that they could win the health insurance case, whereas they might not win a case challenging the fiduciary rules for 401(k) plans. Keep in mind that Supreme Court cases are not debates about the relative merits of various public policy alternatives. Rather, they are argued on constitutional grounds, and thus the details of the law and the details of the case matter enormously. Given the outcome of the case, it is hard to argue that Hobby Lobby made a bad decision about legal strategy. But their unwillingness to mount two expensive legal battles simultaneously rather than focusing on one does not necessarily imply hypocrisy."
His point is made in a reasonable tone of voice, but the logic is twisted. I strongly reject the implication of hypocrisy based solely on the potential cost to Hobby Lobby associated with mounting an additional legal challenge. If this is truly the most important thing to them under their moral convictions, and we know that they are financially secure enough to be able challenge one law, why would they not attempt to challenge the second law? Both laws, through the narrow, moral scope of the lens being applied here, require funds that started out in the accounts of Hobby Lobby, to be transferred to accounts for use to support devices and practices that they object very strongly to.
According to Forbes, Hobby Lobby's revenue was $3.3 billion in 2013. "It's too expensive to challenge" rings hollow in this context. The amount of money they would spend is, relatively speaking, pocket change.
And finally, from further up in Mr. Brown's article, I'd like to highlight this point: "It is individual employees, not the owners of Hobby Lobby, who make the portfolio allocation decisions."
I think that's fair, to be honest. In fact, that's all I wanted with regard to health care coverage, too. Sigh.
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
My Old Friend Target Let Me Down
For years I have considered Target the "hometown hero." I'm from Minneapolis, where Target is headquartered, and I've had various bits of peripheral involvement in different Target-related stuff, going all the way back to doing typesetting work for their benefits forms back in my graphic design days. Later, I worked for a pre-press shop that did a ton of Target print ad work. I always found Target easy to work with, and even easier to shop with. They have seemingly tried to position themselves as inclusive; open; inviting to all. That fits with Minneapolis, a city for which I feel has those same characteristics.
For years, I lived on the southern edge of downtown Minneapolis. Target opened a store in downtown Minneapolis in 2001. I was excited by this, and grateful to have a Target store within walking distance. It significantly contributed to an ongoing revitalization of the downtown neighborhood. Target seemed like a partner in my community. I shopped at that Target often, and bought many things. Groceries, home furnishings, clothing, electronics. I remember the ease with which my mom and I purchased a TV there on a snowy, miserable day. Drove the 4WD SUV into Target's underground parking ramp, bought the TV, loaded TV up dry, indoors, then we headed off on our way. Easy as pie. Target experimented with a grocery section, which turned out to be very popular, and it grew significantly over time. Today, Target remains pretty much the only grocery store in downtown Minneapolis.
Though I moved to Chicago a few years ago, my wife and I still visit Minneapolis periodically. We often stay at downtown hotels, and we visit the Target store on nearly every trip. It's a great place to stock up on a jug of water, snacks and toiletries when traveling, and it's a fun, vibrant environment. They even have a mezzanine that has (among other things) a place where I can get a haircut, which I've done at least twice.
And now, back here in Chicago, Target opened a brand new store at the Wilson Yard development in Chicago's Uptown neighborhood. It literally just opened, I mean, just a week or so ago. The Wilson Yard development has been a bit of a boondoggle; the alderman, Helen Shiller, has taken the Daley approach of doing whatever the hell she wants regardless of what neighbors desire, and she seems to lack a commitment to transparency. A neighborhood group unsuccessfully sued to address perceived problems, and not everybody is pleased with the final product.
But everybody seems to love the new Target store. It is nice. It is large, at 203,000 square feet, larger than the average SuperTarget (174,00 square feet). The vast majority of comments from blog readers are positive. "The nicest Target I've seen around Chicago." "This store is awesome!" "Absolutely great!"
