Today, Starbucks is giving out free brewed coffee to anyone who brings in their own travel mug. It's the launch to their "Big Picture" campaign, which urges all Starbucks customers around the world to BYOM. If you go to their site and make a pledge to stop using throwaway cups they'll tell you how many trees you saved. After today, they'll also give you ten cents off every time you BYOM. It's a simple but classy move that does well for the environment and builds a worldwide awareness about how dumb using something only once is. Are you listening Tim Horton's?
The devoted reader of this blog (there must be one!) will note that McDonald's is slowly beginning to see how it fits into the big picture.
15 April 2010
13 April 2010
A letter to my MP about a proposed Climate Change Bill
Tomorrow, the bill to pass the Climate Change Accountability Act (Bill C-311) goes to the House of Commons. I'm urging everyone I know to write to their MP and ask them to support the bill. Here's a copy of the letter I sent to my MP Irwin Cotler, and copied to the heads of the four sitting parties as well as the Minister of the Environment. Feel free to copy, cut, paste, dissect, disagree and do whatever you like with the text you see below.
Dear Mr. Cotler,
It is time to change the unfortunate direction that Canada has moved in when it comes to both climate change policy and international leadership on issues of global concern. Bill C-311 presents a made-in-Canada mechanism to hold the government responsible for failures to meet the international climate change obligations it agrees to. This will end the current practice of saying one thing around the negotiating table and then taking no meaningful steps to back up those words with action. Our credibility and, more importantly, our way of life (admittedly beyond the next election cycle or two) are at stake. I wish this was hyperbole, but it is not.
I have next to no knowledge of Parliamentary procedure, so this may or may not be of immediate concern: I see one item that should be amended for clarity in the proposed bill. The "Minister" is defined as the Minister of the Environment. From what I understand, cabinet posts exist at the leisure of the Prime Minister. Abolishing the Environment Ministry and folding its operations into a different portfolio would leave this Act toothless, at least in terms of cabinet-level responsibility. Better that the definition be expanded to include any single minister who, now or in the future, is responsible for monitoring emissions.
I urge you to support passage of this bill.
Kindest Regards,
Name and Address here
cc Michael Ignatieff, Stephen Harper, Scott Prentice, Jack Layton, Gilles Duceppe
Dear Mr. Cotler,
It is time to change the unfortunate direction that Canada has moved in when it comes to both climate change policy and international leadership on issues of global concern. Bill C-311 presents a made-in-Canada mechanism to hold the government responsible for failures to meet the international climate change obligations it agrees to. This will end the current practice of saying one thing around the negotiating table and then taking no meaningful steps to back up those words with action. Our credibility and, more importantly, our way of life (admittedly beyond the next election cycle or two) are at stake. I wish this was hyperbole, but it is not.
I have next to no knowledge of Parliamentary procedure, so this may or may not be of immediate concern: I see one item that should be amended for clarity in the proposed bill. The "Minister" is defined as the Minister of the Environment. From what I understand, cabinet posts exist at the leisure of the Prime Minister. Abolishing the Environment Ministry and folding its operations into a different portfolio would leave this Act toothless, at least in terms of cabinet-level responsibility. Better that the definition be expanded to include any single minister who, now or in the future, is responsible for monitoring emissions.
I urge you to support passage of this bill.
Kindest Regards,
Name and Address here
cc Michael Ignatieff, Stephen Harper, Scott Prentice, Jack Layton, Gilles Duceppe
08 April 2010
Enter... sanity?
Happily, it seems that the folks at CATSA and in the Transport Ministry have heeded the voices of reason. Check it out:
All is quiet on the crayon front.
Confused? Read the original posting here.
All is quiet on the crayon front.
Confused? Read the original posting here.
30 March 2010
Beware the danger of low expectations
I blew it.
Not only did I blow it, I did what they would do: instead of reading the letter, I skimmed it, assumed I knew what it said and provided a quick, terse, stock response before breezily clicking 'send'. Why? Because I thought I was reading a quick, terse, stock response from a minion paid to copy, paste and send quick, terse, stock responses. I was wrong.
I'll explain in a minute what this is all about. But first, a little more self-flagellation. I HATE it when customer service people don't listen to what I'm saying, but instead frame my words within their own idea of what they already suspect the problem to be. I feel like I'm writing in hieroglyphics here. Try this: When I say "Waiter, there's a hair in my soup," the waiter may hear "Waiter, I ordered this soup, tasted it, and have now changed my mind." If he's a good waiter who's used to fussy customers, he'll take the soup away and take it off the bill. If he's an excellent waiter he'll recognize that a hair is gross and send the manager by to apologize and start an investigation into the origins of the offending fiber, even if it's all just for show. The first waiter frames your words in his own idea of what's happening, while the second listens to what you have to say. Today I was the first waiter. And I HATE the first waiter. He solves the immediate problem, but does nothing to address the root of the issue and prevent it from happening again.
