| Perfil de RobertBlast Furnace Canada Blo...BlogListas |  Herramientas  Ayuda |
|
30/09/2006 Banned Books Week 2006It's that time of year again, when the American Library Association stands up to the religious right and announces which books have been "challenged" the most -- in other words, which books parents or ministers want to have removed for not "comporting with family values."
The top ten list for this year:
1. Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling 2. "The Chocolate War" by Robert Cormier 3. Alice series by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor 4. "Of Mice and Men" by John Steinbeck 5. "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings" by Maya Angelou 6. "Fallen Angels" by Walter Dean Myers 7. "It's Perfectly Normal" by Robie Harris 8. Scary Stories series by Alvin Schwartz 9. Captain Underpants series by Dav Pilkey 10. "Forever" by Judy Blume
Not on the Top Ten list but also frequently cited is another Blume tome, "Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret" -- a wrenching book about child abuse, as Angelou's "Caged" is; as well as "To Kill A Mockingbird" by Harper Lee, about a black man who is framed for raping a white woman who in fact was abused by her own father. I guess most of the parents who try to get it pulled are abusing their kids or support chid abuse; and the rest want to make sure their kids blame themselves when it happens to them. It's no worse here in Canada, where Mockingbird and Merchant of Venice have been banned from the cirriculuum of high schools. Also not seen in many high schools is W.O. Mitchell's "Who Has Seen the Wind," redacted for its racial overtones. So the hypocrisy exists on both the left and the right. For what it's worth, Joanne K Rowling, the author of the Potter series, said yesterday she considers being targeted like that a badge of honour. The other authors, I'm sure, would too ... because it ensures people will read those books and even buy them. The free flow of ideas is essential to democracy, and it just makes me mad that parents' groups oppose the very reason why there is a First Amendment (or the equivalent in democratic countries other than the US). So the next time I drive by a book burning session, I'm going to dump the Bible in there too just to give them a taste of their own medicine -- after all, the Scriptures also mentions rapes, child abuse, ritualistic killings, and making bets with Satan. The quality of mercy: Canadians in limbo editionMy father came to Canada as a political refugee under the Geneva Conventions in 1965. So I have a vested interest in what I am about to say, but I have to say it. It is simply wrong for God's Annointed Servant (TM) to, on the one hand, grant honourary citizenship to the Dalai Lama saying he is the kind of person we would want to be a Canadian (although, for the record, I do believe Tenzin Gyatso deserves the honour no less than Raoul Wallenberg and Nelson Mandela); while on the other hand, declare that the kids of those who came to Canada during World War II to escape the bombardment of the UK have lost their Canadian citizenship because nationality was granted to their mothers and not their fathers -- and thus are going to be deported. In the coming weeks, thousands face expulsion because of this sexist and totally bombastic legal principle. It simply doesn't make sense. They're members of Canadian society and pay taxes to Canada. They are ours, not theirs. Surely this is a case that calls for mercy and common sense.
I have no tolerance for those who deliberately break the rules just to leach off our good nature and collect benefits without any intention of ever working.. I do think a way should be found to integrate those who have been here for years and are otherwise law-abiding members of society. But when it comes to a case like this, where people came here in good faith and on the understanding they would become Canadians the moment they came here, we should keep our promise -- whether they earned it through the matrilineal or patrilineal lines.
Shakespeare reminded us the Lord's Prayer says that as we pray for mercy, we must also render the deeds of mercy. Stephen Harper should do the right thing and grant amnesty for those caught in this ridiculous limbo.
29/09/2006 If the First Couple is at war ...Try this one on for size.
Item One: Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada and God's Annointed Servant (TM), cuts $17 million from literacy programs.
Item Two: Laureen Teskey, the First Lady of Canada, pounds the streets of Ottawa promoting -- literacy.
As usual Diane Finley, the absentee MP from the district that includes the Caledonia / Six Nations war zone, got her facts wrong. The 2007 budget was unanimously passed by all parties -- albeit inadvertently. So in reality, all parties are to blame for this complete inconsistency.
28/09/2006 Should the CBC adopt the BBC model?Yesterday, the CBC was grilled at the House Heritage Committee for some pretty stupid programming decisions the last year or so, plus the possibility that the Mother Corporation just might lose out the bidding war for Saturday Night Hockey to CTV. If it does, it would lose about $100 million dollars a year in advertising revenue just at the English network, and require a major rethink about the role the public (read: state) broadcaster plays in our lives.
There are two things that need to be considered. One is the fact the Board of Directors are all appointed by the Prime Minister and accountable to the PMO and them alone. Yes, they do testify before Parliament from time to time, but the real power lies in the Executive Branch. It can ultimately decide whether the networks within the CBC family even has the right to exist. It can simply do away with it with an Act of Parliament, if it chose to do so. Two, it's the Executive that decides the annual allocation it gets from the Treasury. If it's seen as friendly to the government, it gets more money. If not, its funding is cut. Therefore, while it is technically independent of the government -- its sole shareholder -- it really isn't.
