Caveat Emptor And Watch That Yogurt

OK, so this is about Greek Yogurt,  but it's mostly about how American consumers have to be awake all the damn time.

I went to the grocery store today and on my list was yogurt.  The kind we normally get, Chobani, wasn't on sale according to the store advertisement, so I was going to pick up some Oikos, which is made by Dannon.  

So I was about to pick up the Oikos containers, which were on sale, when I noticed that they seemed kind of small.   Upon checking, I noted that they were 5.3 ounce containers, while the Chobani containers were 6 ounces.   Some quick arithmetic told me that the .7 ounce difference amounted to seven ounces on 10 containers.   Which is more than a full container difference.   So, buying the Chobani product, which actually was on sale at a $1 per container, was a hugely better deal at essentially the same price and gave me an additional container of yogurt.

You have to keep your eyes open all the time, because corporations are always on the prowl for a way to increase their profit at our expense.  Caveat Emptor indeed.

Design By Committee

I recently rediscovered this brilliant cartoon that crystallizes what's wrong with creating things by committee.   There's certainly a place for collaboration and it's often touted as the only way to success, but there are innumerable examples of how a committee screwed up a project.   

I'm sure everyone can come up with examples of committee decision-making run amok.  Click the image to make it larger.

 

Just Hose Out The Car

Well, it's been a while since I posted here.  And a TV commercial inspired this one.

I'm watching TV, minding my own business, muting all the ads for an appalling range of drugs, and all of the sudden, I get sucked into an ad for a floor mat company.   It's a sneaky commercial, with cute little kids in the back seat of an upscale car.  Then there are images of laser devices measuring floor dimensions intermingled with shots of the cute kids dropping food and assorted other trash on the floor of the upscale car.   And mom is smiling.   A lot.

After a half a minute, I'm not sure what is being advertised.  Is it a car?   Is it some sort of sound system?  Kids with some newly discovered medical inability to hang onto stuff? 

It's a floor mat company (which I refuse to identify based on the fact that the ad made me angry).   The ad ends with the smiling mom hauling the custom made (and undoubtedly expensive) mats out of the car to hose them off.

So the message is it's easier to hose out your car than to teach your children to not be pigs and drop all their garbage on the floor of the car.  And that's what made me angry.

A Clash of Zealots

So the national chain "Hobby Lobby" has filed a lawsuit against part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which is more often referred to as "Obamacare."   The retail chain, owned by the Green family, believes the ACA requirement for employers to provide health insurance which includes birth control is unconstitutional.   Specifically, they object to being required to cover the morning after pill and similar drugs.  Hobby Lobby describes itself as a "biblically founded business," whatever that means.

It was perhaps inevitable that a group would start an online petition demanding that Hobby Lobby back off this lawsuit.   After all, online petitions seem to be the weapon of choice lately for a wide range of political issues, especially in cases of corporate right-wing, political activism (such as Chick-fil-A).   Ultraviolet, an organization devoted to promoting women's rights, is promoting a petition which states:

"All women deserve affordable access to birth control and it's a woman's personal, medical decision on which form to use. I won’t be shopping at your store until you drop this suit, and I’ll be telling my friends to do the same."

Now, I have never shopped at Hobby Lobby, mostly because I object to their incessant, strident proselytizing.   I just don't get why some people feel it's necessary to be everyone else's face 24/7 about their religious views.  This retail chain's penchant for full-page newspaper religious treatises is too "in my face."  So, I concur that this company needs to join the rest of our society and follow the law passed by our elected representatives.

On the other hand, I think the petition against the Green family's lawsuit has a couple of problems.   First, it's a waste of time because I don't believe the company really cares what people think of the company.   That is, these people are so convinced that their religious views are the only correct views that no petition will change their collective minds.  

Second, there's no back up plan.  As might be expected, Ultraviolet has now reported that 

Hobby Lobby isn't backing down.

After 80,000 petition signatures, thousands of posts on Facebook, and hundreds of calls to their customer service center, Hobby Lobby is still holding firm in its lawsuit against covering certain forms of birth control.