My wife and I are similarly positive. We've been there twice already. We've spent over $600 there in just this first week. We're not likely to do that every week, but we were really looking forward to the opportunity to shop here again. This Target is AWESOME! It's got a big grocery section, it's clean, it's nice, and it's right by the Wilson red line stop. We can easily get their without a car! And if we buy too much to drag home on the train, it's easy to grab a taxi outside of the front door. And, importantly, this new Target, like the one in downtown Minneapolis, is a significantly positive step in the revitalization of Uptown Chicago. Uptown is a neighborhood struggling to gentrify, home of some of the best, and worst, blocks on the north side of Chicago. This kind of investment in the neighborhood makes me want to move closer.
Target is great. Target does good. Right? That's what I thought, anyway. Until I read this: Target made a big ole donation to MN Forward, a PAC that is paying for ads supporting Tom Emmer, a Minnesota gubernatorial candidate who makes his anti-gay rights stance very clear. His website states that he has "consistently supported the constitutional marriage amendment that protects traditional marriage," the common phrasing used by people who are afraid that their personal concept of marriage is destroyed if somehow loving gay couples were allowed the same legal rights afforded to us hetero couples.
Target's CEO, Gregg Steinhafel, has gone into damage control mode. The Milwaukee Examiner quotes Mr. Steinhafel as follows: "Let me be very clear," Steinhafel said, "Target's support of the GLBT community is unwavering, and inclusiveness remains a core value of our company."
That's great, except for a couple points. First, he and his wife each donated $5,000 to Michele Bachman, a representative from the 6th district of Minnesota, a right-winger who regularly and repeatedly gets important facts wrong. Stuff like, the legality of the census, claiming FDR caused the depression (by accusing him of signing bills that Hoover had signed), accusing Jimmy Carter of being in charge during a swine flu outbreak in the 1970s (it was Ford), et cetera. Reasonable people can disagree on issues of politics, but I wouldn't even trust Michele Bachmann to give me an accurate reading of the time or temperature without it somehow becoming a reference to a secret cabal directing a liberal government conspiracy. She makes my wife and I itch to such a degree, that we are only half-kidding when we joke about moving back to Minnesota, solely for the opportunity to vote against her.
So, OK. We've got the Target CEO donating to an arguably crazy right-wing member of the House of Representatives. It's his money, not the company's money. He can do whatever he wants with it, right? Sure, he can. But you start with this, and then you ask yourself about Target supporting MN Forward, who supports Tom Emmer, who "hangs out with a guy who thinks killing gays is moral." Read about the anti-gay hard rock band "You Can Run But You Can't Hide," whose lead singer Bradlee Dean, told radio listeners recently that Muslim countries that call for the execution of gays and lesbians are “more moral than even the American Christians.” But Tom Emmer says Bradlee's a nice guy.
And Gregg Steinhafel says Target are nice folks, supportive folks, inclusive folks. Yet, Target and Gregg are effectively supporting this guy Tom Emmer, who actually doesn't seem like that nice of a guy, and who supports scary folks who think it's cool to further their agenda through hinting that it's okay to kill people they disagree with.
And now I'm wishing that my wife and I hadn't bought that television and kitchen table set from Target this past week. Target, I want you to be about supporting the community and a fun and positive shopping experience. I want you to continue to be the anti-Walmart. This is the Target I know and love, and yet, here is that same Target, taking little bits of the money I give it and helping it end up supporting people that don't believe in the things I believe in. Things that seem hateful and mean.
Why does Target need to support political candidates? I'm surprised Target thinks it's good business. It seems to me that open support for something as divisive as a political race ensure that you're likely to alienate everybody likely to vote for the other guy.
I'm surprised, and I'm disappointed. I'm nobody special, but as you can see, I'm a long time supporter of Target. But, after this, I don't think I can give you any more money, Target. Not until you show me that you can do better.
For years, I lived on the southern edge of downtown Minneapolis. Target opened a store in downtown Minneapolis in 2001. I was excited by this, and grateful to have a Target store within walking distance. It significantly contributed to an ongoing revitalization of the downtown neighborhood. Target seemed like a partner in my community. I shopped at that Target often, and bought many things. Groceries, home furnishings, clothing, electronics. I remember the ease with which my mom and I purchased a TV there on a snowy, miserable day. Drove the 4WD SUV into Target's underground parking ramp, bought the TV, loaded TV up dry, indoors, then we headed off on our way. Easy as pie. Target experimented with a grocery section, which turned out to be very popular, and it grew significantly over time. Today, Target remains pretty much the only grocery store in downtown Minneapolis.