The story
Back in January, I wrote to John Baird, Canada's Transport minister, because of ridonculous rules surrounding carry-on baggage on flights to the USA. You can see the letter here. There was no reply until today, when an email from one Laureen Kinney appeared in my inbox .
After the usual salutation, it started:
I made two mistakes when I read this. The first was to think of how typical a name like "Laureen Kinney" was for some poor junior bureaucrat who was handed the stack of files to respond to. Under pale green fluorescent lighting, no less. This set my expectations nice and low, providing the frame for my reading of the letter.
The second mistake was to not pay attention to the words that followed the author's name. It's not just Laureen Kinney, office flack. It's Laureen Kinney, Director General of Aviation Security. Big difference. The office flack gets an email that goes something like this:
The Directors General of anything, though, have their hands on the sticks. They make the decisions, they make the calls. They're the deciders. I had the opportunity to fill the DG's ears with my cool, rational arguments for more sane air travel, and... I blew it! Laureen Kinney, Director General of Aviation Security, replied to me personally, and in return got the word-for-word reply you see a few lines up (names changed to protect the retarded). She's probably, rightfully, pissed, and I effectively cut off any further dialogue and any further chance to nudge air travel policy one way or the other. My vapid response tells her that I just wanted to yell and be heard, but that I don't really care about the details one way or the other.
That's not what this blog is supposed to be about. It's supposed to be about effecting change. I do care. I'm mad at myself for letting an opportunity slip through my hands.
The rationalization
It's not all bad. The rules governing carry-on, in fact, changed two weeks after my first letter. I like to think that I had something to do with the speed of that change, if not the substance. The DG's letter affirms that people in positions of power do take note when the masses grumble, and that there is communication between the Transport Ministry and its departments.
I suppose if I really wanted to I could re-establish contact by posing as my own PR flack and sending a more well-thought out reply. Busy people delegate stuff like this, right?
Dear Ms. Kinney, it would start. It has come to our attention that you recently replied to a letter sent by our client on January 6, 2010. Please note that our client's policy is that any response received after 60 days of waiting will be handled tersely. We appreciate your understanding in this matter and look forward to providing you with input on matters of air travel security in the future.
The Sundry Thought Group
Not only did I blow it, I did what they would do: instead of reading the letter, I skimmed it, assumed I knew what it said and provided a quick, terse, stock response before breezily clicking 'send'. Why? Because I thought I was reading a quick, terse, stock response from a minion paid to copy, paste and send quick, terse, stock responses. I was wrong.
I'll explain in a minute what this is all about. But first, a little more self-flagellation. I HATE it when customer service people don't listen to what I'm saying, but instead frame my words within their own idea of what they already suspect the problem to be. I feel like I'm writing in hieroglyphics here. Try this: When I say "Waiter, there's a hair in my soup," the waiter may hear "Waiter, I ordered this soup, tasted it, and have now changed my mind." If he's a good waiter who's used to fussy customers, he'll take the soup away and take it off the bill. If he's an excellent waiter he'll recognize that a hair is gross and send the manager by to apologize and start an investigation into the origins of the offending fiber, even if it's all just for show. The first waiter frames your words in his own idea of what's happening, while the second listens to what you have to say. Today I was the first waiter. And I HATE the first waiter. He solves the immediate problem, but does nothing to address the root of the issue and prevent it from happening again.
The story
Back in January, I wrote to John Baird, Canada's Transport minister, because of ridonculous rules surrounding carry-on baggage on flights to the USA. You can see the letter here. There was no reply until today, when an email from one Laureen Kinney appeared in my inbox .
After the usual salutation, it started:
"I am writing in response to your correspondence of January 6, 2010, in which you provided comments regarding enhanced security measures for passengers and their carry-on baggage."
Blah blah blah blah blah.... blah blah blah... blah blah blah.
Sincerely,
Laureen Kinney
I made two mistakes when I read this. The first was to think of how typical a name like "Laureen Kinney" was for some poor junior bureaucrat who was handed the stack of files to respond to. Under pale green fluorescent lighting, no less. This set my expectations nice and low, providing the frame for my reading of the letter.
The second mistake was to not pay attention to the words that followed the author's name. It's not just Laureen Kinney, office flack. It's Laureen Kinney, Director General of Aviation Security. Big difference. The office flack gets an email that goes something like this:
Dear Laureen,
Thanks for the reply. It's appreciated.