And now the right wing is rallying around the lawsuit. Conservative media outlets are covering the story, while others are drowning Hobby Lobby's Facebook page in positive comments.

It's pretty much exactly what happened a couple months ago with Chick-Fil-A and the anti-gay marriage statements of its founder.  The right circled the wagons and promoted "Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Days."  

So what's the plan?   Ultraviolet is now emailing people to post "reviews" on Yelp, reviews which are not really reviews but political rants:

Can you post a review of Hobby Lobby on Yelp today, and make sure all of its customers know about their anti-woman lawsuit? There are Hobby Lobby stores in 41 states, so there is probably one in your state. 

Suggested language for the "review?"

"I'm very disturbed by Hobby Lobby's lawsuit attempting to deny women access to some forms of birth control. I'm not shopping at Hobby Lobby until they drop this lawsuit, and I hope no one else will either. What kind of birth control a woman uses is definitely not her employer's business. No more Hobby Lobby for me!"

So when Hobby Lobby continues to ignore the outrage, we'll be left with a bunch of faux reviews on a food and entertainment website, and what?   Nothing.

I'm not inclined to post a faux review on Yelp, and while I signed the petition, I don't agree with the last part: "until you drop this suit."   Whether or not Hobby Lobby drops the lawsuit, I won't shop there, for the same reason I haven't shopped there up to now.   I prefer to not patronize a company that has incessant, strident, right-wing proselytizing as part of its business plan.

Bad Day For Individual Investors

Moxyvote.com has announced it's shutting down.  This web site provided a way for shareholders of corporations to sort of band together to vote on issues important to the shareholders, on topics covering anything that corporations do (or should do).   The people who run the site announced that despite working for 5+ years on regulatory change, they are shutting down because the needed changes haven't happened.  One change that was needed, is regulatory support that would enable shareholders to require their brokers to link proxy voting with Moxyvote.  Without that, the critical mass of shareholders that could band together on voting via Moxyvote is limited.

Beyond shareholders banding together to exercise proxy voting, there seems to be another unmet critical need (IMO): direct communication with other shareholders.   When we read of outrageous actions by corporate boards, such as the recent Duke Energy CEO contract from which the CEO "resigned" after one day, resulting in the CEO collecting up to $44 million, shareholders need a way to communicate with each other.   We can't act as a group if we can't consult with each other and formulate appropriate responses.   We now are limited to making proposals considered at annual meetings, but if shareholders could easily discuss issues with fellow shareholders, we wouldn't be limited to simply reacting to Board of Director controlled proxy ballots.  We could pressure corporate boards on timely issues, like CEO compensation.  Without a site like Moxyvote.com, there's little chance of that level of shareholder communication existing.  

There is a perception that corporate boards and top management, holding huge quantities of corporate stock, can act in their own best interest in "enhancing share value" and, therefore, their own monetary profit, over individual shareholders, who are largely reduced to merely being along for the ride.  One example is a board decision to pursue being bought by another company, thereby resulting in massive payouts to holders of large quantities of stock, as opposed to small individual shareholders who may be more interested in long-term growth than cashing out their holding.  Individual shareholders are essentially voiceless and have no leverage to substantially influence corporate board behavior.  

Provisions of Dodd-Frank, like "say on pay," are little more than window dressing.  In truth, individual shareholders are voiceless.

Follow The Money Again

So United Airlines has decided to do away with "family boarding" before regular boarding begins.   This has been used in order to get families with young kids onto a flight before everyone else, so that aisles are less clogged up and families can easily sit together.

Why on earth would United pursue such a change?   There must be money involved.   Oh right, if they ditch family boarding, they can sell families seats together for an extra charge.  Or simply tell families they have to upgrade from Coach.  For more money.

Nice consumer-friendly, customer service, United.   It's getting harder to decide which airline is worse, lately.

What's Wrong With Free Market Healthcare?