Though I moved to Chicago a few years ago, my wife and I still visit Minneapolis periodically. We often stay at downtown hotels, and we visit the Target store on nearly every trip. It's a great place to stock up on a jug of water, snacks and toiletries when traveling, and it's a fun, vibrant environment. They even have a mezzanine that has (among other things) a place where I can get a haircut, which I've done at least twice.
And now, back here in Chicago, Target opened a brand new store at the Wilson Yard development in Chicago's Uptown neighborhood. It literally just opened, I mean, just a week or so ago. The Wilson Yard development has been a bit of a boondoggle; the alderman, Helen Shiller, has taken the Daley approach of doing whatever the hell she wants regardless of what neighbors desire, and she seems to lack a commitment to transparency. A neighborhood group unsuccessfully sued to address perceived problems, and not everybody is pleased with the final product.
But everybody seems to love the new Target store. It is nice. It is large, at 203,000 square feet, larger than the average SuperTarget (174,00 square feet). The vast majority of comments from blog readers are positive. "The nicest Target I've seen around Chicago." "This store is awesome!" "Absolutely great!"
My wife and I are similarly positive. We've been there twice already. We've spent over $600 there in just this first week. We're not likely to do that every week, but we were really looking forward to the opportunity to shop here again. This Target is AWESOME! It's got a big grocery section, it's clean, it's nice, and it's right by the Wilson red line stop. We can easily get their without a car! And if we buy too much to drag home on the train, it's easy to grab a taxi outside of the front door. And, importantly, this new Target, like the one in downtown Minneapolis, is a significantly positive step in the revitalization of Uptown Chicago. Uptown is a neighborhood struggling to gentrify, home of some of the best, and worst, blocks on the north side of Chicago. This kind of investment in the neighborhood makes me want to move closer.
Target is great. Target does good. Right? That's what I thought, anyway. Until I read this: Target made a big ole donation to MN Forward, a PAC that is paying for ads supporting Tom Emmer, a Minnesota gubernatorial candidate who makes his anti-gay rights stance very clear. His website states that he has "consistently supported the constitutional marriage amendment that protects traditional marriage," the common phrasing used by people who are afraid that their personal concept of marriage is destroyed if somehow loving gay couples were allowed the same legal rights afforded to us hetero couples.
Target's CEO, Gregg Steinhafel, has gone into damage control mode. The Milwaukee Examiner quotes Mr. Steinhafel as follows: "Let me be very clear," Steinhafel said, "Target's support of the GLBT community is unwavering, and inclusiveness remains a core value of our company."
That's great, except for a couple points. First, he and his wife each donated $5,000 to Michele Bachman, a representative from the 6th district of Minnesota, a right-winger who regularly and repeatedly gets important facts wrong. Stuff like, the legality of the census, claiming FDR caused the depression (by accusing him of signing bills that Hoover had signed), accusing Jimmy Carter of being in charge during a swine flu outbreak in the 1970s (it was Ford), et cetera. Reasonable people can disagree on issues of politics, but I wouldn't even trust Michele Bachmann to give me an accurate reading of the time or temperature without it somehow becoming a reference to a secret cabal directing a liberal government conspiracy. She makes my wife and I itch to such a degree, that we are only half-kidding when we joke about moving back to Minnesota, solely for the opportunity to vote against her.
So, OK. We've got the Target CEO donating to an arguably crazy right-wing member of the House of Representatives. It's his money, not the company's money. He can do whatever he wants with it, right? Sure, he can. But you start with this, and then you ask yourself about Target supporting MN Forward, who supports Tom Emmer, who "hangs out with a guy who thinks killing gays is moral." Read about the anti-gay hard rock band "You Can Run But You Can't Hide," whose lead singer Bradlee Dean, told radio listeners recently that Muslim countries that call for the execution of gays and lesbians are “more moral than even the American Christians.” But Tom Emmer says Bradlee's a nice guy.
