As employees we make our own career and in reality can not expect the same kind of support employees did in our fathers' time. Employers have made a radical shift over the last two decades, and I'm not sure that it is for the better.
I do strongly feel that there is an engine driving this. It's a philosophical, political, and economic force, and as such driven by opinion, luck, and whimsey as much as business sense.
The force is determined by who gets the organization's revenue. This revenue is a dynamic amount fixed by the good old fashioned balance sheet. In the past (and with fewer and fewer examples these days, the US Military is one), revenues were distributed to employees, with the company head rarely directly getting more than 7 times the average employee. This resulted in stable companies in times of great societal change.
As FDR is credited with creating the middle class, Ronald Reagan is credited with creating an investor class. As corporate CEOs and CFOs found themselves in the position of both employee and investor, the tide quickly shifted away from stable companies with stable mutually loyal workforces (driving a stable economy) to dynamic companies with employees considered necessary parasites and the first expense to be cut. The result has been an undeniable widening of the gap between rich and poor, a huge societal experiment pretty much forcing married couples to form two-income families, and a perpetually un-stable employed-class.
Is this good or bad? Well, it just *is*, and again as you say, employees must deal with it, and this isn't something we are taught in school.
Monday, June 21, 2004
Saturday, June 12, 2004
What's Up With Customer Service?
Ooh, don't get me started!
At home, I'm faced with a Canon digital camera that was $349 375 days
ago, I can buy today for $199, and Canon wants $115 to fix a software
problem that seems to be well known...Canon's choice will be: fix this camera under warranty, or return it un-repaired for my doorstop collection; I will then sell my Canon scanner and printer on eBay, along with the $200+ of accessories I bought for my Canon camera, and recommend actively that all my friends, family, acquaintences, etc. never buy a Canon product.
Oooh, cable TV. I called Comcast to upgrade my cable so I could receive the Lakers'
playoff games on TNT, only available on a cable tier that costs an
extra $29/mo above the one I currently pay for. 10 days later, the
upgrade finally pops on, after four one-hour phone calls where they
denied any guilt, and there is one playoff game left on TNT. Then, at
the start of that last playoff game, the cable service to my
neighborhood goes off, nuking my cable TV, High Speed Internet
service, and my VOIP telephone service. They have credited me about $1 so far...
One recent weekend, I drove to an audio production facility to lend a replacement unit of one
of our products so they could continue an important project while we
fixed their out-of-warranty unit, simply because it was the right thing to do.
I have to admit, we as consumers (both of mass-market consumer
products and mission-critical pro-audio products) have voted with our
pocketbooks to put ourselves into this position. Tantalized with lower
and lower prices (hysterically low if you consider historical prices
comparing today's gear with gear of 15-20 years ago), we buy into
*newer and better* products at ever decreasing prices while expecting
customer service from the manufacturer to meet our expectations based
on past products that were sold at healthy markups from manufacturing
costs. This trend has served to democratize the recording industry,
for example (I won't say it has improved the quality of recorded
output), but at the same time, it has trivialized the results that can be obtained by few people using the best gear.
Maybe the next cycle will serve to bring back some of the value to
consumer products as well as professional audio products. By building in enough profit to the
manufacturer or distributor to facilitate a return to a properly high
level of support, we might all benefit from a real improvement in the
quality of audio delivery. And we might create a few consumers in the US by giving them well-paying jobs.
At home, I'm faced with a Canon digital camera that was $349 375 days
ago, I can buy today for $199, and Canon wants $115 to fix a software
problem that seems to be well known...Canon's choice will be: fix this camera under warranty, or return it un-repaired for my doorstop collection; I will then sell my Canon scanner and printer on eBay, along with the $200+ of accessories I bought for my Canon camera, and recommend actively that all my friends, family, acquaintences, etc. never buy a Canon product.
