Customer Service Is Dead

I know customer service has been dead for a long time. Business small and large view the customer as a source of income and not a resource. They just want you in the door, make a sale and out the door. Most businesses do little encourage customers to return or spread word of mouth.

Years ago I worked for a chain restaurant as a waiter. Back then the philosophy was treat the customer well. They want repeat business and the customer to enjoy the dining experience. On top of that, they knew word of mouth could not only help but hurt business too. I can't remember the exact numbers but they did surveys and found that bad word of mouth is a multiple times worth of damage versus good word of mouth. In other words, don't piss the customer off because not only do you lose repeat business but chances are he will tell his friends and they won't come either. Smart thinking in my book. Not sure it really worked that way but it was a good assumption to work under.

So why my sudden focus on customer service? Simple. Two days and three bad experiences and another one a week ago.

AT&T Wireless Headaches
We all know about the Stalinesque tactics of cell phone companies. Iron clad two year contracts with high early termination fees or Mafia like fees to change the a clause and it will cost a two year extension.

The phone I have is an LG-Vu. I wasn't in my right mind when I bought it. I was helping out a friend by putting her on my account and it was a phone they offered. It's total garbage.

I went in December to remover her from the account and see my upgrade options. AT&T happily removed her from the account for $120 and blew me off on the upgrade. The customer service dork said I can't upgrade until March or there about.

The phone is garbage. I live in the middle of Houston. A few miles from downtown. I get full bars on my signal indicator. I have a hard time sending texts or talking on the phone. I have to stand outside on my patio or in a certain corner to get service.

I figure they could do something for me. I went to one store. He took one look at my account and offered me an iPhone for full price. I said no thanks, told him never mind and walked out the door. I went to a second store. The rep there offered me any phone I wanted for full price plus a $75 upgrade fee. I told him that was bullshit and walked out.

I call customer service and she just wants to trouble shoot my phone. I hung up. I called back and she told me to look online because there are deals there that are better than the store or phone. I looked. Nothing.

I decided enough was enough. I'm changing phone services. I looked up another service and decided to change. I call AT&T one more time to inquire about the early termination fee. The service rep asked me if she couldn't resolve my problem would I terminate. I said I don't know I'm just weighing my options. I explained to her what all happened.

This is what she did. In a heartbeat she sold me a $350 phone for $29...that's twenty nine dollars. And she didn't charge me an upgrade fee either. Just a two year extension of my current contract. Hell she even threw in free shipping for good measure. My grand total for an upgrade was $29 plus taxes and two hours of hitting my head against the wall.

I stayed with AT&T not because I'm happy with the service. I'm not. I stayed because someone finally pulled their ears and their head popped out of the companies ass long enough to make me a deal and used some actual customer service to keep me.

I have more complaints but maybe next time...I'll just say I hate the whole store concept of Ikea.

It Was Good By Us But Not By Them

No matter which way you cut it, the War on Terrorism is also a political game.

For those with short memory, under President George W. Bush, the goal was to hunt down and kill or capture terrorists. Bush took on the "you're either for us or against us." A simplistic black and white look at the world. So no one shed any tears when missiles and attack drones started taking out terrorists. Nor when soldiers on the ground killed insurgents and fighters bombed hold outs.

Now that a different administration is in power from a different party, all of a sudden killing terrorist might not be such a good idea. Funny thing is it's the party that's out of power that is making the claim. Some backers of Bush and Republicans are claiming killing terrorists is a bad idea.

They point out that intelligence and information may be gained by capturing and interrogating terrorists.

I concede that point. What I don't concede is the way they cry about it. It was never much of a policy toward the end of the Bush Regime to capture terrorists. The main goal is to get them before they get us. Now that it's President Barack Obama's turn and he's killing terrorists, they change their tune.

The article "U.S. emphasizes targeted killings over captures"gives an idea of what I'm talking about.

Haitian Judge May Release Americans

I really just don't have any sympathy for the ten Americans who tried to take children across the Haitian Dominican Republic border. The claim to be doing a humanitarian deed by taking orphans over the border to the school the American missionaries have in the Dominican.

All kinds of red flags are raised in this case. First and foremost, the children didn't have the proper travel documents or passports. You know it, I know it, the American missionary workers more than likely know it. It's simple. You can't cross borders without proper documentation. So why are you taking orphans over the border without papers? To put up for adoption? Sell? Probably not but you just don't take kids over international borders without permission.

Then it turns out some of the kids have parents. It's another red flag. The missionaries stated originally the children were orphans going to an orphanage. Then it came out about living parents. The parents gave permission to take the kids because they believed the kids had a better chance with someone else. So why did the missionaries state the kids were orphans in the first place? It's already bad enough they had no passports for the children but then they lied and said they were orphans.

Maybe the was nothing nefarious going on and they were that stupid or arrogant to think they could just come and get away with it. I think they are charged with legitimate crimes. Although word is the judge is considering dropping charges at this time.

Why Is This Still A Concern?

We all know the story of September 11, 2001. The U.S. and allies have since embarked on a War on Terrorism. The goal is to disrupt, destroy, kill or capture terrorists that threaten the U.S. and allies.

Along the way there have been many controversies. The waterboarding, secret CIA prisons, torture claims and Guantanamo prison battle.

My question though is why are we still debating the trials of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? The U.S. Department of Justice initially announced the trials would take place in New York. Now the good residents and politicians of New York have backlashed against the idea. NY Senator Charles Schumer contends that none of the proposed sites in New York are acceptable.

Another site considered in Virginia district court. The esteemed Senator Jim Webb is backing a bill that would cut funding for any civilian trial for the defendants.

All those issues aren't what blow my mind. What blows my mind is why are we having this debate in the first place? First, under President George W. Bush and now President Barack Obama, nothing has been done. The Cowboy W vowed to bring terrorist to justice. Languishing in a remote prison isn't justice. The Windbag Obama campaigned on bringing the defendants to trial and closing Guantanamo prison. A year in and nothing yet on both issues.

My question is why after several years, two presidents and Congressional elections nothing has changed? No trials, no sentences and no justice. There has been no movement to try the individuals in military tribunal or civilian court. At this point I really don't care where they are tried. It shouldn't take this many years to figure out how to try them.

Congress has twice written laws on how military tribunals can be used. One was overturned by the Supreme Court and the other hasn't been tested. Either way at least they tried to lay down the ground rules for a trial and some rule of law. It wouldn't be a sham or show trial.

I understand why Obama wants to try them in civilian court. He wants to show the world the U.S. has nothing to hide and that our system is transparent. I'm not against it either. The U.S. courts can handle the trial.

Most troubling to me is comments attributed to Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel that

terror trials as a 'distraction' from the administration's domestic agenda, especially health care.

I have a problem with that because it means Emanuel doesn't think bringing the defendants to trial is a priority. He thinks all the President's efforts should be devoted elsewhere. I think such a statement, if he did say it, is highly insulting to the people who died on 9/11, to the people working behind the scenes to stop terror and to the military and civilians on the ground fighting this war. It demeans their sacrifice and effort to keep our country safe. Emanuel's precious domestic agenda shouldn't override the war effort or the trials.

These trials need to start and soon. The families of 9/11 victims need the closure. The nation needs to see the war is paying off. The troops and civilians on the frontlines need this too for their efforts. Both political parties need to quit the grandstanding and bring these criminal cowards to justice.