And Gregg Steinhafel says Target are nice folks, supportive folks, inclusive folks. Yet, Target and Gregg are effectively supporting this guy Tom Emmer, who actually doesn't seem like that nice of a guy, and who supports scary folks who think it's cool to further their agenda through hinting that it's okay to kill people they disagree with.
And now I'm wishing that my wife and I hadn't bought that television and kitchen table set from Target this past week. Target, I want you to be about supporting the community and a fun and positive shopping experience. I want you to continue to be the anti-Walmart. This is the Target I know and love, and yet, here is that same Target, taking little bits of the money I give it and helping it end up supporting people that don't believe in the things I believe in. Things that seem hateful and mean.
Why does Target need to support political candidates? I'm surprised Target thinks it's good business. It seems to me that open support for something as divisive as a political race ensure that you're likely to alienate everybody likely to vote for the other guy.
I'm surprised, and I'm disappointed. I'm nobody special, but as you can see, I'm a long time supporter of Target. But, after this, I don't think I can give you any more money, Target. Not until you show me that you can do better.
The Ethics of Content Syndication (or "Theft")
This weekend, while dealing with yet another dillhole who thinks it's kosher to republish content I've authored sans consent, I figured that perhaps it was time to again point out the ethical considerations relating to content syndication and republishing.
Breaking Out of the Script
I just learned something very powerful and useful, something that I know others will benefit from. I'm sharing it here with the hope that you'll find it as useful as I do.
If you're like me, you dread calling companies to cancel service. The cable company, phone company, whoever, they're going to debate with you about canceling. They'll offer up discounted or free service. They'll want to try to talk you out of it. If you want to keep the service, that's great. If you're just looking for a better deal, we all know that what you do is, you call up and threaten to cancel. But for me, by the time I've decided to call customer service, I've made up my mind. I'm done. I want out.
How can I break out of that script when I call to cancel, I wondered to myself. What if I just stopped cooperating, and simply, politely, declined to cooperate. Stop answering their questions. Just pretend they didn't even ask them. Do something, anything, so that I don't have to refute the posited merits of keeping my account active when I've already made up my mind.
So that's what I decided to do. No more aruging. No more verbally exploring possible alternatives to canceling. And, in two short days, Kate and I have used this three times. It has worked great, each time.
It started thusly. Yesterday, I called and canceled my XM Radio service. I sold my car, and since XM Radio sucks nowadays, so I have no intent of keeping my home receiver subscribed. I called up XM Radio, and let them know that I wanted to cancel my service. Why would you want to do that, the front line representative asked me? I decline to answer that, I say. In response, I hear back nothing but a few seconds of silence. I've stymied the rep! I pulled him off the script! There's nothing for him to latch on to, to try to convince me to stay with XM Radio. Okay, he responds, and he transfers me over to the retention department. (As I am aware is the standard process, from reading various blogs.) The retention representative tells me how sorry he is to hear that I wish to cancel my service. Can I tell him why I wish to cancel? I'm sorry, I reply, I cannot. Do I have a favorite channel, or do I miss a particular channel? I'm sorry, I decline to answer that. I simply wish to cancel service. Ohhhhhhhhhhkay, responds the rep. Your account is paid up through December 20th. Service will cease on that day. Have a good one.
SCORE! No debate, no trying to talk me out of it, no having to listen to them struggle with the big words they'll find in the script specific to whatever reason I give them. I'm done. I'm out. On the phone for six minutes total, and that includes talking to two reps, and a bit of hold time. Done and done.