Oooh, cable TV. I called Comcast to upgrade my cable so I could receive the Lakers'
playoff games on TNT, only available on a cable tier that costs an
extra $29/mo above the one I currently pay for. 10 days later, the
upgrade finally pops on, after four one-hour phone calls where they
denied any guilt, and there is one playoff game left on TNT. Then, at
the start of that last playoff game, the cable service to my
neighborhood goes off, nuking my cable TV, High Speed Internet
service, and my VOIP telephone service. They have credited me about $1 so far...
One recent weekend, I drove to an audio production facility to lend a replacement unit of one
of our products so they could continue an important project while we
fixed their out-of-warranty unit, simply because it was the right thing to do.
I have to admit, we as consumers (both of mass-market consumer
products and mission-critical pro-audio products) have voted with our
pocketbooks to put ourselves into this position. Tantalized with lower
and lower prices (hysterically low if you consider historical prices
comparing today's gear with gear of 15-20 years ago), we buy into
*newer and better* products at ever decreasing prices while expecting
customer service from the manufacturer to meet our expectations based
on past products that were sold at healthy markups from manufacturing
costs. This trend has served to democratize the recording industry,
for example (I won't say it has improved the quality of recorded
output), but at the same time, it has trivialized the results that can be obtained by few people using the best gear.
Maybe the next cycle will serve to bring back some of the value to
consumer products as well as professional audio products. By building in enough profit to the
manufacturer or distributor to facilitate a return to a properly high
level of support, we might all benefit from a real improvement in the
quality of audio delivery. And we might create a few consumers in the US by giving them well-paying jobs.
Friday, June 11, 2004
Ray Charles "We Only Play One Kind of Music..."
"...the good kind."
I had the pleasure of doing some work for Mr. Charles last year. I supplied him with a nice piece of expensive recording gear, and this required that I interact with Mr. Charles and visit him numerous times. Each visit left me with a cool memory.
On one visit Ray gave me a large check, something like what I take home in a year. The production of the check was business like but seemed ceremonial. The presentation was what stuck with me: he put the check in one of my hands, shook the other, made as if looking me right in the eye, and he said "thank you" and moved on. Reputation as a cheap bastard aside, this is a man who knows the value of his hard work.
Another time, as I brought the system to his historic-landmark studio, he helped his engineer go through every box, making sure everything was included. He fished around in one box, came up with something, walked up to me, and waved a computer mouse right in my face. "D, why the hell are you selling Ray Charles a mouse?" Of course, he knew full well why, and, although it took me a beat, in a few seconds, we both broke out laughing.
Another time during a short visit, I said that I had to excuse myself, but my girlfriend was waiting for me - we had a date. Everyone in the room lit up. Ray came over to me and said "D, all of us have to agree that there is only one thing more important than business - p****!" No one had to tell me that I had hit upon Ray's second favorite subject.
My offhand question of what kind of music he had been recording here lately made him a little cranky, but after a breath he answered with this blog title.
I've worked with a lot of idols, famous and infamous, but no one who carried himself like Ray, or presented himself as honestly as he did.
Like all of us, in the end Ray lived exactly as long as he lived (not to little or too long), but I am grateful for his time here during my time.
Play on, Brother Ray.
I had the pleasure of doing some work for Mr. Charles last year. I supplied him with a nice piece of expensive recording gear, and this required that I interact with Mr. Charles and visit him numerous times. Each visit left me with a cool memory.
On one visit Ray gave me a large check, something like what I take home in a year. The production of the check was business like but seemed ceremonial. The presentation was what stuck with me: he put the check in one of my hands, shook the other, made as if looking me right in the eye, and he said "thank you" and moved on. Reputation as a cheap bastard aside, this is a man who knows the value of his hard work.
Another time, as I brought the system to his historic-landmark studio, he helped his engineer go through every box, making sure everything was included. He fished around in one box, came up with something, walked up to me, and waved a computer mouse right in my face. "D, why the hell are you selling Ray Charles a mouse?" Of course, he knew full well why, and, although it took me a beat, in a few seconds, we both broke out laughing.
