UPS = Unreasonably Priced Shipments

I had to make a rare return of some items I ordered via the Internet. It was one of those situations where I thought I was ordering the correct product based on the photo and description of the item. It was a small item – small enough to fit into an 8 x 11 inch padded envelope. The shipment came with an automatic UPS return label, but the company also said they would deduct about $7 from my credit if I used the label.

Thinking that I could ship it for a lot less than $7, I headed over to my local UPS store, where I was told this small envelope would cost me over $16 to ship. Sixteen dollars?!?!? I was flabbergasted. This seemed completely out of whack. I decided it would be less costly to use the ARS label…but then I decided to drive to the nearby post office and check out their price. It was worth the drive – it only cost a little over $3.00 to ship that envelope – and with the package insured as well.

What does UPS provide that the post office doesn’t? Frankly, in the case of this shipment, nothing. OK, maybe those high prices cover the cost of those big brown trucks. What I don’t understand is that our local UPS driver travels the same route every weekday, he’s driving down my street daily around 2:30 in the afternoon, and he doesn’t even stop at every house. The postal carrier, however, stops by every morning, including Saturdays) and the carrier stops at virtually every house. It seems to me that the US Post Office has to work harder and cover more homes, yet they still charge a lot less. UPS may want you to think they are better at what they do, but the USPS still has that economy of scale that makes shipping less costly.

The bottom line is that $16 is far too much to pay to deliver a small envelope and UPS should be ashamed of themselves for charging that much. It also should be noted that many people take the US Post Office for granted, they certainly are the better value, despite the fact that they don’t have big brown trucks. So for me, the next time I hear that UPS slogan where someone asks “What can "Brown" do for you?” the answer from me will be “nothing.”



All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted

Check out my blog home page for the latest information,
The Frequent Critic, here.

Spectacular Japan Tsunami Video At Street Level

Being a photographer myself, I suppose that I would be compelled to get out the camera and film a natural disaster in progress. But after watching this video of the recent tsunami in Japan that was taken by a very brave person, I’m not sure I would have had the guts to stick with it as the videographer did.

The tsunami starts at street level with just a few cars in tow, but then quickly the wave builds and brings along boats and trucks. When the wave reaches an almost unbelievable, massive scale, buildings are swept away. Watch this video to the end – it will give you an appreciation of the magnitude of this disaster.





All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted
Check out my blog home page for the latest information,
The Frequent Critic, here.

3rd Party Wireless Scams Are Lurking; Wireless Providers Are Enablers

At one point in time, most people have had a billing problem with their wireless provider. I’ve had a few cell providers over my lifetime of wireless phones, but Verizon takes the cake in what I think is sloppy and maybe even dishonest billing practices.

Many times I’ve had to call Verizon for incorrect charges to my bill, most often for text messages charged to my phone or to my husband’s phone. We are usually within inches of a computer or a phone most times, so texting was never a feature we wanted on our phones and it seemed silly to pay extra for something we would never use. We had our phones blocked from receiving or sending text messages quite some time ago, especially after mystery text message charges appeared on our bill.

Things got worse when we started getting charged for text messages by Verizon, even after the text block was put into place. Trying to get those charges reversed was a pain but Verizon eventually applied the credits, seeing that they couldn’t very well charge us for text messages that their system showed were being blocked.

But today Verizon really topped themselves. They added $9.99 to my cell phone bill for a premium service – a service neither my husband nor I ordered. When I called the Verizon customer service department, I was told that the premium service is a “double opt-in,” meaning that a person can subscribe on the Internet (not necessarily on their cell phone) and a text would go to the cell phone number that was input on the web site to confirm the charge. How then, I asked, could someone approve the charge if my cell phone is blocked from text messages? The answer was that Verizon would block the charge going forward but that the first charge was authorized and I had to pay it. (As I am already angry, this was not the right thing for the customer service agent to say.) Clearly this customer service agent completely missed the point – the charges could not have been authorized by me, as their own text messaging system would not gave allowed the text message to come to me to request approval, nor could I send a text out to approve it. (What part of having all text messages blocked did she not understand?) The customer service agent was unable to comprehend that they had more than one flaw in their system - the approval could not have been given for the premium service, so neither Verizon nor the 3rd party company had the right to charge me, therefore the charge should be removed from my bill.

After demanding to speak to a supervisor and explaining the matter, it became clear to her right away that the charge was incorrect and my account would be credited. The supervisor also agreed that something had to be wrong in the process and she would report it. (I hope she was not just saying this to placate me.) In this case, I believe the blame is twofold: the 3rd party for charging for something that clearly was not approved, and Verizon for not verifying that the 3rd party’s charge is, in fact, valid. It seems in this case, the 3rd party assumed that a “no response” to their text message meant it was OK to process the charge – and that is just plain wrong.

I was shocked to find out that anyone can go on a web site, input YOUR cell phone number and charge a premium service to your wireless account without your knowledge. It's bad enough one has to worry about credit cards numbers being stolen and used fraudulently, now there is another avenue where scammers can try to steal from you. It’s even worse when wireless providers like Verizon are enabling them.



All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted

Check out my blog home page for the latest information, The Frequent Critic, here.

Is It Union Busting – Or Necessary Cost Containment?

It started in Wisconsin where Republican Governor Scott Walker proposed a budget which demanded concessions from certain state employees (such as teachers, but not police and firefighters). The governor set in his sights the employees rights to collective bargaining. Walker’s approach has now spread to other states, and, like the protesters in the Wisconsin state capital, protests in other states are also taking place.