Today, I took the day off of work, and Kate and I went downtown to do some shopping. She's been thinking of switching to T-Mobile for a while now, and wants to get a phone like mine. (I have a T-Mobile G1.) She decides to pull the trigger, so after lunch, we stop in to the T-Mobile Store at Water Tower Place. We start the process, and the T-Mobile salesperson says she needs to know Kate's Sprint account number. Kate doesn't have that, so she dials 611 on her Sprint phone to get it. The sales rep warns Kate not to mention that she's canceling, and I smile to myself when I hear that, because it's good advice, and Kate and I had already had a similar discussion a couple hours prior. (As I told her then, and you could consider this the moral of this entire story: Stop tipping your hat to big business, because all you get for offering up your opinion is an entry-level English-challenged idiot trying to debate you out of your choice via a script.) Kate reaches a Sprint rep, and has to repeat her phone number two or three times, as she does every time she calls them (I've witnessed it), because they can't hear her or don't understand her. After she's convinced them she's who she says she is, she asks for her Sprint account number. "Do you mind if I ask why you would like that info?" asks the rep. "Yes, actually, I do mind," replies Kate. That shuts the rep down, and elicits an apology. Kate says it's fine, no worries, you're just doing your job, but I'm just declining to give a reason. OK, no problems, Kate gets her account number, and away we go.
Just a few minutes ago, I decide to finally follow through on my plan to cancel a credit card. One that I hadn't used in many months, one that has a painfully low limit, such that I've long since replaced it in my wallet with a better card from a better bank. I work my way through the phone tree, and reach a representative. I wish to cancel, I explain. May I ask why, she asks? No, I reply, I do not wish to give a reason. The rep tries twice more, finally apologizing and saying that for the bank to be able to give better customer service, she would like to know what I can tell her to put down as the reason for cancellation. I understand, I reply. Please go ahead and write down, "Customer declines to provide a reason." I say that a bit forcefully, as I'm tired of playing, and she needs to stop trying to drag me back to the script. That does the trick. She understands that I'm not playing the game. The account is closed, lots of schpiel follows about how they thank me for my patronage, and hope I'll consider them again, etc., etc., etc. Thanks and have a nice day.
Total time on the phone? Two minutes and fifty five seconds. To cancel a credit card. I've never had that take less than ten to fifteen minutes before. I'm a rock star.
So, my advice to you is this: Don't give the company a reason for canceling, if you've already made up your mind and want to cancel your service. When Kate and I were discussing Sprint earlier, she mentioned that she thought it would be wise to let Sprint know that she was jumping to T-Mobile because Sprint doesn't have an Android phone. In response to that, I pointed out a couple of things. First, Sprint's CEO is on the record as mouthing off about how Android sucks. He's just trying to make his company seem less foolish for not more openly embracing the Android bandwagon, even while Sprint is probably secretly working on their own Android phone as we speak. And also, do you really think Sprint's CEO gives a shit what you think? Let them figure it out by the number of phone numbers ported to T-Mobile. Sure, the cancellation reason data collected by telephone customer service representative probably does trickle up to management, eventually. But, clearly, the primary purpose of that information is to for customer retention. It's to talk you out of canceling. And Sprint is not paying you for that time or for your insight. My time is valuable to me. Isn't yours? Yet Sprint or XM Radio, they want to spend that time freely, engaging you into a script-driven negotation over whether or not you really want them to do what you called up to have done in the first place.
If they really cared what you thought, they'd send you a survey in the postal mail, or have a survey firm call you a few days down the line, and keep the process completely separate from customer retention. And if they want me to respond, they can staple a five dollar bill to it.
If you're like me, you dread calling companies to cancel service. The cable company, phone company, whoever, they're going to debate with you about canceling. They'll offer up discounted or free service. They'll want to try to talk you out of it. If you want to keep the service, that's great. If you're just looking for a better deal, we all know that what you do is, you call up and threaten to cancel. But for me, by the time I've decided to call customer service, I've made up my mind. I'm done. I want out.
How can I break out of that script when I call to cancel, I wondered to myself. What if I just stopped cooperating, and simply, politely, declined to cooperate. Stop answering their questions. Just pretend they didn't even ask them. Do something, anything, so that I don't have to refute the posited merits of keeping my account active when I've already made up my mind.
So that's what I decided to do. No more aruging. No more verbally exploring possible alternatives to canceling. And, in two short days, Kate and I have used this three times. It has worked great, each time.