Letterman
The Directors General of anything, though, have their hands on the sticks. They make the decisions, they make the calls. They're the deciders. I had the opportunity to fill the DG's ears with my cool, rational arguments for more sane air travel, and... I blew it! Laureen Kinney, Director General of Aviation Security, replied to me personally, and in return got the word-for-word reply you see a few lines up (names changed to protect the retarded). She's probably, rightfully, pissed, and I effectively cut off any further dialogue and any further chance to nudge air travel policy one way or the other. My vapid response tells her that I just wanted to yell and be heard, but that I don't really care about the details one way or the other.
That's not what this blog is supposed to be about. It's supposed to be about effecting change. I do care. I'm mad at myself for letting an opportunity slip through my hands.
The rationalization
It's not all bad. The rules governing carry-on, in fact, changed two weeks after my first letter. I like to think that I had something to do with the speed of that change, if not the substance. The DG's letter affirms that people in positions of power do take note when the masses grumble, and that there is communication between the Transport Ministry and its departments.
I suppose if I really wanted to I could re-establish contact by posing as my own PR flack and sending a more well-thought out reply. Busy people delegate stuff like this, right?
Dear Ms. Kinney, it would start. It has come to our attention that you recently replied to a letter sent by our client on January 6, 2010. Please note that our client's policy is that any response received after 60 days of waiting will be handled tersely. We appreciate your understanding in this matter and look forward to providing you with input on matters of air travel security in the future.
The Sundry Thought Group
09 March 2010
It's no coincidence that a bell says 'Ding Dong'
Ahhh Bell. You purveyor of telecommunications services and perennial pisser-off of customers across the continent. You are the gold standard of crap service so today, my blog is devoted to you.
The telling of this story was inspired by reading George Vaccaro's account of his run-in with Verizon.
We had a run-in with the machine called Bell in 2005. At that time they were providing our local and long-distance calling as well as high-speed internet via their Sympatico arm. Phone and internet bills arrived and were paid separately and all was good. Then in a fit of organizational reoganization Bell decided that it would merge bills for phone and internet. No complaints from us, since one bill is easier than two. This was in June.
July: We got the first bill and paid it. Nice.
August: The second bill arrived. It showed that we had a credit for $40 or so on the internet portion, while we still owed $40 for the phone portion. Since this was clearly Bell's own internal accounting error, we called, waited the typical 30-45 minutes on hold, and spoke to a customer service rep who told us not to worry... he'd take care of it. Done.
September: The third bill arrived. The credit on the internet account had doubled, as had the balance owing on the phone side. They also kindly threw in a late payment penalty. Back on the phone. Hold for 30-45 minutes. Re-explain everything. Apologetic customer service rep. Bill-merging project not going as smoothly as expected. Won't happen again sir. Problem solved.
October: Guess what.
November: Our phone line goes dead with no warning. My wife was working from home at the time and relied heavily on the phone so this was a big deal. The internet still worked, so we knew the physical lines were OK. We had received some mail from Bell saying we owed such and such but each time we got one we called, waited, and were told to ignore the letters. Using Skype (and don't forget the wait on hold!) we found out that the line had been cut because of amounts owing. Before we could explain ourselves Skype dropped the call.
At that point my wife gave up. I called from work the next day but of course since it's my wife's name on the account and Bell can see that I'm calling from a strange number they wouldn't deal with me. "Have your wife call us," they tell me. "From what phone?" I ask. "From your home phone," they suggest, helpfully. Arrrrgh!
That evening after work I have wifey on standby to deal with Bell's security concerns while I dial them up on Skype. Of course now it's OK that a strange guy is calling from a strange number, and they hear me out. They offer no apologies but say they'll try to re-establish service within 48 hours. Finally! Phone service established the next day. The first call on our reborn line was to Primus, who have provided us with great prices and service ever since.
The full depths of Bell's schizophrenia were only revealed after we left. On one hand, they felt we owed them money and sent bills for services rendered after Primus took over, even though I had provided them with the required one-month notice. On the other hand, they sent us monthly letters saying - no joke - "Missing you. Things just aren't the same without you as our customer." Amen to that, brother.
We still get bills from Bell once in a while but now they just go straight into the shredder. Unrequited love? Not sure. Don't care. We have already spent at least four hours on the phone, most of it on hold, trying to help Bell pull its tiny head out of its stinky bits. We're done with them.
Bell: Don't call me. I'll call you.
Next post: Thirty two easy steps to getting fair treatment from Air Canada.
The telling of this story was inspired by reading George Vaccaro's account of his run-in with Verizon.