Perhaps it is time to look at whether the CBC needs another method of funding. But the CBC is finally willing to discuss it, and its been quitely discussed in some circles for years. It's considered an almost sacriligious concept in Canada, but I think we should at least debate whether it's time to move to a system of TV licensing, as exists in most EU countries.
The most famous of these, of course, is the BBC. Its principal source of revenue for programming is not advertising, as it's commercial free. It comes, instead, from licences. The fees are collected via cable or satellite bills for those who get their programming via that method; or directly for those who get their programs off-air. Subsidies are provided for lower income people and senior citizens, but the fact everyone pays into the BBC creates a sense of ownership -- that it's their network. The trustees of the network, while still appointed by the government, are actually forced to be accountable -- and at times they've often resigned en masse when they've been caught screwing up. (What are the chances that would happen in Canada?)
This model also allows for rather innovative programs, which raises the bar for private broadcasters to make even better shows. The result: British TV shows and news programs are usually excellent.
We ... get crap.
I'm not saying we definitely should go the licensing route. What I am saying is that we talk about it.
Indulgences by any other name are still indulgencesThe gang at CJIL -- aka The Miracle Channel -- are at it again.
No sooner do they finally give into months, even years, of CRTC demands that they institute a code of ethics on how they will comport themselves during fundraising broadcasts (which run about four to six times per year) than they just go back to business as usual and violate their own rules -- rules which, supposedly, are even tougher than the guidelines the federal regulators have for religious broadcasters.
As usual, Tim Thibault of Under The Son Ministries has the blow by blow.
What's truly infuriating about this is that it's a scam practiced not only by evangelical Christians, but even some mainline churches, albeit in a different format. Consider, for example, the corrupt system of papal indulgences during the Middle Ages that led to the Protestant Reformation. Anyone who studied it in high school as part of a World Religions Course will remember the infamous phrase: "As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from Purgatory springs." It took nearly four decades after Luther, at the Council of Trent, for the Roman Catholic Church to admit it was wrong and outlawed the practice -- on paper.
Yet even today, we still see Catholic parishes encouraging people to donate money to ask for blessings from God, via the intercession of a favourite saint or someone they're trying to promote to the sainthood, or to pray that a soul of a dead relative will rise to Heaven. I'm pretty sure it's the same in other churches. This goes against basic Biblical teachings, which teaches that it is through God, and God alone, that all blessings flow; and it is God alone who decides who goes to Heaven or Hell, no matter how much the saints try to persuade or even bully the Almighty.
These days when I pray, I don't ask for the "intercession" of an intermediary, I go right to the source; just as the Bible commands us to. And I certainly don't put money in the collection plate to get something from God ... I do it to finance the daily needs of the church's staff.
What's more important for me, however, is to have some kind of assurance that monies donated, even in good faith and not as an attempt to extort something from God, is going back into the ministry and not into something else; whether it be donating to a political party, even if it's from the draw ministry staff receives, or supporting one's high flying lifestyle. Having read the comments sections of The Miracle Channel Review, there are some pretty stunning although currently unsubstantiated rumours between what TMC preaches and what it actually practices.
It's little secret that TMC believes that Stephen Harper is God's Annointed Servant (TM) and that it was "God's will" that Canadians elected him. What I'd like to know is whether they believe blessings are for Conservative supporters only. And what Harper will do to intercede on their behalf when the CRTC finally goes beyond the "determination" stage and actually sanctions TMC for consistently breaking the rules.
27/09/2006 7-11 drops Citgo7-11 can say all they want ... but there definitely is a link between their decision to drop Citgo as their gas supplier after 20 years, and Hugo Chavez' incendiary remarks last week about the United States. The only problem is, who are they going to buy their gas from now? The Iranians? Another Middle Eastern country with an appalling human rights record?
It just goes to show the problem American companies have. They say they want to be free of interference and influence from OPEC, and they can't back it up.
Hey guys: Try Canada for a change!
Belinda's right about double standard -- but that's not the only problemI don't condone what Belinda Stronach did, nor am I going to ... if in fact, she is the "other woman" that wrecked the marriage of former hockey enforcer Tie Domi and his wife. Yet it does say a lot about the fact we have a long way to go before women are truly equal members of our society. It also explains why she decided not to run for the Liberal leadership as many people thought she would ... she knew the press was going to dig this up and make it, not the party's renewal, the key issue of the campaign. Any male candidate having an affair with another woman would not only be ignored, but even applauded.