The increasing costs for state and federal employees continues to spiral upwards, while many who work in the private sector have seen their salaries and benefits take a cut. In many cases in the private sector, employees are asked to contribute more and more for health insurance, and in some cases pay more for less benefit.

I don’t think it is wrong for people working in the private sector – whose taxes pay the salaries of government workers - to expect government workers to also feel the effects of having less government budget money to pay for salaries and benefits. I do not agree, however, with the governor’s approach to the problem by limiting the public employees' collective bargaining.

If states have less money to spend for government employees, and unions refuse to make concessions to help meet a reduced budget, then there is only one option: cut jobs. It sounds like a bitter pill, but something has to give. As a taxpayer who has worked in private industry all my life, I have grown tired of state and federal entities who spend money as if they had a blank check. I am also tired of the rich pensions and benefits that some many state and federal agencies enjoy, again, as if there was a blank check.

It’s time for government employees to take some cuts. But, ihe way to do it is NOT by limiting bargaining rights. The way to do it is exactly through bargaining. If government employees won’t make concessions then they will have to face the hard reality – some of their jobs may be gone. This may be “tough love” but it may be the only fair thing to do for employees AND for taxpayers.



All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted

Check out my blog home page for the latest information, The Frequent Critic, here.

News Anchors In Egypt – Informing or Inflaming?

With protests increasing in Egypt and an all out revolt in progress, some of the big news outlets sent their own “big guns” in order to cover the story in person. Brian Williams and Lester Holt (NBC), Katie Couric (CBS), Anderson Cooper (CNN) all headed in to the heart of the matter in order to bring the story to viewers.

They were not greeted with open arms, instead they were greeted with hostility. Katie left the country soon after, the others quickly ran for cover in their hotels, covering the stories from balconies and building rooftops in safety.

The big questions are – what value is there in sending the network anchors into the heart of a massive protest? Does it make a difference if they cover the story from a rooftop in safety or from their anchor desk in safety? What kinds of big scoops to they get while being there that an already embedded reporter and camera crew can’t already get? Does their presence give those that are protesting only more attention and he sense of more power, therefore adding more fuel to the fire? Is it a coincidence that as the news anchors appeared, the protests took an even more angry turn for the worse, with so called opposition protesters coming in to stir up more trouble and venting the hostilities toward the media?

This should be a teachable moment for the networks. Keep your big salaried and probably costly to insure news anchors at home, and let the people who work the area normally cover the story. And make no mistake, stories like this are very important and must be covered. But the news anchors don’t need to be part of the story themselves. The story can still be covered thoroughly without sending high priced news anchors - who usually sit at a desk reading a teleprompter - to make the trip into the heart of trouble. The uprising in Egypt is about freedom, not about news ratings!



All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted

Check out my blog home page for the latest information, The Frequent Critic, here.

Political “Miranda” Warning: Everything You Say Can Be Used Against You

© frequentcritic.blogspot.com
Anyone who has watched a TV crime show has heard the police or a detective read the Miranda warning to a person being arrested. The basic Miranda rights are as follows (there are some state variations):

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?

Well, maybe it’s time to have something like the Miranda warning to cover political commentary, geared to politicians, journalists, the media, bloggers, Twitter and Facebook users – well, let’s just say everybody who wants to make any public statement, political or otherwise. This warning could be something very simple, something like what I have developed here:

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you. You have the right to your own opinions, but you will be accountable for them and others have the right to disagree with you. If you understand these rights as they have been given to you, then go ahead and say or write whatever you want.

Here in the United States, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. People should not confuse this with being able to say anything one wants without consequence. I am perplexed when politicians make statements or post things on their website (or on Facebook or Twitter) and then they become upset or defensive when others hold them accountable for what they say. To rewrite a metaphor: those whose political lives live by their words and actions, their political lives can die by those same words and actions. The lesson here is that there may be times when one should just remain silent.



© frequentcritic.blogspot.com

Check out my blog home page for the latest information,
The Frequent Critic, here.

Sarah Palin’s “Target” List: Incited Murder, or Unfortunate Coincidence?

Last March, I wrote here expressing my alarm over ex-Governor (and currently holding no elected office) Sarah Palin, and her publishing of a list targeting public officials who were supporters of health care reform (see ” Domestic Terrorism: Sarah Palin Puts Democrats in the Crosshairs, Tells People to “Reload”.)

The worst thing imaginable has happened. One of those people on Palin's list – Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D - AZ) – was shot in the head yesterday while making a public appearance. While she is still alive and in intensive care, others were not so lucky. Six people were also killed, including a federal judge and a 9-year-old girl, and 14 others were wounded. The “alleged” shooter – you know, the guy who had the gun and was wrestled to the ground, nothing “alleged: about that – is in custody.

As of this writing, the motivation for the shooting remains unclear. But Sarah Palin’s earlier call to arms mentioning Giffords’ name along with many others, is still is fresh in the minds of many. I believed then and I believe now that her anti-health reform rhetoric was dangerous and could be perceived as a literal call to action by those with a gun looking for an excuse to use it. If there does appear there was a connection with Palin’s call to action and this shooting, then I think there should be some way that she should be charged for something, like threatening elected officials or conspiracy to commit murder. It is simply not excusable to let anyone encourage others to shoot and/or kill in the name of their personal beliefs without paying the consequences if someone takes them up on their suggestion.

If it turns out that there was no connection with Palin’s words and the shooting and this is all a horrible and unfortunate coincidence, let this be a lesson to Palin and other big talkers who incite and rile up people for their own causes or political gains: learn to keep your mouth shut and your threats to yourself. (And for voters: don’t support or vote for people who stoop to this type of rhetoric.)

All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted

Check out my blog home page for the latest information,
The Frequent Critic, here.