We had a run-in with the machine called Bell in 2005. At that time they were providing our local and long-distance calling as well as high-speed internet via their Sympatico arm. Phone and internet bills arrived and were paid separately and all was good. Then in a fit of organizational reoganization Bell decided that it would merge bills for phone and internet. No complaints from us, since one bill is easier than two. This was in June.
July: We got the first bill and paid it. Nice.
August: The second bill arrived. It showed that we had a credit for $40 or so on the internet portion, while we still owed $40 for the phone portion. Since this was clearly Bell's own internal accounting error, we called, waited the typical 30-45 minutes on hold, and spoke to a customer service rep who told us not to worry... he'd take care of it. Done.
September: The third bill arrived. The credit on the internet account had doubled, as had the balance owing on the phone side. They also kindly threw in a late payment penalty. Back on the phone. Hold for 30-45 minutes. Re-explain everything. Apologetic customer service rep. Bill-merging project not going as smoothly as expected. Won't happen again sir. Problem solved.
October: Guess what.
November: Our phone line goes dead with no warning. My wife was working from home at the time and relied heavily on the phone so this was a big deal. The internet still worked, so we knew the physical lines were OK. We had received some mail from Bell saying we owed such and such but each time we got one we called, waited, and were told to ignore the letters. Using Skype (and don't forget the wait on hold!) we found out that the line had been cut because of amounts owing. Before we could explain ourselves Skype dropped the call.
At that point my wife gave up. I called from work the next day but of course since it's my wife's name on the account and Bell can see that I'm calling from a strange number they wouldn't deal with me. "Have your wife call us," they tell me. "From what phone?" I ask. "From your home phone," they suggest, helpfully. Arrrrgh!
That evening after work I have wifey on standby to deal with Bell's security concerns while I dial them up on Skype. Of course now it's OK that a strange guy is calling from a strange number, and they hear me out. They offer no apologies but say they'll try to re-establish service within 48 hours. Finally! Phone service established the next day. The first call on our reborn line was to Primus, who have provided us with great prices and service ever since.
The full depths of Bell's schizophrenia were only revealed after we left. On one hand, they felt we owed them money and sent bills for services rendered after Primus took over, even though I had provided them with the required one-month notice. On the other hand, they sent us monthly letters saying - no joke - "Missing you. Things just aren't the same without you as our customer." Amen to that, brother.
We still get bills from Bell once in a while but now they just go straight into the shredder. Unrequited love? Not sure. Don't care. We have already spent at least four hours on the phone, most of it on hold, trying to help Bell pull its tiny head out of its stinky bits. We're done with them.
Bell: Don't call me. I'll call you.
Next post: Thirty two easy steps to getting fair treatment from Air Canada.
George, I feel your pain.
George Vaccaro's blog will resonate with anyone who has ever had a billing issue with a big telecom. George was quoted a roaming rate of .002 cents/kB of data by Verizon, but was billed at $.002. It's the difference between $71 and $0.71. After trying to teach basic math over the phone to increasingly senior Verizon employees he gave up and posted a recording of his conversation which seems to have helped in greasing the wheels: Verizon offered him a 50% refund the next day, then offered the full refund two days after that.
Here's an excerpt of the conversation. George is speaking to Andrea, a Verizon floor manager:
There's 27 minutes of this pure gold, and George is a lot more patient than I am. I'm impressed that he got a solution in three days. When we had a billing issue with Bell it took us months to (almost) sort out. I explain that one in a separate post.
Here's an excerpt of the conversation. George is speaking to Andrea, a Verizon floor manager:
A: I'm sorry that you um, already talked to a few different people here..
G: ...Let me cut to the chase.. Well
A: ...and they've all explained to you that you're being billed .002 cents, and if you take...
G: I'm not being billed...
A: ...and put it on your calculator.. it shows you that..
G: No it doesn't, I can do...
A: We never said that you're gonna get billed .00002 cents.
G: That's right, you said I was gonna get billed .002 cents per kilobyte, and I'd be happy to pay that. Now, why don't you bring up your calculator?
A: .002 cents, yeah.
G: Take .002, and we're talkin' about cents, right?
A: Right, .002, and if we multiply that by the amount of kilobyte usage that you have...
G: 35,893.
A: ...35,893, that comes out to what you paid, $71.79.
G: Cents. You never did the conversion from cents to dollars.
A: Cuz we're talkin' about cents, we're gonna multiply the amount of cents by the amount of kilobytes that you used...
G: Okay, ya know, ok...
There's 27 minutes of this pure gold, and George is a lot more patient than I am. I'm impressed that he got a solution in three days. When we had a billing issue with Bell it took us months to (almost) sort out. I explain that one in a separate post.