Epinephrine is a medicine used to treat severe allergic reactions, which may be life-threatening.   Analphylactic shock is an allergic reaction which can cause death within minutes.  People with allergies to certain substances, such as wasp venom, are supposed to carry an epinephrine pen with them whenever they are in environments in which they might be exposed to the substance.   These pens enable you to administer an emergency dose of the drug to counteract the allergen, after which you're supposed to get to an emergency room as quickly as possible.  The pens come with an expiration date, so if you haven't used them in a year, you have to throw the pen away and get a new one.   That's not so unusual with medicines and medical devices.  

A few years ago, I had a severe allergic response to two wasp stings within a couple weeks, and as a result, I have been getting allergy shots to desensitize me to the venom, and I'm supposed to carry an epinephrine pen with me when I might be exposed to wasps (like being outside anywhere). 

Having to carry an epinephrine pen around is bad enough, but I recently discovered that these pens (sold under the name Epipen) are made by one company (Dey Pharma) which apparently has found an effective way to pad their bottom line at consumer expense.  Sometime in the past 6 months or so, the company decided to only package these pens in two packs (at twice the cost, of course).  So now, patients who need to carry an Epipen have to buy a two-pack, both of which have the same expiration date.  If all goes well and I avoid any wasp stings, I have to throw away two Epipens, not just one.   Since I try to avoid sharing space with wasps, the odds of me having two severe allergic reactions within the next year are extremely slim.

The packaging/marketing of these devices by Dey Pharma results in waste of both consumer and health insurance resources.   I don't know if the FDA has the authority or even considers trying to halt horrible marketing decisions like this, but it would be nice if the Federal government and/or the insurance industry could do something productive.  I resent being forced to waste limited resources on guaranteed waste. 

This strikes me as an excellent example of what's wrong with our "free market" approach to health care and why we need a good single-payer insurance system (which could conceivably control skyrocketing costs).  

If you know someone who needs an Epipen, I'd be happy to sell him/her one of mine.

Why We Hate Banks Part Deux

OK, so here's an addition to my 2/25/12 rant.  I criticize when criticism is warranted and whatever the opposite of criticism is when warranted.  In this case, it's not really 'kudos' but I don't know what it is.

The Regional bank I didn't name that charged for each iPhone processed deposit isn't the only bank in town.   The really huge bank with which we also do business, has an iPhone app which does check deposits.  Much to my surprise, this mega-Bank does not appear to charge for each transaction.   I'll believe it when I see my statement, but so far, there doesn't seem to be a fee for the "privilege." 

And this bank is way more evil than the Regional bank....  And famous for devising new fees...

Why We Hate Banks

So I decided the other day to try out an iPhone app for my bank, which would enable me to make a deposit into my account using the phone rather than traveling to a branch or ATM.   The bank had touted it as a time-saver, but I discovered a hitch half way through the process.

The app first had me take a photo of the front of the check and enter the amount of the deposit.  It was pretty much like using the iPhone to take any sort of photo; no big deal.  Then it was time to take a shot of the back of the check.   Those tasks completed, I was presented with a screen to either Cancel or Continue and oh, by the way, a notice that I would be charged $.50 to complete the deposit with the app.   

So my bank had found another fee based revenue source.  Why would I want to deposit a check for $10 and change via the iPhone and pay a $.50 fee?   Short answer: I would not.     I guess I shouldn't be surprised, since a couple decades ago, the banking industry offered free access to ATMs to get consumers used to the devices, and then tried to slap fees on when we used them.  Here the bank has the customer using his own equipment (iPhone) to process a deposit electronically into their system, and they think it's reasonable to charge me for the "privilege?"  But not to state up front that a fee would be incurred...

I think not.   A small example of why we hate our banks.

Health and Politics-A Very Bad Mix

The scandal of the month appears to be the short-lived "non-political" decision by the Susan Komen Foundation to cut it's ties to Planned Parenthood, which has used Komen Foundation money to provide breast cancer screening and support to thousands of women.  The Foundation defended its decision because they have a "policy" that prohibits them from making grants to organizations "under investigation."   What investigation was targeting Planned Parenthood (PP)?  In case you hadn't heard, Republican Representative Cliff Stearns of Florida has launched a Congressional Investigation of PP.  That's not even close to a criminal investigation, which most of us might consider possibly valid rationale for a charity to guard its grant money.  Congressional investigations are a dime a dozen and signify nothing, beyond some political agenda.