Consider the fact that Pierre Trudeau was the consummate and unrepentant womanizer -- among his interests were musicians Liona Boyd and Barbra Streisand and actress Kim Catrall. No one said a word about that. But when Margaret Sinclair spent a weekend with the Rolling Stones, the Exempt Media went ballistic. And she was just the First Lady, not a sitting politician. When she later admitted she had depression, she like all other women was made to look like it was her fault -- yet when a man admits he's bipolar, he's seen as a hero.
Bill Clinton was excorciated, and rightly so, for his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky. Yet the right wing was even harder on Hillary Clinton, not just for standing by Slick Willy but also forgiving him -- quite hypocritical for the so-called "religious" right, if you ask me. Now, they're on DEFCON One anticipating she's going to run for the White House, saying she's worse than Satan.
Let's get back however, for a minute, to Ms Stronach.
She was part of the behind the scenes lobbying to unite the Reform / Canadian Alliance Party and the Progressive Conservatives (which, as we all know, was really the Reformers gobbling up the latter). She ran for the leadership and finished in a rathe strong third place. Her promise not to collect a single penny in salary if she were elected Prime Minister was quite a bold move, even for a multimillionaire like her. Most politicans would laugh at the idea of taking even a five percent pay cut -- they always want to double their pay then claim it's still not enough.
She gives up her job at Magna -- the auto parts giant -- to run as a Member of Parliament in her hometown, and wins. Only then she "discovers" that Stephen Harper is way more conservative than his media spin team has bullied Canadians into believing he is, and in a pinch decides to defect to the Liberals at the last possible minute. Paul Martin's accepting her and inducting her into the cabinet was a complete act of desperation but I think it had more to do with the fact she thought she'd be better off being away from the party she helped found. Despite the fact this is a cynical move by anyone -- male or female -- she manages to win re-election even as the party goes down to defeat, in one of the most fickle districts in the country (Aurora-Newmarket).
Not to mention, by the way, that at the time she was dating Peter MacKay, and she didn't even bother to tell him she was thinking about switching parties even though she had beenin secret meetings with David Peterson for nearly two weeks negotiating the defection. While the US media focused on her defection, the Candian media instead focused on MacKay being the wronged man -- playing the infamous CBC interview with him over and over again. (Imagine if it had been the other way around -- MacKay leaving and Stronach staying. Would the media have asked her what she thought? Of course not.)
Pretty remarkable stuff, and it all happened in the course of just two years. The problem here however, is not the adultery, or her inconsistency.
It's the fact it's not the kind of news the Liberal Party needs right now. I don't care if a politician is an adulterer, or a drug addict or an alcoholic, just as long as they do their job and they don't drag the rest of the country into their problems. I don't think most Canadians care either.
The fact remains, however, the party still has a small but not insignificant pro-life and pro-family wing who do care; a wing that wants nothing to do with the Conservatives but still wants the rest of the country to abide by a series of basic "values." If the party is to be truly credible, it not only has to elect a strong leader but also come up with a strong platform that says the days of entitlements and the kind of greed that led to Sponsorgate is over; and that all elected politicians wearing Liberal Red are going to promote those kinds of values which Canadians generally agree upon. These include respect for family and for oneself. A bird can't fly unless both wings are flapping in coordination. The only way she's ever going to get the Prime Ministership she wants so badly in the long term, is if she makes peace with the likes of Tom Wappel. That to win, she not only has to appeal to the inner cities but also the Bible Belts in Western Canada and Southwestern Ontario.
In short, she has to be seen as not only a woman promoting family values, but someone who also values families. I don't doubt her credentials as a single mother in either regard; she's proven it more than enough. That's not going to be enough for some, however.
Stronach is welcome to stay in the Liberal Party as long as she's committed to building it and sticking with it for the long haul. She also needs to realize that many if not most members of the media will always resent her simply for the fact she's a woman; and like all other women her behaviour is going to be scrutinized in more detail. When even no less than Progressive Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney still laments the fact a woman has to work twice as hard to get half the credit, it shows us just how far we have to go.
26/09/2006 Who deserves credit for the surplus? The Liberals. Who wants to kill tourism? The ConservativesThe numbers are in, and for the eighth straight year, Canada has run a surplus. For the fiscal year ended March 31, 2006, the surplus was $13.2 billion. As is usual the money was applied on the debt, bringing it down to $486.5 billion -- or 39.2% of GDP. When one considers it hit a peak of 73.9% in fiscal 1996, it's a truly remarkable achievement. As a portion of the economy, our federal debt burden has actually dropped by 47%. This is an incredible, and a smackdown at our American friends who have eliminated balanced budget from their vocabulary as being an "unpatriotic" concept.
Of course, this all happened as the result of the policies of a Liberal Administration. The Conservatives came into government in February and did not sit a Parliament until April, the month after the year ended. So from here on in, everything we're going to hear about our fiscal situation will be in the lap of Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty. Some of the tax policies announced are actually quite irresponsible and will bear fruit down the road, especially if we're headed into a recession. Yes, taxes are too high, but tax cuts should only be funded by interest savings until the debt becomes self-financing -- this would be at about 25% of GDP.