24 February 2010
McDonald's: Individual Service 1, Useless Waste 0
You gotta give it to McDonald's: they understand the importance of pleasing the customer (and maybe saving a dime). I got a phone call this morning from the district manager and was told that having the coffee poured directly into the mug (no paper cup in garbage!) will no longer be a problem. The corporate-run stores (franchises may be another question) in Montréal have been informed that they are to take the customer at their word on the size of the coffee, and just pour it. I'll follow up with the head office in Toronto via snailmail to make sure this policy extends to the rest of Canada (the world!) and report back. I don't know about the McDonald's-franchisee relationship but hopefully individual store owners will see the common sense in this too.
In the meantime, feel free to educate the staff at your local Mickey D's and let them know that the people at corporate say it's OK to pour coffee directly into the mug! Now to get them to put the burger straight into my mouth....
Personal note: that was the most refreshing customer service follow-up ever. A call the next morning from someone in authority saying the common-sense changes I requested have already been implemented. Bell, Rogers and Air Canada take note.
23 February 2010
Mickey D and the case of the wasteful, coolish coffee
I like McDonald's coffee. People look at me funny when I say that because
- Nobody questions Tim Horton's (AKA Dunkin' Donuts North) claim to the throne of best everyman's coffee, and
- I'm a bit of a coffee snob, grinding my own beans at home and all that.
But, coffeewise, McDonald's does it right. Most of the time. I have a frustration with them, though. I use a travel mug. It holds 16 ounces. McDonald's medium coffee is 16 ounces. Take a moment to draw your own conclusions about what's supposed to happen when you order a medium coffee and hand the clerk (customer service associate?) your clean, empty travel mug. I ask you to think about this is because someone at McDonald's already has, and they've made a decision about what's supposed to happen next. And it's nothing like you'd expect.
The clerk obligingly takes the mug and puts it down on the counter next to the coffee machines. Then they ignore it and select a medium-sized paper cup from the dispenser, which they fill with 16 ounces of coffee. Having been adequately measured, the coffee is poured from the paper cup into the travel mug. Paper cup goes in garbage. Travel mug is handed back with a smile (that's free).
This is how it goes when I'm not there. Actually, it's the same when I'm there except that I ask, prod, cajole and almost beg them to just pour the damned coffee straight into my cup. No go. Against company policy. I've heard reasons from the need to measure the coffee (reasonable, but not insurmountable) to the need to avoid accidentally contaminating the carafe by touching it to the mug (retarded). The reasons change but the answer stays the same: no pour coffee into mug.
Here's what I don't like about this, in case you don't think exactly like I do (shame!) in order of descending obviousness:
- Cup waste
- Colder coffee: double the pouring means double the cooling, both from the air and from cool cups. I like my coffee hot hot hot! Can you feel it?
- Soap, water and time waste: Now I've got to clean my damned mug in addition to a cup hitting the garbage. (we can call this 'synergistic waste' if we want to put it in corporatese)
- Employee safety: pouring hot coffee from one cup into another over and over again is a recipe for worker's comp.
- More expensive everything: That cup you just threw in the garbage is now gone forever. McDonald's paid for it, so the price of a hamburger just went up. A tree went into making it so the price of wood just went up. A truck brought it to the restaurant so the price of diesel just went up. Electricity, water, storage.... everything is affected when something goes into the garbage. Admittedly these are tiny, marginal, minuscule increases but when the sign reads 'billions and billions served' those individual decisions and actions add up to have real consequences.
- McDonald's offers free coffee refills anyway, so that extra ounce or two, if it even gets poured, is already in the budget, Ronald!
This morning I found out that McDonald's Canada doesn't offer web-based customer service, or even provide an email address. Maybe they're afraid of e-coli. Where to easily and conveniently register my list of coffee beefs? There was a local phone number but... ewww... subscribe to the McDonaldized horror of voicemail customer service hell? I'd much rather just type, blast, and wait for the platitudes to arrive (or not) than explain to someone in real time why this pisses me off. After all, it's Letterman, not Phonephella. And it's much easier to point to what was said and promised before when it's all there in black and white. But when trying to change the world you take what you can, so I called. I got a real person, who took notes on my complaints slash suggestions in the absence of someone who could tell me that they would change corporate Canada for me today, tomorrow at the latest. Apparently the store manager, the manager's supervisor and the supervisor's supervisor are getting copies of the ticket. Someone's supposed to call me back. I'm optimistic about the outcome, but not necessarily the pace.
We McWait.
27 January 2010
Mein Bier ist Hier
IGA kept its word. I'm two cases of beer richer. I have a bottle of Black Currant Ephemère in the freezer, whose bubbly, yeasty bounty is about fifteen minutes away from my gullet.
