rudnicke
Premium
join:2004-10-23
Rantoul, IL | Nasty
Why are all these corporations so nasty to consumers? It just seems like the will screw you any chance they get. |
|
newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
| said by rudnicke  :Why are all these corporations so nasty to consumers? Greed. |
|
hopeflicker
Capitalism breeds greed
Premium
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA
| said by newview :said by rudnicke :Why are all these corporations so nasty to consumers? Greed. x2
--
Man created God in his image : intolerant, sexist, homophobic and violent. |
|
spewak
R.I.P Dadkins
Premium
join:2001-08-07
Elk Grove, CA | so very sad....  |
|
JasonD
@comcast.net
 from:
TKJunkMail
fiberguy
| reply to rudnicke
said by rudnicke :Why are all these corporations so nasty to consumers? Get a F-ing clue. Do you know what it's like to operate a business? Do you as a consumer like the services and benefits businesses offer? The business environment companies have to deal with is the nasty place, and mandatory arbitration is the only way for businesses (some more than others) can offer a functional business model- without having their legal team being the largest piece in the organization. I'm not entirely blaming customers for this, our judicial system makes it far too easy for cases to be brought, and the courts to be abused.
Without companies having the flexibility to offer mandatory arbitration means the best case would be that your consumer costs would be higher, worst case at least some business services would be non-existent. And as always, companies always spell out dispute resolution terms up front. Don't like it? DON'T BUY IT! |
|
digitalfreak
join:2005-12-09
49533 | *sigh*
In the cases presented above, if T-mobile wasn't trying to screw over it's customers, they wouldn't have been sued in the first place. |
|
birdfeedr
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-11
Warwick, RI
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Nasty
Why are all these consumers so nasty to corporations? It just seems like they get screwed any chance they get.
You know, boo hoo, my connection speed dropped from 6Mbs to 4Mbs for 35 minutes on Friday night. I have documented this outage, and if you don't give me credit for the month, and $10 off my rates for another 2 months, I'm gonna sue you. And god help you if it happens again!
And don't go calling it the "cost of doing business" either. That means that you and I pay for those losses subsidize cheats.
Credit cards, telecom services, you name it, there's people working overtime to get over on the man.
A mega-corp's gonna do what a mega-corp's gotta do. 
[/sarcasm]
That's the trouble with seeing both sides of the issue. Let it happen 'til it hits me, then scream "I want a credit!" |
|
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
 ·EarthLink
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to JasonD
No you get a F-clue....The business wouldn't be the business if it wasn't for their consumer. There are a lot of businesses that are square with the consumer, and they do just fine. Most of these companies would not have these issues if they would just listen to their customers issues and try to come to an understanding with them. The corporations would have you think that everyone is sue happy, when most of the time they just wanted someone to listen to their problem and work with them.
"Do you as a consumer like the services and benefits businesses offer? "
that is part of the problem. People take the business at it's word that thats what they will get and when you call them on it, it seems to disappear and you then become a trouble maker.
Peace
--
BlooMe |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to JasonD
said by JasonD :said by rudnicke :Why are all these corporations so nasty to consumers? Get a F-ing clue. Do you know what it's like to operate a business? Do you as a consumer like the services and benefits businesses offer? The business environment companies have to deal with is the nasty place, and mandatory arbitration is the only way for businesses (some more than others) can offer a functional business model- without having their legal team being the largest piece in the organization. I'm not entirely blaming customers for this, our judicial system makes it far too easy for cases to be brought, and the courts to be abused. Without companies having the flexibility to offer mandatory arbitration means the best case would be that your consumer costs would be higher, worst case at least some business services would be non-existent. And as always, companies always spell out dispute resolution terms up front. Don't like it? DON'T BUY IT! You are the one full of BS. I have run a business and never had the issues you claim to have had.
Arbitration is nothing more than buying your judge and verdict.
If a business did not try and screw over consumers day after day, this wouldn't be a problem. |
|
hopeflicker
Capitalism breeds greed
Premium
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA
| reply to JasonD
Why dont you pony up and login??
So you feel that it's ok with these companies to take advantage of their customers? Do you feel it's ok for these greedy bastards to bury rate hikes? What are these companies so afraid of? Are they worried that the courts just might be fair and find that the consumers rights are violated?