Another time during a short visit, I said that I had to excuse myself, but my girlfriend was waiting for me - we had a date. Everyone in the room lit up. Ray came over to me and said "D, all of us have to agree that there is only one thing more important than business - p****!" No one had to tell me that I had hit upon Ray's second favorite subject.
My offhand question of what kind of music he had been recording here lately made him a little cranky, but after a breath he answered with this blog title.
I've worked with a lot of idols, famous and infamous, but no one who carried himself like Ray, or presented himself as honestly as he did.
Like all of us, in the end Ray lived exactly as long as he lived (not to little or too long), but I am grateful for his time here during my time.
Play on, Brother Ray.
Wednesday, June 09, 2004
the music that fixes an image
....Spring, 1976. Driving non-stop alone from Indiana to Boston. No tape player in-dash, no radio stations except for fire 'n' brimstone preachers. My mono cassette machine and a backpack full of cassettes beside me.
Dawn hits on this drive somewhere in Pennsylvania. Just as my energy was waning and I figured I wasn't going to get saved that night, I reached into the backpack and pulled out a tape without looking. Popped it in without looking.
It was music I'd never heard. Synth arppegio running up from nowhere, a woman moaning, sound effects...and just when the first drum hit of Breathe smacks, I turn a corner and the first light breaks around a hill to a scene of my highway flowing infinitely between the hill and a river.
I'll never forget the image, and I see it every time I play Dark Side of the Moon.
Dawn hits on this drive somewhere in Pennsylvania. Just as my energy was waning and I figured I wasn't going to get saved that night, I reached into the backpack and pulled out a tape without looking. Popped it in without looking.
It was music I'd never heard. Synth arppegio running up from nowhere, a woman moaning, sound effects...and just when the first drum hit of Breathe smacks, I turn a corner and the first light breaks around a hill to a scene of my highway flowing infinitely between the hill and a river.
I'll never forget the image, and I see it every time I play Dark Side of the Moon.
Wednesday, January 21, 2004
Pirates, Stereo, Mad Cows, and The Power of Words
In a time before personal computers and AIDS, I was told to come in after class by my English teacher in high school. She wanted to talk to me about some words I had used in class. These didn't include the F word, the S word, or any on George Carlin's list. They included pissed (as in "pissed off") and bitch (as in "bitched out").
She was probably in her forties, and probably considered herself hip to these kids, but was undoubtedly raised in a time when there was little wiggle room in school on the concept of "proper" language. She wanted me to say "ticked off" instead of "pissed off", and my concept was that words were free and shouldn't be constrained, while I pointed out that I kept myself from using the F word and the S word in school, because I was smart enough to know the rules and consequences on cursing. I considered her attitude prissy and closed, but I made the choice to follow the herd...
The media in general (I'm not demonizing the media, but I probably will be throwing the good in with the bad, in this case),
is using some words that are just plain wrong. They are taking the easy way out, not thinking this through, and probably in some cases (I'm not singling out Fox News) choosing words to sensationalize a concept.
*
Pirates. To pirate something was to steal something, derive income from it, and deprive income from it to the previous owner.
People who pirated were called pirates. The word pirate is from
Middle English (from Old French, from Latin prta, from Greek peirts, from peirn), to attempt, from peira, trial. It's generally accepted that the term was applied to criminals-at-sea because to live, they would attempt or try anything, presumably anything out of the accepted ethical and moral ways to live their lives. Current usage of pirate for someone who trades a file on the internet came by way of pirate radio stations, famously operating from waters off British shores, that didn't submit to government fees and regulations; pirate was a cute way to refer to these stations. These stations made no profit, but played music that the BBC wouldn't play, and besides infringing on legally assigned radio frequencies, caused little trouble.