This beer is art, but not for the faint of heart. Here are trophy pics:
Lovely. Now get in my belly!18 January 2010
So? Does the beer man cometh?
Mike, it's been three days since we spoke, and you said you'd call. I think your beer order arrives Tuesday, so I'm not too worried yet. But I'll be watching that clock all day tomorrow, waiting for the phone to ring.
Dude, don't leave me hanging. Telling a guy you'll get his beer and then failing to follow through is worse than breaking the original promise. It's a double-humped tease. Cruel and unusual.
Dude, don't leave me hanging. Telling a guy you'll get his beer and then failing to follow through is worse than breaking the original promise. It's a double-humped tease. Cruel and unusual.
17 January 2010
Beer tease
One kickass thing about Quebec is we have cheap cheap beer. It's so cheap the government even set a minimum price to avoid... what?... undercutting bottled water? I don't know and I don't care. As long as that minimum is less than a buck a beer I'm happy.
Not all beer is less than a dollar, though. Imports and premiums can be found at $20 for a case of 12. Still cheap compared to the rest of this country, and even to the States. So imagine the twinkling this cheap-ass bastard felt in his toes when the IGA flyer advertised a mixed case of Unibroue premium brews for $14.99. I was on that like a fat kid on a smartie. Usually Unibroue beers (the good ones, anyway) are sold as six-packs, and cost $12. Their beers are unfiltered, many are retarded strong, and their artwork can be described as mythical Heavy Metal voyageur, with a dash of pixie dust.
Knowing that I was not the only one who'd jump on this, I went to IGA on the second day of the sale. No beer. There wasn't even an empty spot on the shelf where the beer might have been. It was like someone had folded space around my beer deal. Come back tomorrow, they said... our beer order comes in at 10. Fine. I pay for the groceries I didn't really mean to buy but which caught my eye on this beer quest, and resolve to come back the next day.
The next morning I happened to be by another branch, so I went in to grab a case. No beer. Hmm. No cardboard debris scattered around a tattered "SALE!" sign. No sale sign. No empty shelf space at all. Either these IGA guys are really good at restocking their shelves and changing signage right away, I thought, or this mythical beer really is mythical.
Next morning, 11 AM. No beer at store 1. I ask for a raincheck. No rainchecks on alcohol. Try the store at Cavendish. Manager sounds optimistic that they'll have it. Finally... I can taste the tiny bubbles. Well surprise bloody surprise... none at Cavendish. I look around for cameras. I'm in Montreal, after all, where all those 'Just for Laughs' pranks are shot. Maybe they're having me on and there's a pallet full of Unibroue in the back, just waiting to shed a little weight into my welcoming arms. Nope. Just no beer, no laughs, no semi-naked police. But there is Jasmine, and Jasmine writes me a raincheck! It'll be delayed gratification, but gratification nonetheless. I return home with a warm and fuzzy feeling in my stomach.
...Until I realize that if they didn't have my beer during the sale, they probably won't order it at another time. I fire off a letter through the "Contact Us' black hole on the website, with predictable results. My wishes are simple enough: order the beer, call me when it arrives and honour the sale price that I tried to act on four times. Internet silence. I'm patient. I wait a week. New flyer. What do you know? The Unibroue case is now $16.99. Armed with my raincheck, but sick of driving around in vain for beer, I check the IGA home shopping website to see if the beer is in. It doesn't even show up in the system. I call the customer service line, now wise to their non-email ways. Martine endures my story (which is a lot harder to speak than it is to write) and puts me on hold as she calls the three nearest stores to see if the beer is in stock. It's 11:50 AM, and no stores can answer the question because it's "lunchtime". Someone will call me back. Uh-huh.
I'm already planning my next step - consumer affairs, maybe? - on the road to making this merchant do what its advertisement said. 1:00 rolls around, then 2:00. Long lunch. But then - what's this!? - the phone rings and it's a very serious sounding fellow named Mike from IGA. What, did I get the legal department on me? No, Mike's the manager at Cavendish and he's going to order the beer, call me when it gets in, and honour the raincheck. Right on Mike! More warm fuzzy feelings in my stomach. That was two days ago. Still waiting. Don't tease me Mike. Not about cheap beer.
Not all beer is less than a dollar, though. Imports and premiums can be found at $20 for a case of 12. Still cheap compared to the rest of this country, and even to the States. So imagine the twinkling this cheap-ass bastard felt in his toes when the IGA flyer advertised a mixed case of Unibroue premium brews for $14.99. I was on that like a fat kid on a smartie. Usually Unibroue beers (the good ones, anyway) are sold as six-packs, and cost $12. Their beers are unfiltered, many are retarded strong, and their artwork can be described as mythical Heavy Metal voyageur, with a dash of pixie dust.