It started thusly. Yesterday, I called and canceled my XM Radio service. I sold my car, and since XM Radio sucks nowadays, so I have no intent of keeping my home receiver subscribed. I called up XM Radio, and let them know that I wanted to cancel my service. Why would you want to do that, the front line representative asked me? I decline to answer that, I say. In response, I hear back nothing but a few seconds of silence. I've stymied the rep! I pulled him off the script! There's nothing for him to latch on to, to try to convince me to stay with XM Radio. Okay, he responds, and he transfers me over to the retention department. (As I am aware is the standard process, from reading various blogs.) The retention representative tells me how sorry he is to hear that I wish to cancel my service. Can I tell him why I wish to cancel? I'm sorry, I reply, I cannot. Do I have a favorite channel, or do I miss a particular channel? I'm sorry, I decline to answer that. I simply wish to cancel service. Ohhhhhhhhhhkay, responds the rep. Your account is paid up through December 20th. Service will cease on that day. Have a good one.
SCORE! No debate, no trying to talk me out of it, no having to listen to them struggle with the big words they'll find in the script specific to whatever reason I give them. I'm done. I'm out. On the phone for six minutes total, and that includes talking to two reps, and a bit of hold time. Done and done.
Today, I took the day off of work, and Kate and I went downtown to do some shopping. She's been thinking of switching to T-Mobile for a while now, and wants to get a phone like mine. (I have a T-Mobile G1.) She decides to pull the trigger, so after lunch, we stop in to the T-Mobile Store at Water Tower Place. We start the process, and the T-Mobile salesperson says she needs to know Kate's Sprint account number. Kate doesn't have that, so she dials 611 on her Sprint phone to get it. The sales rep warns Kate not to mention that she's canceling, and I smile to myself when I hear that, because it's good advice, and Kate and I had already had a similar discussion a couple hours prior. (As I told her then, and you could consider this the moral of this entire story: Stop tipping your hat to big business, because all you get for offering up your opinion is an entry-level English-challenged idiot trying to debate you out of your choice via a script.) Kate reaches a Sprint rep, and has to repeat her phone number two or three times, as she does every time she calls them (I've witnessed it), because they can't hear her or don't understand her. After she's convinced them she's who she says she is, she asks for her Sprint account number. "Do you mind if I ask why you would like that info?" asks the rep. "Yes, actually, I do mind," replies Kate. That shuts the rep down, and elicits an apology. Kate says it's fine, no worries, you're just doing your job, but I'm just declining to give a reason. OK, no problems, Kate gets her account number, and away we go.
Just a few minutes ago, I decide to finally follow through on my plan to cancel a credit card. One that I hadn't used in many months, one that has a painfully low limit, such that I've long since replaced it in my wallet with a better card from a better bank. I work my way through the phone tree, and reach a representative. I wish to cancel, I explain. May I ask why, she asks? No, I reply, I do not wish to give a reason. The rep tries twice more, finally apologizing and saying that for the bank to be able to give better customer service, she would like to know what I can tell her to put down as the reason for cancellation. I understand, I reply. Please go ahead and write down, "Customer declines to provide a reason." I say that a bit forcefully, as I'm tired of playing, and she needs to stop trying to drag me back to the script. That does the trick. She understands that I'm not playing the game. The account is closed, lots of schpiel follows about how they thank me for my patronage, and hope I'll consider them again, etc., etc., etc. Thanks and have a nice day.
Total time on the phone? Two minutes and fifty five seconds. To cancel a credit card. I've never had that take less than ten to fifteen minutes before. I'm a rock star.
