If the customer is king, why is his majesty on hold?

When I was training in retail, lo these long years ago, the first thing I was told was that "the customer is king." Not "the customer is always right," or some other variant thereof, because, occasionally, the customer is wrong. For example, if the customer buys a pair of undies, wears them for a week, and then says he wants to return them, most stores can cite the "no returns on dirty skivvies" policy, and the customer will have to live with his purchase as it is.

But we were told that, as a customer-based operation (isn't all real business just that?), we were to do everything in our power (at our set rank) to satisfy the customer. If we couldn't do anything, we could kick it upstairs, to the upper management or the customer service offices (and we'd call them ourselves, so as not to waste any of the customer's time at home). And, we seldom had to wait longer than a few minutes to reach that customer service person.

It wasn't always easy, but it was also never complicated. If anybody had to wait more than five minutes, there was all manner of hell to pay, in all offices.


So why is it that, today, the average wait, including time spent negotiating the labyrinthine automated calling systems, is over two hours?

Mom tried, last week, to find somebody willing and able to haul the scrap Pop is removing from their garage roof. It isn't much -- just about enough to fill a 4x4 pickup truck bed -- but it's still too much to put into the garbage cans for weekly collection.


Mom called Waste Management services (WM. You've probably seen their trucks all around town), in hopes of having them deliver a small dumpster for a week. She spent 10 minutes jumping through electronic hoops, then was on hold for more than 45 minutes without a single human contact. She got fed up and hung up.

We found a friend who is willing to do the hauling for the cost of gas.

In other words, bad customer relations just cost one firm probably $250+. And, who knows? It will probably be more if we need to have more removals in the future.

By hooker by crook

The discussion has arisen on the net, lately (thanks to a member of the current administration resigning amid concerns over the release of phone records of a notorious D.C. madam) as to whether or not prostitution should be made legal.

I'm of two minds, on this.

Deep down inside, I resent most government intrusion into our personal and professional lives. I don't like it when the legislators try to tell me to stay away from smokers, I don't like it when they tell me I have to wear my seat belt (I do both anyway, because it's stupid to do otherwise) I don't like it when they take tax dollars to teach children to become morons. I think there's a trace of libertarian in me, here.

If they can pay Elisha Cuthbert a buncha bucks for what she did (or, rather, what she didn't do -- act) in "24", why punish somebody with greater talent, for a follow-through performance? It seems to me, Hollywood and Washington, D.C. have been getting big bucks for decades, now, for shtupping this nation. Maybe individual, non-union private citizens should have a piece of that action.

And, once made legal, it can be licensed, health- and quality-controlled, have proper training and safety protocols (including minimum age limits), and have the pimp-fat trimmed from the industry to the benefit of the labor pool. A pro who gets beaten up by a or a boss is not going to be afraid to press charges, because her career won't get her in jail -- she is an ordinary working citizen.

There are potential benefits to this legalization thing.

On the other hand, legalizing prostitution is one of those things where "slippery slope" actually comes immediately to mind. What is to stop us from winding up where Germany got to a couple of years ago? With unemployment and food assistance programs becoming more often tied to job search efforts, how will a non-disabled unemployed person be able to refuse a job as an "intimate masseuse and escort"? On moral grounds? How, then to make the exception just and fair? I discover a moral objection to working with a company which sells filthy, polluting automobiles, and, yet, for some freaky reason they are willing to hire me. If I refuse, will they make the same allowances for me with the car industry that they make for the poor soul accepted for work in the pleasure industry? What if I have a moral objection to serving non-halal food (true, I'm not Muslim, but I'm still heavily into dietary restrictions) and the job opening is at the McDonalds?

I also have concerns about this, because we have such a corrupt government in Illinois, already. I can imagine much worse horrors for the young and attractive as they come out from our public schools unprepared for actual work... they could end up as government interns and congressional pages!


It isn't such a stretch.

Personally, I don't see this as much of a threat to myself. I can amuse myself all the livelong day, but I'd probably fetch less than a nickle per day plying the horizontal trade. It's just not a career I think of as even remotely enjoyable, for myself, and, as such, I'd consistently fail to provide customer satisfaction. Not that I'm opposed to sex, but I've found I rather enjoy this celibacy thing I've been exploring lo, these past fifteen years. I always was a selfish person, physically (it's all about me!!!), and further, it's much easier to be content with myself if I don't hang my needs on somebody else's (or several somebodies') appendage(s). Therefore, no employment agent would think twice about giving me an exemption from such a job. After all, they do have to think about the future of the business to which they're referring this client.

The real thing

Coca-Cola.

I've liked it most of my life. Even though I'm supposed to avoid caffeine, I still drink a Diet Coke each day, to keep me breathing.

I now like the company even more -- since they're proving themselves to be a corporation with a mission beyond simple sales. They're building the world a house and furnishing it with love -- or, at least with water. According to the WSJ (HT: Scott Johnson @ Power Line), Coke is providing clean drinking water to people who truly need it:

In Kenya, where more than half of the rural population has no access to clean water, the Atlanta beverage giant brought water-purification systems, storage urns, and hygiene lessons to 45 schools in a poor western province. Children learn how to use a chlorine-based solution to kill diseases that come from contaminated, muddy pools or remote wells -- and are taught to teach their parents.

In Mali, Coke is helping extend municipal water taps beyond the country's capital of Bamako. In India, where the company has been accused of draining water from poor communities for its own use, the company is building rainwater-harvesting structures to help alleviate chronic water shortages. Coke's bottlers are also implementing water-efficiency measures.

Further,

Coke hasn't limited its largess to digging wells and buying clay pots. The company also spent $2 million last year to help create the Global Water Challenge, a coalition of corporations and organizations that is based at the United Nations Foundation. Coke also helped to entice the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to award a $9.5 million grant to CARE and other organizations to expand on the Kenya schools project, implementing it in as many as 1,500 more schools over the next five years.

I knew there was another reason for drinking Coke. Besides offering a particular gesture to Indra Nooyi, that is.

And now, back to the Hillside Singers...

Wal-Mart buying Chinese retail chain

Wal-Mart is looking for room to grow, and have, quite naturally, gone toward the sort of market ultimately designed for them: China. Since the Mart of Wals carries affordable, not-too-chic-and-therefore-practical products, the expanding shopping base that is modern China's middle class is a natural fit.

Still, I have to wonder:

Who's gonna make the cheap products to sell to the Chinese?

Google set to buy YouTube

It looks as though the deal for Google to buy YouTube is okayed, for $1.65 billion. Unity strengthens one's convictions.

That ought to prove they're against censorship at Google... or, at YouTube...

uh.
um.
hm.