In this case, Representative Stearns is an avowed opponent of PP and has vowed to find a way to cut off all federal funds the group receives.  PP is already prohibited from using those funds to provide abortion services, but that is apparently not good enough for Mr. Stearns.
What's even worse than the Congressional witch-hunt, is the lame and unbelievable defense that the Komen CEO presented for the Foundation's action.  When word spread that the Komen Foundation had succumbed to heavy pressure from abortion opponents to cut ties with PP, CEO Nancy Brinker maintained that the decision had nothing to do with her recent hiring of a former conservative Georgia gubernatorial candidate as Vice-President for Public Policy.  Karen Handel lost her race for nomination in 2010 after campaigning on an anti-Planned Parenthood platform.  Brinker announced that Handel "had nothing to do with" the Foundation decision to cut off PP funds, despite the fact that Brinker had already said the action was taken in conformance with a new Foundation "policy."  Who could possibly believe that the person in charge of public policy wasn't involved?  It's just plain ridiculous.


The good news is that Planned Parenthood raised nearly a million dollars in the few days after the Komen announcement, and the Internet was filled with angry people who vowed to never participate in another Komen "Race for the cure" fundraiser.  

Don't forget, this is the same foundation that filed lawsuits a year or so ago against other charities who they alleged were infringing on Komen's "trademark" of the words "for the cure."   Can you say charity acting like a corporation?
    

Corporate America Listens?

I am pretty skeptical about most corporate decisions and believe they are generally made in the company's interest, not customers.   So I am less than sympathetic to corporate interests when faced with a choice between them and people.  A lot of companies spend a lot of time and energy these days collecting "surveys" from customers, but it's never clear that anything is actually done with most of it.  Many times you can tell from the way survey questions are presented that the company 1) wants certain responses, 2) isn't really interested in honest feedback, and 3) simply wants customers to feel like their opinions matter.   Some politicians have adopted the same practice to "find out" what voters want.   In reality, these surveys simply tell voters what the politician thinks is the "right way."


I recently was startled to discover a company actually listened to its customers and even reversed a decision the company had previously made.  And, to my knowledge, this wasn't a result of a poll, but of actual feedback received from customers.  


A month or so ago, I received a notification from Discover Card, informing me that they were discontinuing Discover's Secure On-line Account Numbers.   Owners of a Discover Card could log into the Discovercard.com website and generate a credit card number that could be used for a web purchase anywhere Discover cards could be used.   The advantage of this system is that the vendor never sees your real card number so there's no chance of your account being stolen or compromised and the generated account number can only be used once.   So a website that wants you to "sign up" for a recurring service (when all you want is to buy something one time) can't process subsequent purchases against the generated number; it just won't work.   


So for whatever reason, Discover decided to drop this program.   I had used it for almost all online purchasing the past couple of years, so I wasn't happy to receive this news.   I sent Discover an email in which I said that the On-line Account Numbers were the main reason I used the account at all, so I wouldn't be using my Discover Card much in the future.  I figured they'd get the email and hit the delete button.


I was wrong.   A few days ago, I received an email from Discover which announced that they had decided to reinstate the program:

We recently announced the decision to discontinue the Secure Online Account Number feature.
Since then, we've heard customers like you tell us how much they love the added control of usingSecure Online Account Numbers for their online purchases.
Based on the feedback we've decided to reinstate this feature. Beginning today you will once again be able to generate secure online account numbers for online purchases.
We appreciate your loyalty and your feedback. Thank you for using Discover card.

I have to admit I am stunned by the notion that a large financial corporation pays any attention to customer comments.  Even more surprising is that they actually reversed a publicly announced decision, apparently due to those customer comments.    Kudos to Discover Card's management.


At least one piece of corporate America listened.  Who woulda thunk? 

Whose Cookie Is That?

So it's been suggested to me that I should lighten up my blog posts a bit, despite the fact that they my blog was intended to be curmudgeonly from the outset.   However, I will try to lighten things up with....a joke.

