Slashdot Mirror
Telemarketer Blows Whistle on Tape-Altering Scam
Recently, Florida-based telemarketing firm Epixtar is frequently accused of cramming an extra $30 onto phone charges of small businesses, yet has proof of legality by recording their calls. Until they laid off some people, one of whom has blown the whistle. The companies' cramming tactics become "legal" by altering those taped recordings to include a quick statement about the $30 charge. MSNBC has the article, including a short audio clip of a sample call.
As long as the employees were getting a big enough piece of the pie, they kept quiet. They should be charged with aiding in the crime.
Jason
ProfQuotes
"The company feels it operates ethically and has not done anything wrong," Nasca said.
If you're getting anrgy phonecalls from the people who are giving you money (more or less by voluntarely), you're probaly doing something wrong and / or unethically. Wether you give a damn is another matter entirely... many a sucxessfull business (spammers etc) depends on pissing people off.
Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
Because once you air this sort of thing, it sort of kills your career.
It's often better to voice your concerns internally, and work to improve the system from within.
I find it very moral to give a company a chance to improve itself. (How long a chance? About as long as it takes for the would-be-whistleblower to find a better job.)
If you're working at one of these places you're doing it for the money, not for a warm feeling. Morality is a luxury many people can not afford.
People don't do telemarketing jobs because they have in-demand skills and a big pile-o-cash to fall back on if they get laid off and can't find another job once word gets out they rat on the boss.
It may be the right thing to do, but being in the right doesn't keep you off the streets, unfortunately.
> thing?
I worked at a newspaper once. In my state, it is legal to carry a concealed firearm if you are licensed to do so. An employer or business may prohibit even licenced holders from carrying their weapons on the premises, and this newspaper does.
My supervisor didn't have such a license, because she found it too restrictive to bother with, in part because she couldn't take her weapon into bars. Instead, she worked a couple of nights a month as a volunteer patrol officer and was certified and licensed as a peace officer in Texas (having had a previous career as a full-time police officer). As a peace officer, she could carry her weapon anywhere, anytime she wanted to. That included bars, restaurants, and her place of regular employment, despite the no-guns policy.
The employer's representative had a meeting with her and they let her know in no uncertain terms that, under the law, while they couldn't prevent her from bringing her weapon to work, there were lots of reasons to fire people.
As a consequence, she left her weapon in the car when she came to work.
People who work for telemarketers typically aren't well paid, aren't in it because they love it, and do have families to support and bills that way outstrip their meager incomes, especially in bust economies where unemployment is rising.
It is illegal to fire people for whistle-blowing under state and federal whistle-blowing statues. A person so terminated can recover in a number of ways. Regrettably, most people aren't aware of their rights and even if they are aware of them, do not know how or do not have the money to invoke and protect them.
Besides, there are lots of reasons to fire people.
Remove the caps and hold to a mirror.
That may be stuff that is amusing to individuals, but it isn't exactly legally binding material. When they ask you if you want to order something, and you say "yeah, just in time, the bank hates bounced checks", you still gave a positive answer to the question.
I find it much better to know the laws, and ask them a million and one questions that they legally have to answer.
"What's the name of your boss??? And how do you spell 'Bob'? Slower! Again! Didn't quite catch that... Okay, and his last name? How do you spell that?" etc.
Waste enough of their time, and you'll feel much better, partly because they'll never be stupid enough to call you again.
Of course, with the federal do-not-call list, we may just see the end of telemarketers.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
The worst was a local newspaper calling around for new subscriptions. He starts out saying what paper he's calling about and asks whether I receive their paper. I say no. Then he starts off on a sales pitch, which I interrupt to say that the reason I don't receive the paper already is that I don't WANT it, since I get my news from the net. The guy actually tries to continue on reading the script or whatever he's got in front of him... took a couple tries to be polite about not wanting what he's selling before I just flat out said "Listen to the words coming out of my mouth. Not interested." and hung up on the guy. In retrospect that should have been my first response.
I'm amazed people still sit on the phone with these bottom-feeders and answer their questions, unwillingly signing themselves up for a ton of crap. It's not hard to tell them to piss off instead of falling for their tactics.
"I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
-Hoban Washburn
Besides, there are lots of reasons to fire people."
Problem 1 is that it costs money for justice or to prove your innocense in America. Since your fired you no longer have income to pay the legal fee's.
Problem 2 is you have to prove why you were terminated. The burden of proof is usually on the guy who has the least resources. A corporation can make shit up or can find a reason to can you.
I heard stories from other slashdotters of getting fired for leaving the lights on after work, coming in 5 minutes late, spending more then 30 minutes for lunch, being assigned something impossible to finish on purpose so you look bad during a performance review, etc. All of these cases had to do with things like threatening to join unions, complain about there bosses to hr, to threatening to quit, to just about anything.
After all this shit HR will force you to sign a self incriminating document as part of your pink slip to receive severance pay. If you refuse they will then terminate you for sub-ordination and disciplinary issues.
Either way in court they have documents to prove that your performance was the reason you were let go.
Last lets say by a miracle you won and your employer was forced to rehire you. Would you really want to continue to work there? Don't you think they will make you quit one way or another? Kind of like the weird guy in the movie office space. (they cut off his paychecks and moved him into the basement, and forced him to setup bug traps)
I was a merchandiser once and this lady came in late 3 out of 5 days a week and always complained. She filed a sexual harrasment complaint when my boss made her sign a document stating that she was about to be canned and she had 60 days to straighten her act or else. He fired her after she refused to sign it and cursed him off. HR forced him to rehire her after the complaint was filed. Anyway he gave her 3 times as much work to do as anyone else until she quit. Same is true here.
http://saveie6.com/
The companies' cramming tactics become "legal" by altering those taped recordings to include a quick statement about the $30 charge.