Now, people who have an MP3 image of a music recording on their hard drive are called pirates. Where's the profit to this sharer? Where's the deprivation of potential profit or deprivation of use for the owner (let's assume that the potential marketing value of this availability is at least equal to the potential for loss). People selling mixtapes or bootlegging copies of other peoples' property to sell at flea markets or on the streets of Shanghai are certainly pirates. To call these people pirates provides the media with a way to stir peoples' emotions and give their audience a hook to remember this attractive issue from one relevant story to the next. To call them infringers (if this file sitting on their hard drive is indeed a copy of the copyright holder's intellectual property, or if this file is indeed a performance, both of which would be an infringement of the copyright holder's exclusive rights), would be more accurate wouldn't be as sexy. To call them file traders would be even less sexy, but if the file is sitting on their hard drive, are they even trading it?
*
The definition of Stereo: A combining form meaning solid, hard, firm, as in stereochemistry, stereography.
Origin: Gr. Stereos solid. See Stare to gaze. From the Greek "stereos" meaning "solid" - having three dimensions.
Two-channel, 5.1, 10.2, etc., are all examples of stereo audio. Our purpose and intent is to present music and sounds so that they appear as a solid audio image to the listener. Two channels have been in common use for half a century, but this limitation to two speaker was chosen mostly for marketing reasons: the consumer audio companies recognized the appeal of stereo sound, but chose to believe that people would only be willing to accept the addition of one other speaker (and amplifier channel) in their living rooms. Stereo sound had first been presented, in theaters, using three channels across the front. The three-channel stereo approach persisted in theater settings and in professional music production, and is thankfully finding its way to homes.
Six-speaker (or more) systems will of course never be accepted or applicable in every listening situation, but peoples' willingness to install these speaker systems in their homes for movie presentations has shown that there is a substantial market for music presented in better stereo than two channels can provide.
It's time to take back the word "stereo" and apply it any time a solid sonic-image presentation is desired, and not limit this word's usage to two-channel.
*
Mad Cow! The chance of getting Mad Cow disease is less than being struck by lightning six thousand times in your life. The media, needing something to talk about and again to hook people into coming back for more thrills tomorrow (same bat time, same bat channel), call this bug Mad Cow instead of BSE, the abbreviation of the real name of the disease. People get rabies every year and die; people put things up their rear end and die, yet nobody gets Mad Cow, and we could choose to completely avoid the issue by not eating beef if we wanted, and we still hear stories about Mad Cow every day.
The power of words ebbs and flows. Whether it is with great thought or casual indifference, the words we choose affect the impact and clear communication of our ideas. When we speak of the presentation of ideas we have to care to choose our words wisely. It is unwise in the popular media to choose inflammatory words which distort the impact of the described condition.
My high school English teacher should be proud of how I observe the power of words, and their effect on us.
She was probably in her forties, and probably considered herself hip to these kids, but was undoubtedly raised in a time when there was little wiggle room in school on the concept of "proper" language. She wanted me to say "ticked off" instead of "pissed off", and my concept was that words were free and shouldn't be constrained, while I pointed out that I kept myself from using the F word and the S word in school, because I was smart enough to know the rules and consequences on cursing. I considered her attitude prissy and closed, but I made the choice to follow the herd...
The media in general (I'm not demonizing the media, but I probably will be throwing the good in with the bad, in this case),
is using some words that are just plain wrong. They are taking the easy way out, not thinking this through, and probably in some cases (I'm not singling out Fox News) choosing words to sensationalize a concept.
*
Pirates. To pirate something was to steal something, derive income from it, and deprive income from it to the previous owner.
People who pirated were called pirates. The word pirate is from
Middle English (from Old French, from Latin prta, from Greek peirts, from peirn), to attempt, from peira, trial. It's generally accepted that the term was applied to criminals-at-sea because to live, they would attempt or try anything, presumably anything out of the accepted ethical and moral ways to live their lives. Current usage of pirate for someone who trades a file on the internet came by way of pirate radio stations, famously operating from waters off British shores, that didn't submit to government fees and regulations; pirate was a cute way to refer to these stations. These stations made no profit, but played music that the BBC wouldn't play, and besides infringing on legally assigned radio frequencies, caused little trouble.