A CEO, a Tea Party member, and a union representative sit at a table. 

There is a plate with 12 cookies. 

The CEO takes 11, turns to the Tea Party member, and says, 'Look out! That union guy wants your cookie!'

What?   You're not laughing?  OK, so it's not a major side-splitter, but it is a joke. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. 

What's In It For Me?

Most every financial company wants me to switch to "e-delivery" these days.   Actually the campaign to wean me from paper statements has been going on for some time, but I've mostly ignored it.   

When banks and such started making it possible to download statements, I began doing so, mostly because it's a lot easier to store and find PDF files than paper ones.   At least for me, I can locate a particular document much more easily if it's on my computer than if it's in a file cabinet someplace in the house.   And of course, it takes next to no space to save PDF files vs. paper.  However, I still find it easier to peruse a paper statement to see if anything unusual appears.  

Now banks and stock shareholder agents (e.g., Computershare.com) are getting more forceful in their efforts; more and more I'm finding I no longer have access to the downloadable statements unless I agree to forgo the paper version.

What really frosts me, are the reasons they give to convince me to "go green."   Do you see what is missing from this example?  These are largely bogus reasons:  I can retrieve documents 24/7 from these company websites, I don't have to print anything when they send me paper documents, and I can already save documents to my computer if they allow me to download them.  Nothing is said about the benefits to the company: they save postage involved in mailing statements to me and they save the cost of paper.  These are significant economic reasons for the company to want me to switch, much greater than the lame benefits to me if I "Sign up for eDelivery."  

How about if they give me a nominal fee, like $5 per quarter to forgo the paper statements?   Fat chance.  Another example of big business thinking we're all idiots.

Organization Chart

This probably fits any large organization, employer, bank, or whatever.   Here you go Robin!

I used to have an org. chart of heaven.   I'll have to locate it....  

Will The Economy Get Better-Part 2

Well, since my post on this topic in April, not much has changed.   Unemployment rates are still high, new job creation is elusive, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq grind on, and  political fringe elements in the U.S. are louder and shriller.  Based purely on anecdotal evidence, people hate their jobs more.   I think this "Moderately Confused" comic sums it all up.  This comic is always quite "pithy" and you can find the strips here.

For Profit Colleges-Big Money Being Made

If you, or someone you know, is thinking of enrolling at a for-profit college, make sure you, or they, read/listen to this Marketplace.org story.  Can you say "misleading advertising?"  

As usual, follow the money...  These schools are making huge profits at the expense of many students and, ultimately, the U.S. taxpayer (we foot the bill for those college loans these schools depend on).

Talk, Talk, Talk

Ever wonder why our Congress gets so little done?   One of the reasons is the misuse and overuse of the filibuster (more here) by Senate Republicans, The Party of No (PON).

It seems that for the PON, there is no issue too small for a filibuster.  I think I may have to  start maintaining a list of filibusters that make the news, because every day it seems there's another legislative measure that the PON seeks to block by never-ending "debate."   So the government that is supposed to be operated by majority vote (51 in the Senate) seems to almost always require 60 votes.  The PON filibusters mean that the Senate is unable to end debate and conduct votes on the merits of the legislation.  So much for majority rule. 

Here's the latest: As a result of the infamous Supreme Court decision in January 2010 that confers personhood on corporations, political contributions by companies are now practically limitless.   As a result, we can expect to be absolutely buried by political ads this Fall by anonymous corporate special interests.  The Congress has a bill to place limits on this corporate political spending which the PON has filibustered to prevent a vote.   The Senate attempt to end debate failed 57-41 on this week.

Earlier in July, another filibuster from the PON prevented the American Workers, State, and Business Relief Act of 2010 from reaching a vote.  An effort to end the filibuster failed 58-38 in early July 2010.  Previous attempts to invoke cloture failed 57-41 and 56-40 June.  This bill included provisions to extend unemployment compensation.   Cloture was finally invoked and the bill passed later in July after a new Senator from West Virginia was sworn in to replace the late Sen. Byrd, providing a 60 member majority.