So, my advice to you is this: Don't give the company a reason for canceling, if you've already made up your mind and want to cancel your service. When Kate and I were discussing Sprint earlier, she mentioned that she thought it would be wise to let Sprint know that she was jumping to T-Mobile because Sprint doesn't have an Android phone. In response to that, I pointed out a couple of things. First, Sprint's CEO is on the record as mouthing off about how Android sucks. He's just trying to make his company seem less foolish for not more openly embracing the Android bandwagon, even while Sprint is probably secretly working on their own Android phone as we speak. And also, do you really think Sprint's CEO gives a shit what you think? Let them figure it out by the number of phone numbers ported to T-Mobile. Sure, the cancellation reason data collected by telephone customer service representative probably does trickle up to management, eventually. But, clearly, the primary purpose of that information is to for customer retention. It's to talk you out of canceling. And Sprint is not paying you for that time or for your insight. My time is valuable to me. Isn't yours? Yet Sprint or XM Radio, they want to spend that time freely, engaging you into a script-driven negotation over whether or not you really want them to do what you called up to have done in the first place.
If they really cared what you thought, they'd send you a survey in the postal mail, or have a survey firm call you a few days down the line, and keep the process completely separate from customer retention. And if they want me to respond, they can staple a five dollar bill to it.
Poor Dating on Websites
I knew this was bound to happen. United Airlines stock dived the other day, because people don't know how to read web pages properly.
It's not entirely a reader's fault -- I have long noticed that when I search for and find various archived articles all over the web, the web page I'm reading rarely spells out exactly when the article was originally written or published. Even worse, a lot of sites have a stupid bit of Javascript on them somewhere that always says today's date. I don't need a newspaper's website to tell me what today's date is -- it's not a calendar. It needs to tell me what date the article I'm reading, the page I'm looking at, was originally authored.
When I right click on a page and look up the page's info, sometimes it gives me more information, including the original date of publication. Often, it does not. So many websites are database driven, and things like template or sidebar changes make a page count as "updated" today, even though the article is from 2002.
Shame on any newspaper, other periodical, or article-driven website that does not make it clear and easy to determine on what day (and in what year) an article was originally published.
It's not entirely a reader's fault -- I have long noticed that when I search for and find various archived articles all over the web, the web page I'm reading rarely spells out exactly when the article was originally written or published. Even worse, a lot of sites have a stupid bit of Javascript on them somewhere that always says today's date. I don't need a newspaper's website to tell me what today's date is -- it's not a calendar. It needs to tell me what date the article I'm reading, the page I'm looking at, was originally authored.
When I right click on a page and look up the page's info, sometimes it gives me more information, including the original date of publication. Often, it does not. So many websites are database driven, and things like template or sidebar changes make a page count as "updated" today, even though the article is from 2002.
Shame on any newspaper, other periodical, or article-driven website that does not make it clear and easy to determine on what day (and in what year) an article was originally published.
The Giant Hole on Sheridan
Worst photo ever, taken by me, last night, on the way home from the Italian Village.Every time I return from being out of town for a few days, I see that something has changed around the big hole on Sheridan at Pratt, just outside the 7-11. I come back and find a new cone, or new blinky light, or something added to improve the visibility of the giant hole. This time, they've gone all out. The put up a fancy barrier with yellow safety tape all the way around.
It's great that they're concerned about this thing. Somebody's paying attention. I expect the barrier/warning/cover/whatever around this thing to grow bigger and more impressive until it begins to look like an ice fishing house.
Or? I had another thought: The city could just fix the hole. It's a sunken manhole cover or something. I imagine it takes a bit of work to repair, but it's it's been this way for months, and it is a dangerous hazard. Good thing I don't have a car right now; maneuvering around it in a vehicle is a hassle.
Leash Your Damn Dog!
I think I aged about fifteen years in the past ten minutes. I took one of our dogs (Solly) out this morning so he could go to the bathroom, and so I could run to the corner store. I saw a certain neighbor with his two dogs a ways down the alley. Solly and I were not headed that way, and the neighbor and his dogs were a ways away, so I didn't think much of it. We get a ways further down the block and Solly stops to do his business. Out of nowhere, two larger dogs are suddenly on top of him, jumping around, growling, barking. One of the dogs backed away, maybe just wanted to be friendly, but the other one is on top of him, barking, trying to bite at his neck, I think. I ended up pulling them apart while screaming at everyone to back off, and then I yelled at the owner to control his damn dogs. He retorted that my dog attacked first, which makes little sense because my dog is on a leash, standing there, going to the bathroom. WTF?