Now, people who have an MP3 image of a music recording on their hard drive are called pirates. Where's the profit to this sharer? Where's the deprivation of potential profit or deprivation of use for the owner (let's assume that the potential marketing value of this availability is at least equal to the potential for loss). People selling mixtapes or bootlegging copies of other peoples' property to sell at flea markets or on the streets of Shanghai are certainly pirates. To call these people pirates provides the media with a way to stir peoples' emotions and give their audience a hook to remember this attractive issue from one relevant story to the next. To call them infringers (if this file sitting on their hard drive is indeed a copy of the copyright holder's intellectual property, or if this file is indeed a performance, both of which would be an infringement of the copyright holder's exclusive rights), would be more accurate wouldn't be as sexy. To call them file traders would be even less sexy, but if the file is sitting on their hard drive, are they even trading it?
*
The definition of Stereo:
Origin: Gr. Stereos solid. See Stare to gaze. From the Greek "stereos" meaning "solid" - having three dimensions.
Two-channel, 5.1, 10.2, etc., are all examples of stereo audio. Our purpose and intent is to present music and sounds so that they appear as a solid audio image to the listener. Two channels have been in common use for half a century, but this limitation to two speaker was chosen mostly for marketing reasons: the consumer audio companies recognized the appeal of stereo sound, but chose to believe that people would only be willing to accept the addition of one other speaker (and amplifier channel) in their living rooms. Stereo sound had first been presented, in theaters, using three channels across the front. The three-channel stereo approach persisted in theater settings and in professional music production, and is thankfully finding its way to homes.
Six-speaker (or more) systems will of course never be accepted or applicable in every listening situation, but peoples' willingness to install these speaker systems in their homes for movie presentations has shown that there is a substantial market for music presented in better stereo than two channels can provide.
It's time to take back the word "stereo" and apply it any time a solid sonic-image presentation is desired, and not limit this word's usage to two-channel.
*
Mad Cow! The chance of getting Mad Cow disease is less than being struck by lightning six thousand times in your life. The media, needing something to talk about and again to hook people into coming back for more thrills tomorrow (same bat time, same bat channel), call this bug Mad Cow instead of BSE, the abbreviation of the real name of the disease. People get rabies every year and die; people put things up their rear end and die, yet nobody gets Mad Cow, and we could choose to completely avoid the issue by not eating beef if we wanted, and we still hear stories about Mad Cow every day.
The power of words ebbs and flows. Whether it is with great thought or casual indifference, the words we choose affect the impact and clear communication of our ideas. When we speak of the presentation of ideas we have to care to choose our words wisely. It is unwise in the popular media to choose inflammatory words which distort the impact of the described condition.
My high school English teacher should be proud of how I observe the power of words, and their effect on us.
Tuesday, December 23, 2003
RIAA and MPAA - Poor, Poor Pitiful Me
And with these trade organizations, it is me, me, me, me, and more me, please.
The music industry is a profitable but basically self-hating, failing organism. The business model built over the last 25 or so years, based on Album sales and indentured-servitude artist contracts, is based in another time and another place. The record companies' refusal to re-evaluate and re-structure, with current culture and technology in mind, is setting back art (or at least Pop Art) 25 years in the process, all to support funneling revenue to the top of the business food chain.
The movie industry has found ways, in the face of changing culture and technology, to prosper. Still relying on the blockbuster (not Blockbuster©) for profits to support the less-or-non-profitable releases, motion picture studios need to figure out a way to level the differences between profitable movies and non-profitable movies so more and better films can be made, but finds ways (like home/rental video releases andforeignn distribution) to recoup expenses from even modestly attended film releases.