Knowing that I was not the only one who'd jump on this, I went to IGA on the second day of the sale. No beer. There wasn't even an empty spot on the shelf where the beer might have been. It was like someone had folded space around my beer deal. Come back tomorrow, they said... our beer order comes in at 10. Fine. I pay for the groceries I didn't really mean to buy but which caught my eye on this beer quest, and resolve to come back the next day.
The next morning I happened to be by another branch, so I went in to grab a case. No beer. Hmm. No cardboard debris scattered around a tattered "SALE!" sign. No sale sign. No empty shelf space at all. Either these IGA guys are really good at restocking their shelves and changing signage right away, I thought, or this mythical beer really is mythical.
Next morning, 11 AM. No beer at store 1. I ask for a raincheck. No rainchecks on alcohol. Try the store at Cavendish. Manager sounds optimistic that they'll have it. Finally... I can taste the tiny bubbles. Well surprise bloody surprise... none at Cavendish. I look around for cameras. I'm in Montreal, after all, where all those 'Just for Laughs' pranks are shot. Maybe they're having me on and there's a pallet full of Unibroue in the back, just waiting to shed a little weight into my welcoming arms. Nope. Just no beer, no laughs, no semi-naked police. But there is Jasmine, and Jasmine writes me a raincheck! It'll be delayed gratification, but gratification nonetheless. I return home with a warm and fuzzy feeling in my stomach.
...Until I realize that if they didn't have my beer during the sale, they probably won't order it at another time. I fire off a letter through the "Contact Us' black hole on the website, with predictable results. My wishes are simple enough: order the beer, call me when it arrives and honour the sale price that I tried to act on four times. Internet silence. I'm patient. I wait a week. New flyer. What do you know? The Unibroue case is now $16.99. Armed with my raincheck, but sick of driving around in vain for beer, I check the IGA home shopping website to see if the beer is in. It doesn't even show up in the system. I call the customer service line, now wise to their non-email ways. Martine endures my story (which is a lot harder to speak than it is to write) and puts me on hold as she calls the three nearest stores to see if the beer is in stock. It's 11:50 AM, and no stores can answer the question because it's "lunchtime". Someone will call me back. Uh-huh.
I'm already planning my next step - consumer affairs, maybe? - on the road to making this merchant do what its advertisement said. 1:00 rolls around, then 2:00. Long lunch. But then - what's this!? - the phone rings and it's a very serious sounding fellow named Mike from IGA. What, did I get the legal department on me? No, Mike's the manager at Cavendish and he's going to order the beer, call me when it gets in, and honour the raincheck. Right on Mike! More warm fuzzy feelings in my stomach. That was two days ago. Still waiting. Don't tease me Mike. Not about cheap beer.
Talking to a wall has never been so much fun...
(Originally written and sent Jan. 6, 2010)
Dear Mr. Baird,
As you know, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA) recently implemented a "no carry-on bags" policy for flights from Canada to the United States. This policy is unnecessarily heavy-handed and is a disservice to all air travelers. It prohibits, for example, parents from carrying a bag of activities and snacks for their non-infant children. As any experienced traveler knows, no child suffers alone, especially on a six-hour flight. The policy forces an increase in checked baggage volumes at a time when allowances for such baggage are either being reduced or converted to for-fee services. It makes lineups at carousels longer as regular travelers with a single small bag have to join the post-flight scrum they had managed to avoid on every flight before this week. The policy, in short, makes traveling by plane generally nastier than it has already become.
The safety gains from this measure are marginal at best and counterproductive at worst. Instead of a tidy bag of conveniences, passengers who already struggle to keep their parkas to themselves will now be armed with cameras swinging from their wrists, bottles of medication and God knows what else dangling from every limb. In the meantime, the guy with the explosives strapped to his thigh can blend into the resulting melee and take his seat inconspicuously unencumbered by the only things that might have made him nervous before: a bag and belongings that authorities might take a curiosity in and swab for traces of explosives. In this sense the policy actually limits opportunities for screening officers to detect malicious intent.
The most bizarre thing about this policy is that the USA does not require it, and no other country is doing anything remotely close to this. Belgians flying into the USA have been limited by their own agency to one carry-on bag, but that's it. Domestic flights in the USA are not required to do this. Flights from Mexico and England are not required to do this. Flights from Iran and Libya are not required to do this. This is a self-imposed, reactionary measure by Canadians with absolutely zero benefit to Canadians.
