rudnicke
Premium
join:2004-10-23
Rantoul, IL
clubs: | 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
 ·Vonage
| said by rudnicke  :Why are all these corporations so nasty to consumers? Greed. |
|
hopeflicker
IheartPhotog
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
Kiss It, Kiss It Real Good
Premium
join:2001-08-07
Elk Grove, CA | so very sad....  |
|
JasonD
@comcast.net
 from:
TK Junk Mail
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! |
|
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
 ·DSL EXTREME
| 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
IheartPhotog
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
@ameritech.net
| 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
edit:
January 25th, @11:37AM
| 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. |
|
Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
02101
| reply to rudnicke
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
·DSL EXTREME
·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
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL
·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
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL
edit:
January 25th, @11:53AM
| reply to Cabal
He was being sarcastic.
Sorry, wrong post. Nothing to see here. |
|
quatrix
join:2005-02-11
Davie, FL | reply to rudnicke
Capitalism, supply and demand, etc. Go take an economics class. |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
Albany, NY
| reply to en102
Minor correction on the first item on your list. Most corporations are looking out for short term bottom line.
This is because that growing your business slowly and steadily won't please your investors/stock holders. Also, many executives will "company hop" so they want to maximize the company's earnings while they are there. The executive doesn't care if this just sets the company up for a big crash, they'll be safely on to the next company with millions.
It would be like a pilot on a commercial jetliner trying to get his route done faster. When he saw that his speed was going to lead to the engines blowing out, he would merely strap on a parachute and jump out safely without any cares as to the dozens of people aboard (employees, stockholders) who didn't have parachutes.
Very few companies buck the trend and grow their business slow and steady. (I think Google is one.)
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar. Shooting For A Cause
Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com |
|
UncleDirtNap
join:2006-08-26
Pittsburgh, PA
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to rudnicke
The question you should be asking is why does Congress allow this to happen?
The anti-competitive and unethical business practices that media companies and SOME cable companies are engaged in are already illegal for just about any other company to use, but they get away with it because of regulations put in place during the early days of cable that the current Democrat leadership in Congress is blocking efforts to end.
It's greed alright, but to find out who's being greedy and permitting media companies to continuously pile crap and nonsense channels on to your service and charge you for it; head to any one of the web-sites that lists campaign contributions and see who the top contributors to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, Carl Levin, Hillary Clinton's campaigns...
TimeWarner, Viacom, Comcast etc etc. |
|
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| You seem to have wandered out of the Red Room by accident...
Party affiliation has nothing to do with it. TimeWarner, Viacom, Comcast etc etc. are equal-opportunity lobbyists.
The situation we are currently in was set in motion by the Reagan administration. I'll take a guess and assume you won't mention that.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to rudnicke
Part of it is in fact greed.. and, part of it is to protect themselves from bottom feeding consumers looking to stick it to the company in return.
It's a two-way street.
Companies will offer their specials which we all know come with strings and terms. Yet, SOME consumers like to go for the goodies and then run while playing the next one.
It's not the major player in why these corporations are so nasty to consumers, BUT, the consumer has also played a part in why the corporations have turned and gotten nasty in return.
Don't think for one moment that a consumer won't screw the corp at any turn as well.
A real world experience.
A car wash that I go to regularly.. while standing in line I heard a customer bitching out the cashier.
Unlimited car washing clubs used to be $44.99 a month and all you got was a basic full service wash. The car wash changed the offer and now the $44.99 club is now based on a 1 year commit but also now includes 4 free hand waxes ever 3 months, a 20% discount on detail, 10% on c-store items AND now gives you a wash package which is a better wash for the same monthly cost as the old plan. BUT, that club requires a 12 month commit at 12 monthly payments based on a credit card.
They also started a new club at $24.99 a month which is only an EXTERIOR only wash which you can by monthly. You get no extras yet, you can still pay the $3 difference at the counter to upgrade to a full service wash as you chose. (You get no perks with this package)
bottom line.. the customer chewed the cashier out saying they were trying to screw the customer. She explained that everything had changed at the first of the year to the new program.. she explained that you get a lot of perks for the same price, and even went to explain that these clubs are "loyalty clubs" for frequent washers and were modified based on customer feedback. She went as far to explain that while you are buying an annual plan over 12 lower payments, you are also getting a TON more stuff in return..
His reply was "why shouldn't I get all that too? but why should I have to do a year? "You're screwing me is all"... she told me later that she's heard that a few times, though most people liked the new program and signed up for it. The other guy was pissed that his plan had been phased out and he was being screwed.
Tell me the logic in how he was being screwed? Screwed.. a loosely used word these days. Was he really screwed? No. Was he more disappointed? maybe, but more so, he felt entitled.
I think the moral is that the term "screwed" is mis-used WAY to much these days... while some people ARE being screwed, others are misguided in thinking they are screwed.
Think of the cellular contract and stuff. (not saying those are perfect) but, about 99% of people get something upfront and are put into a term. When something doesn't go right and they want out, they are told about the 'contract' and feel screwed. How are you screwed? Pay the break out fee and go. The consumer knows up front they have that against them going in..
I just don't agree with many people around here.. while I agree their is room for improvement on the corporation side, I also agree there is much room on the consumer's side as well. and yes, some people are getting the short end of the stick, that I don't disagree with. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to averagedude
said by averagedude :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. Then buy it out.. You got a break up front going in to that contract.. you want out? Fork over the $100 to $200 break out and be on your way.
I don't agree or like the contracts either, but, you'd have to be blind to realize that the consumer played a MAJOR part in why those contracts came to play.
And again, you also have something really wrong here. You don't HAVE to take the 2 year contract.. there are month to month services and pay as you go. The difference? They don't give you all those nice things that you get when you go into an agreement. What you're also saying is that you want all the goodies and offers but with out any strings or giving anything in return.
So.. if you don't like contracts and don't want to be locked in, take a go-phone, or a virgin phone. There are choices to be made..  |
|