Even Senate efforts to reform filibuster rules and lower the votes needed to end debate on legislation from 60 to (perhaps) 55 can't get past the PON filibuster.

One of the most galling aspects of Senate "modern" filibusters is that the filibustering Senators don't even have to actually stand up and speak the entire time the Senate has a quorum.  They don't have to actually break a sweat to prevent the Senate from acting on a bill.  Under Senate rules, the Senate Majority Leader (Senator Reid) has the ability to require an actual "traditional filibuster," but Reid doesn't seem to want to do anything to make the PON really, really angry.  How could they be any less cooperative?

What's a democracy to do when it's held hostage by the minority party?

One Fastfood Is (Not) Like Any Other

Open Letter to McDonald's Corporation:

Based on personal experience, you have nothing to fear from Subway's foray into serving breakfast foods.  Their menu sounds decent enough, but the execution is, well, not very impressive.  The crew didn't seem to know how to assemble the breakfast and the components tasted like they had been sitting around for a couple hours.  Which they probably had been.  I was asked if I wanted "white or yellow" (egg) and my choice was "yellow" (if I was that health conscious I wouldn't be getting breakfast at a fastfood restaurant).  I got both.  The five (count 'em) hash brown "patties" were hard by the time I got home.  And "Seattle's Best" coffee?  Not so best.

Perhaps corporations might be advised to stick with what they know instead of trying to fill every niche.  Maybe I won't be using the rest of those coupons.  

Groceries and Politics - and Euthanasia?

A strange thing happened to me a couple months ago while I was grocery shopping.   This was before the Federal health insurance bill was passed.  I was approached by a elderly man (elderly meaning older than me) who commented on my Iowa T-shirt.   The commenting wasn't the strange part.  The discussion that ensued was, at least to me, the strange part.  It started benignly, with "How are things in Iowa?"   I responded that things were pretty good in Iowa (where I used to live), especially as compared with the political chaos in Illinois (where I've lived for the past 22+ years).   

In case you haven't heard, Illinois is drowning under a $13 billion (maybe more) deficit and politicians who don't have the courage to raise taxes to pay for the services the public has come to expect.   So we're laying off teachers because the State owes money to local school districts for last school year.   But I digress.  

I made some remark about Illinois government, and the man launched into a passionate dissertation on how the Federal government wants to ration health care to the elderly.   I was startled initially, but tried to say something about how health care costs are out of control and too many people have no insurance.  His response was that the government wants to set up "death panels" to save money.   I was flabbergasted that this guy was actually convinced that his country wants him dead.

As I listened to this man, who was convinced that any effort to reduce health care costs would be tantamount to executing the elderly, I realized that he wasn't really interested in discussion, but simply wanted to convince me that his view was correct.  I don't feel like I know all the answers to lots of topics, but I wasn't about to buy into this conspiracy theory.  It seemed advisable to extricate myself from the "chat" and finish my grocery shopping, which I did.   But the encounter bothered me a lot.

I had suggested to the man that our current for-profit health insurance system is designed to make profits for the corporations, and that lots of people are denied coverage for various treatments by the insurance companies.  He told me his fate was more secure in the hands of corporate interests rather than government, another consequence of Ronald Reagen's anti-government philosophy.  

I find such a belief truly incredible, given how badly many large corporations treat employees, the environment, and anything else that doesn't directly pad their profits.  

And I'd also suggest that when it comes to something as overtly nefarious as euthanasia, our government is the last place to look for efficient implementation.

No, I don't believe anyone in the current Administration was promoting "death panels" or euthanasia in order to curb health care costs.   I also believe that we Americans expect miracle cures for everything, from "ED" to sleeplessness to terminal cancer.  And we simply can't afford to consider unlimited expensive cures (paid for by someone else) to delay the inevitable.   As usual, there has to be a middle ground and we have to find some way to discuss what that might be.

BP's Final Option?

A friend sent this to me and I thought it was pretty funny. It'd be funnier if the actual situation wasn't such a horrendous disaster.

I'd be happy to credit whoever created the image if I knew who it was.