--
Man created God in his image : intolerant, sexist, homophobic and violent. |
|
umm
@keybank.com
| reply to JasonD
In my opinion as a consumer, I would have to say if they need an arbitration company they are doing something questionable that needs explaining.
Why would anyone choose to operate a business with questionable processes?
What ever happened to "you see something you like, you buy it, your done"?
It seems like that process goes more like this:
"something you like, read the fine print, decipher fine print, consult lawyer, buy it, wait for changes, decide whether or not to keep or try another"
And yes my family have been and still are self employed running several businesses. BTW, with no fine print. |
|
averagedude
join:2002-01-30
Mesa, AZ
2 edits | reply to woody7
Agree with woody7.
The only thing I would add is that 2 year mandatory lock in contracts don't help.
Such a long contract makes you feel helpless, especially when customer support is no help. |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to birdfeedr
What are you talking about?
The crux of your problem is stated in the first 5 words. You refer to people as CONSUMERS, not CUSTOMERS. There is a BIG difference between a 'consumer', who uses your product, and a 'customer', who buys your product. If the mega corps got back to basics, and treated people like 'customers', they wouldn't HAVE all these problems.
When is the last time you've been satisfied getting a bill fixed by comcast or verizon? Probably never. When's the last time you've been satisfied getting your bill fixed by a local company? Probably always.
The megacorps exist to FEED on the people. The real businesses work to PROVIDE for the people. That's why megacorps love this so called 'arbitration', it lets them continue to FEED on people.
The people gotta do what the people gotta do. If that means bankrupting AT&T for violation the constitution, then that's the price the megacorp pays for ignoring the law.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! |
|
mikenolan7
Premium
join:2005-06-07
Torrance, CA
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| Arbitration
Sounds like consumers dragged in front of NAF may have a good case for a class action suit. I agree, there are too many frivolous lawsuits. Some aren't frivolous at all. A contract written contrary to the law is not enforceable. The law guarantees you a right to a trial by jury. Even for civil cases. Bad companies try to convince you otherwise. Good companies are the only arbitration required, they try to work with their customers.
As far as the cost of frivolous lawsuits being passed on to consumers: that's BS also. If you bring a frivolous suit, and lose, the judge will almost certainly award the cost of legal fees to the defendant. The only legal fees being passed on to consumers are those of companies suing each other, and those for when they lose to consumers. That drives the cost of not providing adequate customer service up, and makes those companies less competitive. So be it. Let the market take care of them. |
|
Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
Boston, MA
| reply to rudnicke
Re: Nasty
said by rudnicke :Why are all these corporations so nasty to consumers? It just seems like the will screw you any chance they get. Which is different than what many consumers do, how?
--
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru? |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to newview
Corporations are looking out for:
a) bottom line (profits)
b) corporate assets (name)
c) stock price (upper management's pay is tied to stock)
Corporations do not care about people, and in general, even their staff, if it affects any of the above items.
Don't forget, there's a flip side, where many consumers attempt to take advantage of large corporations as well. Other corp will attempt to erode 'a' and 'c', and activists will attempt to smear 'b'.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to JasonD
said by JasonD :
the best case would be that your consumer costs would be higher, worst case at least some business services would be non-existent Straw man. Here, I'll knock it down for you.
You basically assert that the costs would be higher if the corporation had to defend its business behavior in court. I reply that the customer should not have to trade their legal rights for lower costs--lower costs that are artificially low if they do not represent the true cost of providing the service. Put another way, the customer should not be forced to sell their right to sue for a couple bucks less per month on their phone, broadband or cable bill.
Maybe some business services should be non-existent if the only way they can be provided is to strip the customer of their basic commercial rights. Maybe some business models are inherently invalid and should not be subsidized at the expense of the customer's legal recourse.
Ask any decent attorney what they think about mandatory arbitration. Only the ones making money off of it think it's the grand idea you do.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
1 edit | reply to Cabal
He was being sarcastic.
Sorry, wrong post. Nothing to see here. |
|
quatrix
Premium
join:2005-02-11
Davie, FL | reply to rudnicke
Capitalism, supply and demand, etc. Go take an economics class. |
|
quatrix
Premium
join:2005-02-11
Davie, FL | reply to karlmarx
Here we go again. Big, bad, evil companies owe us something. Steal, pirate, anarchy, woo hoo. |
|