A couple of things happened yesterday, though, that raise some questions. First of all, the government said they were cutting about a billion dollars in what they called "non-priority" spending, including; $4 million for research into medical marijuana; $5 million from a reduction of the budget of Status of Women Canada; and another $4 million from the elimination of the Court Challenges Program. I do think private researchers can figure out for themselves whether vitamin THC has medicinal purposes; but ending the CCP is misguided. It exists for the same reason why provinces with class action laws have a Class Proceedings Fund: To ensure cases that would not normally get public attention, do. It's not like they just handed out the money willy-nilly, there had to a reasonable basis for funding and the expectation that there could be a win.
Besides, courts are what keep overzealous executives and legislatures in line. Someone has to police the powers that be.
Second, the government introduced a Ways and Means Motion (the tool that, if the House of Commons consents, allows a government to enforce tax policy before a budget is actually passed) that would tinker a little bit with the GST. Actually, not just tinker, but it is signficant enough that the tourism business should take notice. Effective March 31, 2007, the GST Visitor Rebate Program is going to be eliminated. In effect, this means that tourists will be paying 7% more on the goods and services they purchase here, since the GST is meant to be paid by Canadians and Canadians alone. Moreover, conventions that have at least 75% delegates who are non-Canadian will no longer be able to claim the credit either.
This is simply insane. It may be reflective of the fact that most if not all US states have no similar rebate program and it may be an attempt to level the playing field. But it doesn't reflect the reality that there's a huge difference in the way tax regimes operate in the two countries. In the States, most cities are dependent on sales tax revenue, traffic offence tickets and transient accomodation levies (the dreaded "hotel tax.") Property taxes are not that much of a factor in most major cities although it is still levied. They do this to help pay the interest costs on municipal bonds.
By contrast, Canadian cities are almost entirely reliant on property taxes. All provinces ban local sales tax levies, and most ban the hotel tax. Even those which allow it (Québec is one) puts a cap on it. While our sales taxes are way too high, it's the fact there is little or no accomodation tax that gives us a huge advantage when it comes to drawing tourists and convention business. Offering a rebate on a portion of what they consume is often pure gravy.
So basically, the Harper Government is telling the tourism and convention business to go screw themselves. I wonder if they even consulted with the rebate brokers, who take a commission (usually 10 %) off the top to speed up the rebate process which can often take weeks.
Most European Union countries refund their Value Added Tax, or VAT, to non EU residents; which is one reason why so many Canadians and Americans travel there. If they see us doing this, they might figure, what the heck, and eliminate their rebate program as well. Travel is about opening bridges and understanding other cultures better; getting rid of this program is burning those bridges -- and promoting self-centredness and intolerance.
This is going to "save" the Government $78.8 million dollars over the next two years. I believe it will cost way more in lost tourist dollars. If Harper wants to save some money, he should look elsewhere. Maybe by eliminating the Finance Department and Treasury Board all together, and letting the Canada Revenue Agency do the job. At least then, there'd be only one department to scream at come tax time -- not three.
25/09/2006 Volpe IN, Fry OUTWhat a difference a day makes. Yesterday, a lot of people -- myself included -- felt that Joe Volpe was toast. Today, he said he's staying in the race for the Liberal leadership and will let the party executive sort out any "irregularities" that may have cropped up. Meanwhile, Hedy (Crosses are burning in Prince George) Fry announced she's dropped out and endorsing Bob Rae.
While I am standing by my endorsement of Gerard Kennedy and will vote for him as my preference on Sunday when the delegate selection rollout comes to my district, the moves the last few days do give me pause about my second and third choices, and how I am going to split my vote for delegate selection. Each district sends 14 delegates, and I'm likely to split my ballot 5-4-3-2; selecting commited delegates at random. I was never going to vote a straight line as I did last time for Paul Martin, but given that it's becoming a showdown between Rae and Michael Ignatieff I have to begin to wonder what the other candidates may be thinking of who to support if, as is almost certain, the convention goes to a third and even a fourth ballot. It might be better to vote for delegates committed to a potential winner than a "kingmaker," and hope other parties members are also going to hope for a quick end to the convention than an all-night marathon.
Then again, there have been rare occasions when a dark horse has come out on top. Think Edward Broadbent (NDP) in 1975, Joe Clark (PC) in 1976, and here provincially in Ontario Dalton McGuinty (Liberal) in 1996, who of course later became Premier. Perhaps Volpe thinks he could still win this thing. Stranger things have happened, and until we get the raw numbers this weekend we won't know for sure ... but I'm not going to waste my chance to vote either.
24/09/2006 7th Heaven Summary for Episode 11-1: Turn, Turn, Turn
I never thought I'd actually be doing this for yet another year, but here we are.