These industries desire to be ten times bigger than they are, but they will never be pharmaceutical companies or automobile manufacturers. The potential for exponentially increased profits (and more yachts, tennis courts, and Lakers tickets for the execs) blinds these industries to how they may be able to ensure that there is a profitable entertainment industry for their grandchildren, and that our entertainment continues to become more...entertaining, and enlightening.
So what do they do to their best customers? Sue them! Tell them they are criminals for listening to free music! Whack away at the best marketing tools since the invention of radio and television.
The recent rulings against the RIAA's actions and specific sections of the DMCA are perhaps the first blows for sanity, and the future of music, in quite a while. Simply put, the RIAA isn't a special class, and potential violators of copyright law, whether on the internet, at a friend's house, or at your local public library, have to be treated at least as well as any other accused criminal. An ISP can't be responsible for what people do with its technology any more than Ma Bell could when Al Capone called to order a hit on someone.
Whether trading a file on the internet is indeed a violation of any law has not yet been tested in the courts. As someone who depends on the music industry for his living, I insist that there be a way to recognize when an artistic creation belongs to me, and a way for revenue generated by this art to reach me.
Copyright law is woefully inadequate to the task in light of today's technology and culture. The DMCA is a step backward to an economic stone age, where the caveman with the biggest club will win the prey; in fact, it puts that club in the hand of it's worst-case owner: the government. Anyone who considers themselves conservative and has expressed a desire for smaller government should have been howling at this travesty of personal rights since its first draft, but the DMCA was passed in an atmosphere of supporting a bigger, stronger government and political structure at any cost. Jefferson's ideal of limited copyright to encourage creativity yet not empower government or big-business monopolies over art should be the model to which we return.
The RIAA has positioned itself to gain enormous political power, through its recent appointment of Cary Sherman as president in particular, far beyond its natural reach in society. It has superficially liberal politicians, like California's Boxer and Waxman, basically on the industry teat, supporting the town-company like a company-town politician should.
These politicians won't have a broad voter base if the voters wake up and see how they protect, at least in this instance, the greed of the few over the need of the many; the ranks of artists and consumers far outweigh the privileged entertainment industry executive class.
The RIAA and MPAA do not in any way, shape, or form, represent the interests of artists and consumers They must realize that society and industry will be better served by more creative art and unfettered freedom, and act to support art and free exchange of ideas.
And with these trade organizations, it is me, me, me, me, and more me, please.
The music industry is a profitable but basically self-hating, failing organism. The business model built over the last 25 or so years, based on Album sales and indentured-servitude artist contracts, is based in another time and another place. The record companies' refusal to re-evaluate and re-structure, with current culture and technology in mind, is setting back art (or at least Pop Art) 25 years in the process, all to support funneling revenue to the top of the business food chain.
The movie industry has found ways, in the face of changing culture and technology, to prosper. Still relying on the blockbuster (not Blockbuster©) for profits to support the less-or-non-profitable releases, motion picture studios need to figure out a way to level the differences between profitable movies and non-profitable movies so more and better films can be made, but finds ways (like home/rental video releases andforeignn distribution) to recoup expenses from even modestly attended film releases.
These industries desire to be ten times bigger than they are, but they will never be pharmaceutical companies or automobile manufacturers. The potential for exponentially increased profits (and more yachts, tennis courts, and Lakers tickets for the execs) blinds these industries to how they may be able to ensure that there is a profitable entertainment industry for their grandchildren, and that our entertainment continues to become more...entertaining, and enlightening.
So what do they do to their best customers? Sue them! Tell them they are criminals for listening to free music! Whack away at the best marketing tools since the invention of radio and television.