On a related note, I plan on bursting in on my neighbors while they're on the toilet later today. Just want to make friends and get to know them. Apparently it's an OK thing to do.
(Yeah, I realize it's extremely unwise to pull two dogs apart. But the owner of the other dog was just standing there, and I reacted without taking time to think it through.)
On a related note, I plan on bursting in on my neighbors while they're on the toilet later today. Just want to make friends and get to know them. Apparently it's an OK thing to do.
(Yeah, I realize it's extremely unwise to pull two dogs apart. But the owner of the other dog was just standing there, and I reacted without taking time to think it through.)
Making the Calls Stop
In June, I got a new phone from RCN. It didn't take long for the phone calls to start. The solicitations started coming within a couple days of hookup.
I've been doing my best to diligently address this problem. Registered the new number with the do-not-call registry. Politely asked callers to add me to their do not call list. For every automated call, I pushed the right button, or called the right number, to get a hold of a human. Waste a couple minutes of their time, as they've done to me. Just to politely let them know I am not interested, and could they please cease calling me?
Most were polite. One place, though, in particular, was not: World Data Systems.
They called repeatedly, and were abusive and rude when I asked them to stop calling. I would cut off their sales pitch, tell them I'm not interested, and they'd say things like, "Not interested in what? HAW HAW HAW" and then they'd hang up.
Then they or some other person would call me again the next day or the day after. Rinse, lather repeat.
The last person from World Data Systems who called me on July 18th called the wrong place at the wrong time. I let her have it. No, I am not interested in taking credit cards, because I do not run a business. I tried to tell your company this on every previous occasion, and yet you keep calling. What exactly does it take to get you to put this number on your do not call list? She just said, "Thank you" and hung up.
A bit of online research revealed various email addresses, contacts at the company. I emailed everyone I could find on July 18th and posed that same question. What exactly does it take to get your company to stop calling me? Nobody responded, but the calls seem to have ceased.
Here's the date and times of the calls, for the record.
7/18 11:08 am from 708-763-0861
7/17 12:56 pm from 708-763-0494
7/15 at 9:04 am from 708-763-0835
7/11 at 3:34 pm from 708-763-0617
Also, for the record, this company is one I will NEVER do business with. I am already put off by unsolicited telemarketing, and the fact that this company's employees are jerks when you try to get them to stop shows them to be unprofessional.
I've been doing my best to diligently address this problem. Registered the new number with the do-not-call registry. Politely asked callers to add me to their do not call list. For every automated call, I pushed the right button, or called the right number, to get a hold of a human. Waste a couple minutes of their time, as they've done to me. Just to politely let them know I am not interested, and could they please cease calling me?
Most were polite. One place, though, in particular, was not: World Data Systems.
They called repeatedly, and were abusive and rude when I asked them to stop calling. I would cut off their sales pitch, tell them I'm not interested, and they'd say things like, "Not interested in what? HAW HAW HAW" and then they'd hang up.
Then they or some other person would call me again the next day or the day after. Rinse, lather repeat.
The last person from World Data Systems who called me on July 18th called the wrong place at the wrong time. I let her have it. No, I am not interested in taking credit cards, because I do not run a business. I tried to tell your company this on every previous occasion, and yet you keep calling. What exactly does it take to get you to put this number on your do not call list? She just said, "Thank you" and hung up.
A bit of online research revealed various email addresses, contacts at the company. I emailed everyone I could find on July 18th and posed that same question. What exactly does it take to get your company to stop calling me? Nobody responded, but the calls seem to have ceased.
Here's the date and times of the calls, for the record.
7/18 11:08 am from 708-763-0861
7/17 12:56 pm from 708-763-0494
7/15 at 9:04 am from 708-763-0835
7/11 at 3:34 pm from 708-763-0617
Also, for the record, this company is one I will NEVER do business with. I am already put off by unsolicited telemarketing, and the fact that this company's employees are jerks when you try to get them to stop shows them to be unprofessional.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)