... and then blames Kevin and her whole family. She says she didn't want to get pregnant, told her husband she wasn't ready, but then she Joe Volpe leaving race?Looks like Joe Volpe is going to withdraw from the Liberal leadership race tomorrow, after revelations this weekend his campaign in Québec registered new members who didn't pay the required membership fee ... and, in one case, even enlisted someone who has been dead for seventeen years. A couple months back, I was headed down Lawrence Avenue in Toronto and rode by Joe Volpe's constituency office. He had already been under fire for some other irregularities, and I felt so tempted to stick my head out the window and scream, "BOOOOOO!"
The sooner he's out of the race, the better. This is a serious race requiring serious candidates and serious thought by its members as we approach Super Weekend, starting this Friday. Joe Volpe, with all due respect, is not a serious candidate and wasn't from the very beginning. He has been successful in gaining new members, about 35 thousand, but being a kingmaker without having at least some credibility may weaken what is supposed to be a rebuilding exercise for the Liberals.
23/09/2006 Hamilton officials bury Legionnaires' outbreakThe Hamilton Spectator has a story this morning that is taking many people completely by surprise. One person died and ten were made ill by an outbreak of Legionnaires' Disease during the summer, and the area of contagion covered pretty much the entire downtown of Hamilton; but incredibly public health officials kept the story under wraps until now. Mayor Larry DiIanni claims he didn't want to create a public panic as they didn't know where the source of the disease and didn't want to mislead people, but that's a cop-out.
It was an unusually hot summer here in Southern Ontario, and it's well known Legionnaires is spread by bacteria that builds up in unmaintained air conditioning units. To its credt, the city did the right thing by cleaning out its units as soon as they suspected something was up; and quietly asked building owners to check out theirs. But is it so hard to tell people that there is a problem and it might be a good idea to stay away from certain facilities for a few days while the outbreak is contained?
We demanded, and got city officials, to tell people if a restaurant or a grocery store has safe food handling procedures through a colour-coded notification system at the front door of every such establishment. Vans roam the streets late at night offering condoms and clean hypodermic needles to drug addicts; and our tax dollars also support local birth control facilities such as Planned Parenthood et sequens. (Vancouver even has a safe-injection clinic, which has been saved by the bell for the time being.) Yet our public health officials can't be bothered to tell us that there's something out there that might be causing severe diarrehea?
This can't be tolerated. I don't know if any other mayor would have handled this differently, but DiIanni lost my confidence a long time ago and this one seals the deal. He won't get my vote in this fall's elections, period. It's the mayor's job to protect the health of his or her citizens, and he dropped the bomb.
22/09/2006 It all goes back to Isaac and IshmaelWhether one agrees with him or not, Gerry Desjardins at Montréal's Servant's House raises some interesting points. His comments about Mohammed being an illegitimate child are bound to raise eyebrows, but perhaps no less so than Benedict's musings last week.
Happy Rosh Hashanah.
21/09/2006 Hey dude, where's my car? (CIDA Edition)It's bad enough that 39 years after Lester Pearson's famous pledge to spend 0.7 percent of GDP on foreign aid, Canada is still at only half that amount. Now, CBC reports this morning that it's become next to impossible to find out how our foreign aid arm, the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), spends our money on projects. Requests under Access to Information have been routinely denied on this one particular file. That's because a big chunk of it is sent on to UN agencies such as the World Bank, and the money is pooled with that of other countries. Since most of those countries have less generous disclosure laws than we do, they also have a veto on releasing data related to our contributions.
This is totally insane. Consider the fact that every year during Lent, several churches have fundraising campaigns for their development charities (among these include the Catholic Church's Development and Peace, the Presbyterian Church's World Service and Development, and of course the Salvation Army.) For many years, the federal government via CIDA has matched these donations during this seven week period at a very generous six to one. Faith-based initiatives are not as big a red flag in Canada as they are in the States, because here charities give regardless of one's religious persuasion or lack thereof; and proselytizing, while still present, is still nowhere near as important as giving back.
At least in this case, we know exactly how much money the government is contributing, because it goes back to the charities to use as they see fit. Where is the accountability where the IMF and World Bank are concerned? There is none, of course.
If even one percent of foreign aid money disappears through the ether, it's not good. Stephen Harper said he wanted to make government more accountable. Why doesn't he make good on that on the one level where other countries see it the most -- by practicing what we preach?
Call centre blues, Part IVIt's been nearly three months since I moved to the Customer Service Department of the call centre where I am employed. So, to build on my previous posts about some of the grief my colleagues and I face on a daily basis (here about ordertaking, and these two about being a verifications officer), I present some of the issues of being in the trenches -- in the hopes, as before, you get a better idea of what it's like for us.