That's not what the article says. It hints that the tape was cut off immediately after the person responded "Yes" to a group of questions asked quickly all at once, removing the rest of their response. Which is still bad but not nearly as bad as inserting bits into the conversation that never took place. I'm sure that's not far off, if it's not already happening in some cases, but it didn't happen here according to the MSNBC article.
Of course, the best thing to say is:
"Please add this number to your Do Not Call list."
(Note the important difference between "add" and "remove" - many people ask for their number to be removed, which does nothing - the company has plenty of lists of people to call, so if you get removed from one list, you're bound to show up on several more.)
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Not to mention that in a case like this people have been wronged by the company, and deserve redress, which will never occur due to internal reform.
Maybe if you believe the company is doing things that are unethical but legal, then you can try to reform from within. But when it's illegal (or deeply unethical) you have a moral duty to blow the whistle, even if it's going to suck for you. You aren't allowed to put ethics aside because they aren't convenient.
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
-Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
You dang americans with your pro-gun propoganda.
The employers primary concern would be their employees. If she is so well trained in its use you would expect her to know better than to leave it in a relatively unsafe car.
Glenn
The Smrt way to trade CFDs on the ASX
What scares me is businesses are arranging with banks on direct account withdrawals, and checking account numbers are pretty easy to come by. I mean, if you have ever paid something by check, they have it. And now, they do not even need a signed check to get withdrawal. So you could see charges showing up on your checking account that you have no idea what is.
And dealing with a business is kinda scary, because they have links to Equifax, TransUnion, and Experian. They can mess up your credit and then you have to straighten that out too. You might as well pay them their money just not to have to argue about it. I mean, like me - if I get my credit all screwed up over some business that slipped a charge on me for some "professional services listing" and I refused to pay, I might be denied a job because of that stain. And they know this.
So, I try to keep any monthly billing I have to as few of entities as possible. Once a company has legitimate billing access, they have a foot in the door that a telemarketer can use to fool me into thinking I am doing business with somebody I am already doing business with... like the way they bamboozled the guy with the trick 4-in-one question that if he said "yes" ( which was the obvious answer to three of the questions - if the name, address, and number was correct ), he implies acceptance of the quickly stated fourth question - that he is authorized to modify his billing.
With a business model out now that depends on signing up monthly billing, I see the opportunity for scamming artists soaring, as the number of open accounts, ripe for modification, soars.
I continue all attempts to make purchases on a per-instance basis, meaning I pay full price for the product and close the sale, leaving no loose ends. None of this "support", "warranty", "revolving charge account", etc. I walk out the door with the product, and the vendor has been paid in full. That way things don't change after the agreement has been made.
I have done way too much business already with businesses ( especially insurance companies, and any company having anything to do with investments ) that love to send me tons of paper describing changes after I have agreed to something.
Damm, I just don't have time to read it all. I really *hate* to do business under that business model.
This is the thing that had me so worked up over the Lexmark Printer thing ( where Static Control Concepts tried to make an aftermarket replacement toner cartridge but ran afoul of DMCA because Lexmark put a chip in the toner cartridge, and SCC could not legally duplicate the chip. ). Once this paradigm catches on in the business community, I fear we will see the end of going to WalMart to get replacement aftermarket goods for our day-to-day expendables. Companies could demand and get agreements for monthly billings, and once that's in place, the door is wide open for rampant trickery to modify those agreements.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
Jesus of Nazareth did not voice his concerns internally and work to improve the system from within. True change requires true sacrifice, which few are willing to make.
One more thing, in the case of prostitution using the service is completely optional. Whereas in telemarketing it crosses the boundries of the home. There is little escape from it. It's really a complete reversal from prostitution in how unethical it is.
-tog
Uh, your post made little sense in general (I hope English is not your first language) but this last sentence really takes the proverbial cake. The fact that you enjoy your job and get paid well does not make you moral. A CEO of an overly large software and operating systems company utilizing unfair marketing practices to crush hopes and dreams, and a contract killer could both have those things in common.
The moral defense of prostitution is that it is a victimless crime, which makes you wonder why it is a crime at all. As George Carlin says, "Selling is legal; fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal?" As far as I can tell, it is religious in nature, based on the prohibition of extramarital sex. Sex, even for money, is still a fairly beautiful and awe-inspiring thing. People not getting laid is probably a significant cause of misbehavior in this world, and so I favor anything outside of rape or coercion that lets more people have it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It's time for you to move out of your mother's basement.
Simply put, blood is thicker than water and moral pomposity won't feed the kids.
While it would be nice if we could all live perfect lives. The sad truth is that most of us are little more than worker ants doing whatever necessary merely to survive. Unless you were born with a silver spoon so far down your throat it was coming back out your *ss, "moral superiority" is simply something else you can't afford.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
What are you talking about? This applies to priests, lawyers, and psychiatrists.
Those are the ones forbidden to come forth. It's a different state than "not being compelled."
It does not apply to employees. Being an employee does not absolve you of the responsibility to report crimes.
You DO NOT have a responsibility to report crimes unless you're a police officer or a lawyer. You have no right to impede investigation into crimes, but you are not compelled to come forth and testify about every "crime" you see.
By that standard no one in Enron broke the law -- they were all in eaah other's confidence. Your conclusion is absurd.
Y'know, you really should come up with a better model of absurdity.
No one in the Enron case who didn't have a special complusion to be honest--the CEO and the CFO and the auditor--broke any law by being silent about things that they may or may not have. And, similarly, those that did come forward didn't break any law either.
Please go look up the difference between 'compel', 'forbid', and 'allow.' They ARE different, you know.