The recent rulings against the RIAA's actions and specific sections of the DMCA are perhaps the first blows for sanity, and the future of music, in quite a while. Simply put, the RIAA isn't a special class, and potential violators of copyright law, whether on the internet, at a friend's house, or at your local public library, have to be treated at least as well as any other accused criminal. An ISP can't be responsible for what people do with its technology any more than Ma Bell could when Al Capone called to order a hit on someone.
Whether trading a file on the internet is indeed a violation of any law has not yet been tested in the courts. As someone who depends on the music industry for his living, I insist that there be a way to recognize when an artistic creation belongs to me, and a way for revenue generated by this art to reach me.
Copyright law is woefully inadequate to the task in light of today's technology and culture. The DMCA is a step backward to an economic stone age, where the caveman with the biggest club will win the prey; in fact, it puts that club in the hand of it's worst-case owner: the government. Anyone who considers themselves conservative and has expressed a desire for smaller government should have been howling at this travesty of personal rights since its first draft, but the DMCA was passed in an atmosphere of supporting a bigger, stronger government and political structure at any cost. Jefferson's ideal of limited copyright to encourage creativity yet not empower government or big-business monopolies over art should be the model to which we return.
The RIAA has positioned itself to gain enormous political power, through its recent appointment of Cary Sherman as president in particular, far beyond its natural reach in society. It has superficially liberal politicians, like California's Boxer and Waxman, basically on the industry teat, supporting the town-company like a company-town politician should.
These politicians won't have a broad voter base if the voters wake up and see how they protect, at least in this instance, the greed of the few over the need of the many; the ranks of artists and consumers far outweigh the privileged entertainment industry executive class.
The RIAA and MPAA do not in any way, shape, or form, represent the interests of artists and consumers They must realize that society and industry will be better served by more creative art and unfettered freedom, and act to support art and free exchange of ideas.
Monday, December 08, 2003
Good points in this letter to the LATimes:
"doctors, lawyers and insurance companies who benefit from this $30-billion extortion", "California employers pay two to three times more than the rest of the country and give legitimately injured workers the worst benefits in the nation".
I would bet that this business owner voted to recall the sitting Governor and voted to elect Schwarzenegger. She blames the state legislature for this situation, and I can't argue much about any negative evaluation of that snake pit. To blame our porky representatives for the greed and robbery of the insurance companies is ultimately disingenuous.
Insurance companies, barring 9/11 losses, are having a great year, and a great decade. They spread out your-and-my money by investing it, so their stock market profits have been flat over, say, five years. Is it any surprise that given the opportunity, and legal possibility, they raise rates when and where they can? Since WC insurance is required of employers by state law, state law should also reasonably regulate what the employers can be charged.
Given that studies show that Californians are nearly 50% more likely that the residents of other states to file WC claims, we have to know that human nature will rear its beautiful head when allowed. This does not mean that we can let Business Nature grab small businesses (who insures the insurers?...) and toss them (at least the cowardly, unimaginative and racist among them) to neighboring states.
"doctors, lawyers and insurance companies who benefit from this $30-billion extortion", "California employers pay two to three times more than the rest of the country and give legitimately injured workers the worst benefits in the nation".
I would bet that this business owner voted to recall the sitting Governor and voted to elect Schwarzenegger. She blames the state legislature for this situation, and I can't argue much about any negative evaluation of that snake pit. To blame our porky representatives for the greed and robbery of the insurance companies is ultimately disingenuous.
Insurance companies, barring 9/11 losses, are having a great year, and a great decade. They spread out your-and-my money by investing it, so their stock market profits have been flat over, say, five years. Is it any surprise that given the opportunity, and legal possibility, they raise rates when and where they can? Since WC insurance is required of employers by state law, state law should also reasonably regulate what the employers can be charged.
Given that studies show that Californians are nearly 50% more likely that the residents of other states to file WC claims, we have to know that human nature will rear its beautiful head when allowed. This does not mean that we can let Business Nature grab small businesses (who insures the insurers?...) and toss them (at least the cowardly, unimaginative and racist among them) to neighboring states.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)