We keep track of all mistakes and who's responsible for them. We compensate stores for our mistakes but the stores pay us a penalty for theirs if they're above the chainwide average of mistakes. (That draw, plus a commission for each order we take on their behalf, is where we get our salaries from -- after all, we technically work not for head office but the franchise owners.) That explains why some specials are walk-in only, because the store would lose money on the order if we took it at the loss-leader price -- and we have to deal with screaming customers who just don't accept we don't take those specific orders.
Customer service doesn't just involve working with the customers, but also with the stores, drivers who deliver, a smaller and complimentary chain for which we also take calls -- as well as, on occasion, management and even law enforcement. Every call is different and we have to think on our toes. About half the calls we get still fall under ordertaking or verifying -- after all, if all the ordertakers are busy with calls and some of us are available the call gets directed to us. We answer "Customer Service," usually out of habit, but the customer wants to go back into ordertaking. Which is kind of weird especially if they've been on hold for ten minutes and they're implying they're OK with waiting another ten.
We take the order -- no questions asked. There are some other issues, though, and it's worth pointing out why we do it the way we do. This is by no means exhaustive, but here are some of the most frequent issues.
1. The customer wants a store credit for another day.
This often happens when a customer is unhappy with one or more ingredients, but they've eaten the pizza anyway. No can do. We normally offer only same day replacements. Among the exceptions are if the store is closed, the pizza has been remade already and the customer is still unsatisfied with the results, or if the customer is in an area where we don't deliver after a certain time. As I explained before, each store has a specific delivery area; boundaries are only crossed if a huge order has to be split betwen two or more stores, or an emergency crops up and another store isn't too busy and prepared to take up the slack. I can't count the number of times I've gotten into an argument with a customer about a replacement. But sometimes the customer is surprised and even delighted we would actually go to the trouble of remaking something. That's our job. We want them to be satisfied.
2. The customer wants the "real" phone number.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: It's on a need to know basis, and most times (99.9%), the customer doesn't need to know. They're unlisted, on purpose, so the store is freed up from being on the phone all the time so they can make the customers' orders. If a message needs to be passed, we take the customer's number and ask the store to call them back.
3. The order was sent to the wrong store.
It does happen, but agents do often send pickups to the wrong location; or they enter a street name wrong and it winds up in another part of town or even another city. We offer compensation, and in this case give the customer a choice. Either they go to the "wrong" store, or a fresh order is made at the right one. The customer gets the order for free, and if the order has to be remade we also compensate the other location for their expenses. Simple enough -- although it sometimes takes a few attempts to explain this to an irate customer.
4. A customer wants such and such driver fired.
That's up to an individual store, as they're franchises. We do pass on the complaint, though.
5. A customer had their order verified, and still wants a free order.
The reasons some orders are checked out are because of size or credit issues, or because a store wants all orders to a certain address confirmed. That doesn't stop some customers from claiming the time guarantee began from when the order was placed. (It's from the time we confirmed it and gave the customer the new time.) Or that they weren't expecting a call back. (We always tell them we will.) Or we have the wrong address. (That's the purpose of a verification -- if you confirmed the address and you gave us the wrong address on purpose, hoping to get a free order, we're not that stupid.) Oh, and for a multi-unit delivery point, such as an apartment or hotel, the guarantee ends in the lobby or front desk; unless you have no buzzer, in which case there is no time guarantee at all.
6. Stores don't want to remake an order, because they think the customer is lying.
We work on the presumption the customer is always right, and that they're being truthful. We do keep a log of the number of orders vs complaints, but one of our problems is that we keep track of them by phone number and not address. Stores on the front lines do remember like an elephant, however, so if a customer is trying to scam us with multiple phone numbers at the same address they know it well. In that case, and if a store manager insists, we ask them to talk to their regional sales manager, and we investigate it further. If an address needs to be blacklisted or otherwise get close scrutiny, then and only then do we flag it.
7. The stores want compensation for an undelivered order, or one cancelled by the store.
That depends on whether the order was sent to the right store in the first place. If it was, the store doesn't get comped and has to bite the loss. It's tough, but those are the rules. If it was a mistake on our end, such as an error in the street file, then of course, we'd be happy to comp.
8. The stores pin the blame on the commissary and not themselves.
We do have some very specific cooking and quality control rules, but once in a while head office does screw up. They label a mild sauce as hot, or lightly breaded wings are heavily breaded, and so forth. In those cases, yes, the error is on us. But if a store didn't prepare it properly, then it's their fault.
Two last points: Sometimes, when we're offering a remake, the customer wants to give the other product back. Health regulations forbid us from doing this, with the sole exception being a foreign object complaint. In that case, the regional sales manager gets in touch with the customer and arranges a pickup time.