While security is a priority, it is not the only priority. As the Minister responsible for CATSA, please endeavour to reign in those who have forgotten this. Let our children have their sippy cups and coloring books. Let a guy bring a sandwich, a novel and a book of crossword puzzles. Being safe really doesn't have to be so brutal. We can be safe and comfortable, provided we make rational, well-thought-out decisions.
Regards,
Name Redacted
Montreal
Dear Mr. Baird,
As you know, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA) recently implemented a "no carry-on bags" policy for flights from Canada to the United States. This policy is unnecessarily heavy-handed and is a disservice to all air travelers. It prohibits, for example, parents from carrying a bag of activities and snacks for their non-infant children. As any experienced traveler knows, no child suffers alone, especially on a six-hour flight. The policy forces an increase in checked baggage volumes at a time when allowances for such baggage are either being reduced or converted to for-fee services. It makes lineups at carousels longer as regular travelers with a single small bag have to join the post-flight scrum they had managed to avoid on every flight before this week. The policy, in short, makes traveling by plane generally nastier than it has already become.
The safety gains from this measure are marginal at best and counterproductive at worst. Instead of a tidy bag of conveniences, passengers who already struggle to keep their parkas to themselves will now be armed with cameras swinging from their wrists, bottles of medication and God knows what else dangling from every limb. In the meantime, the guy with the explosives strapped to his thigh can blend into the resulting melee and take his seat inconspicuously unencumbered by the only things that might have made him nervous before: a bag and belongings that authorities might take a curiosity in and swab for traces of explosives. In this sense the policy actually limits opportunities for screening officers to detect malicious intent.
The most bizarre thing about this policy is that the USA does not require it, and no other country is doing anything remotely close to this. Belgians flying into the USA have been limited by their own agency to one carry-on bag, but that's it. Domestic flights in the USA are not required to do this. Flights from Mexico and England are not required to do this. Flights from Iran and Libya are not required to do this. This is a self-imposed, reactionary measure by Canadians with absolutely zero benefit to Canadians.
While security is a priority, it is not the only priority. As the Minister responsible for CATSA, please endeavour to reign in those who have forgotten this. Let our children have their sippy cups and coloring books. Let a guy bring a sandwich, a novel and a book of crossword puzzles. Being safe really doesn't have to be so brutal. We can be safe and comfortable, provided we make rational, well-thought-out decisions.
Regards,
Name Redacted
Montreal
Inaugublog
The idea for this blog comes from my friend Chris, who, I suspect, got tired of hearing me blab all the time about my misadventures in small-scale activism. The name of the blog was coined by my brother Burt. Seeing how this is the first post, I might as well tell the story.
After the Christmas 2009 underwear-bombing attempt, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA... our version of the TSA) instituted ridiculous security measures for all flights from Canada to the USA. Essentially it was a no-carry-on-baggage policy with few exceptions. Apparently if you want to defeat the terrorists you have to figure out what they want and then give it to them before they can ask for it in their hey-let's-blow-something-up kind of way. Here's an excerpt from the policy:
After the Christmas 2009 underwear-bombing attempt, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA... our version of the TSA) instituted ridiculous security measures for all flights from Canada to the USA. Essentially it was a no-carry-on-baggage policy with few exceptions. Apparently if you want to defeat the terrorists you have to figure out what they want and then give it to them before they can ask for it in their hey-let's-blow-something-up kind of way. Here's an excerpt from the policy:
Carry-on bag means items to which a passenger has access to during a flight, but does NOT include personal items such as medication or medical devices, small purses, cameras, coats, items for care of infants, laptop computers, crutches, canes, walkers, containers carrying life sustaining items, a special needs item, musical instruments, or diplomatic or consular bags.
Fed up with stupid, reactive security stunts, I shot a letter off to John Baird, Canada's Transport Minister, who is ultimately responsible for CATSA. I'll post that later, but the long and the short of it was that a ban on harmless items (such as backpacks or crayons for kids) posed more danger than a terrorist ever could. Three days later CATSA issued a new list of exceptions to the policy and Burt congratulated me on winning the 'Crayon Wars'.
So I told Chris, in my long-winded and incoherent sort of way. He noticed that this was one of many times I've elicited change (or at least seemed to... Johnny 'The Scowler' Baird never called to thank me for my insights) simply by writing a letter or making a phone call. He suggested this blog, so here we are. Thanks Burt! Thanks Chris! Thanks stupid underwear terrorist!
So I told Chris, in my long-winded and incoherent sort of way. He noticed that this was one of many times I've elicited change (or at least seemed to... Johnny 'The Scowler' Baird never called to thank me for my insights) simply by writing a letter or making a phone call. He suggested this blog, so here we are. Thanks Burt! Thanks Chris! Thanks stupid underwear terrorist!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