Also, there is a priority for calls we take. Stores and drivers get priority (they have a special number that puts them at the front of the line), followed by customer service issues, orders for our fried chicken outlets and then orders for all our other outlets. Sometimes, an issue can be resolved during a call and we just take the next one, but sometimes we have to follow up and make sure all our notes are right -- which means not all of us are available at any given time. Please be patient if you do have an issue. We will always answer your call. Some nights, like on major event nights, we get backed up with orders and that also reflects on the queue in customer service but we do try to clear up that backlog as soon as possible. And if you're just ordering and you hear "customer service," don't hang up either. After all, all customer service agents are ordertakers -- but not all ordertakers are customer service agents.
20/09/2006 Chavez calls Dubya "The Devil" -- here's the real reason whyOne of the quirks about diplomacy is that one isn't allowed to shoot the messenger. The messenger must also be given free passage to where he or she wants to express his or her country's official position even if it's totally at discord with that of the host.
There are at least two examples I am aware of where it gets even trickier, as the destination is actually a third country or a supranational territory. One, of course, is the Vatican City State. Despite a European Union ban on several world leaders, Italy still had to let those dictators into Rome last year because they had official business -- namely, attending the funeral of John Paul II -- and it was Italy's duty to give safe passage to the Holy See.
The other is the UN Headquarters in Manhattan. It's technically not part of the United States (although, if a crime is committed there, it is presumed US law will be applied). So George W Bush has been forced to allow at least two very unsavoury characters into the US so they could make their addresses to the General Assembly. Mamoud Amedinejad of Iran had his turn last night, and kept protesting through lying teeth he doesn't want nuclear weapons. Sure ... when you're sitting on a 400 year supply of oil and natural gas? He did have a point about the hypocrisy of the Permanent Five who have nuclear weapons, along with Israel, North Korea, India and Pakistan. But that's as far as it goes.
Today, Bush's Public Enemy #2, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, had his turn. He really ripped into the Bush Administration, saying the rostrum at the General Assembly still smelled rotten from Dubya's "stench" and even called him the Devil. What's really going on here has little to do with his animosity towards the White House -- he'd hate any American President, Democratic or Republican.
The real issue -- which also explains why Citgo (owned by the Venezuelan government) is running a record-breaking number of ads on US television right now, although they don't say it up front -- is that Venezuela is fighting for a seat at the UN Security Council, the one assigned to a Latin American country, for the next two years. The US has made no secret of the fact it much prefers Guatemala, which has sat on the Council 4 times during the last 60 years. (Canada also supports Guatemala but for totally different reasons, which the Harper Government will not elaborate on.) Venezuela has never been given a card to the Big Dance even once. (Incidentally, three countries -- South Africa, Italy and Belgium -- have won their regional seats for the next two years unopposed; the other contest for the Asian seat is between Nepal and Indonesia.)
Fortunately, it's the General Assembly and not the Security Council who gets to pick the 10 non-permanent members. Much as I don't like Chavez, I'm kind of hoping in a morbid way Venezuela wins. That way, Chavez doesn't even have to run for re-election as his country's President this fall: He could simply appoint himself Ambassador to the UN, move to Central Park West and be in Bush's face for the rest of the latters's Administration. Meanwhile, Hugo can run his country from abroad via a patsy -- and the best part would be, his residence, limosine and person would be off limits at all times. He'd be untouchable.
Diplomatic immunity. It's one of those funny things. It allows dictators to roam around and mouth off with impunity. It also allows one of the few free areas of free speech where the government -- or the corporate MSM -- otherwise suppresses it. The US can complain all it wants; the fact remains Chavez is seen as someone who's standing up to America's long standing "Big Stick" approach to ruling the Americas. If Harper actually stood up to the Americans once in a while, as even Mulroney did with Reagan and Bush Sr on occasion during the 80s and early 90s, he might be a much more appropriate counterbalance than Chavez. As it is, we're stuck.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers. Ethical retailingWhat a difference a few years can make.
When Wal-Mart came to Canada back in 1993, it turned retailing upside down in Canada in pretty much the same way it did in the United States. It was also a bold new adventure for the Bentonville, Arkansas based company. In the United States, it generally shuns inner cities (although in recent years it has opened stores in Los Angeles and Manhattan); here it was acquiring a company that was well rooted in the cities. People quickly cottoned on to its sterile but thought out layout (with triple the number of product offerings from its predecessor) and its super-low prices. As I noted last year, it proved to be a huge challenge for some well-established companies; many of which fell by the wayside.
One of the reasons for Wal-Mart's success was its commitment to customer service. One couldn't help but turn around and find someone saying "Can I help you find something?" People made an obvious comparison to Canadian Tire, where store clerks would often say "it's over there" and point to a swath of aisles six deep -- as if to say, "Just get your stuff and get the hell out of here." (CTC is -- for the uninitiated -- a cross between Autozone, Bed Bath and Beyond, Bass Pro Shop, Radio Shack and Sports Chalet.) It wasn't as if they were going away anytime soon ... after all, they're the leading auto parts depot in Canada. But it was like they need a huge attitude adjustment.
The last few years have seen a major improvement. Most stores have been remodeled and are much larger than before and easier to browse. The product selection is better and of higher quality, the prices are competitive, and the staff are actually helpful for a change. They've even been known to refer customers to smaller competitors if they have a better product or can do a better job on an installation. More important, though, is that they still have a large portion of products which are made by union labour. In other words, they're trying to differentiate themselves by at least making an effort to be an ethical business.
Other retailers have also adjusted to the reality of the Wal-Mart world. Some have been successful, but others haven't been. And as a response to Canadian retailers waking up, Wal-Mart now sells groceries in its outlets here, including fresh meat and vegetables in its largest fronts; just like they have in the States for years. Don't be surprised if they start selling mattresses -- and undercutting chains like Sleep Country. Or they start to be open 24 hours, like in the States. The fact remains, however, Wal-Mart is still a juggernaut. They may not be near the 15% or so of all US retail sales here in Canada, but they're powerful enough to force suppliers to sell to them at price points that barely break even for them -- but mean a winfall for Wal-Mart.
My problem isn't that I'm against companies making a profit. Of course I am in favour of profits. We tax those profits and use them to finance health care, education and defence. My problem is using cheap or prison overseas labour and turning a blind eye to social responsibility. Wal-Mart just doesn't seem to give a damn, despite their recent publicity campaign.
Another example, which kind of flips things around, is Tim Horton's and Starbucks. Incredible as it may sound, Timmy got a failing grade on corporate responsibility, even though it has long sponsored childrens' programmes in Canada. Seattle-based Starbucks, reviled by social activists even as recently as several years ago, actually got a high mark. Why? Because Starbucks now has a verifiable percentage of "fair trade" coffee in its content, and is committed to increase it over the next few years. Tims has no such verification program as far as I am aware -- in fact, there's no way to know if there is any organic coffee content in a Tims. Surely it can't be that hard to find suppliers who can give the same taste we've come to know and love. I think Canadians wouldn't mind paying a little bit more if it ensured coffee growers got a fair price -- not the price set on the Big Board which is usually a starvation one.
I think it's time we took the time to actually check the labels on products and ask a few questions. It's not that hard to shop in an ethical manner. It doesn't mean I'm going to stop going to Tims or Wal-Mart, if the price is right. But alternatives do exist, and they should be used whenever possible.
19/09/2006 The speech John Kerry should have given in 2004If he had said this then, and not yesterday, he would have walked all over "God's annointed servant" Dubya. There's no question he's running in 2008, but will this be enough to start turning the tide? It depends to a great extent whether the finally resurgent religious left can persuade American voters that George W Bush wears his faith on his sleeve and not in his heart. There are forces out there who are bound and determined to make sure the dichotomy remains religious versus Satanic,but it's possible a growing number of Americans are just sick and tired of the hold the religious right has on American affairs and wants a middle ground between pure separation of church and state, and theocracy.
Briefing notes (2006-09-19)A rare early week day off, and I'm on the go ... so here are my observations for the day.
18/09/2006 GM-Ford merger? Don't laugh, it could happenWhen things went from bad to worse at Chrysler about 25 years ago, even with loan guarantees from the US government, Lee Iacocca was so desperate that he proposed a merger with his former employer, Ford. It was actually a common-sense proposal to create a company that could rival GM or Toyota; combining Chrysler's engineering prowess with Ford's competitive environment The idea was Chrysler and Dodge would remain, but they would produce upscale versions of the K-Car for Ford and Mercury -- in return, Ford would make upmarket versions of the Ram truck to replace the F-Series. Ford basically said no, that they "weren't that stupid." The real reason, as some suspected at the time, was the grandson of Henry Ford absolutely despised Iacocca and didn't want to see his face.
It could have worked. It never got the chance.
Here's 2006. Chrysler is now owned by Daimler, and both GM and Ford are in junk bond status. What's being proposed? A GM-Ford merger.
We need that combination like a shot in the head. A company that has fifty percent of the market -- like The General once had -- is by its very nature uncompetitive. When Chrysler applied for loan guarantees in 1979 to stave off bankruptcy, its competitors' head offices were opposed but their respective dealer networks actually supported Iacocca, pointing out competition meant better products across the board and lower prices.
Regulators in the US might be stupid enough to fall for this scam. Even our Competition Bureau in Canada might be stupid too. The European Union, however, will never accept it -- especially if it means threatening home grown companies like Renault and Volkswagen.
Hey guys, if you want people to buy your cars, then make cars people want to buy. It's little wonder the Japanese automakers are killing you. Merging operations will mean diddly squat if you continue to come out with the kind of crap that distinguished you during the 1990s.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here. |
|
|
