Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Congress Investigates Carriers' Debt Collections

Posted by Soulskill on from the voters-are-in-favor-of-kneecaps dept.

Julie188 writes "'Tis the season for the government to crack down on abusive practices by your secretly evil national wireless carrier. Next up: a congressional committee will be looking into a debt collection practice that prevents customers from filing lawsuits. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) will be examining a contract clause that forces customers to waive their right to sue and instead agree to forced arbitration. He is hot on the tails of the carriers after a similar investigation of credit card companies lead to nine banks removing the forced arbitration clause from their contracts. This follows the week's earlier news that the FCC was going to try to come up with new rules to prevent wireless bill shock."

30 of 134 comments (clear)

  1. If you need an honest man by ciaran_o_riordan · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think Dennis Kucinich is someone that can be trusted to look after the people instead of pandering to business.

    --
    Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
    1. Re:If you need an honest man by bsDaemon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I heard he once told staffers of Nanci Pelosi and a pair of AIPAC lobbyists to get the hell out of his office and not come back. Word has it now he's denying it happened, but its the kind of thing he'd do, and really raised my estimation of him from that of cooky communist elf man to someone who also wants to tell AIPAC to go to hell.

      I met him once by accident, briefly. However, he had wondered off before I could ask him to be in a short video clip saying "they're always after me lucky charms." His ears are slightly more pointed in person than they are on TV.

    2. Re:If you need an honest man by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Interesting

      >>>Dennis Kucinich is someone that can be trusted to look after the people instead of pandering to business.

      Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. I saw them on television recently, discussing all the things they had in common. For example, both think the Federal Reserve (central bank) is a business monopoly that screws the customers by devaluing paper money, and should be audited at least once per decade to find out where the money is being spent, and possibly dissolved.

      BTW binding arbitration doesn't mean much. Paypal tried to include that in their TOS but when they later were sued by State AGs for stealing money from customer accounts, the justice quickly nullified the clause as being in violation of consumer protection laws. He said that users cannot sign-away rights already protected by superior laws. Same applies here with the wireless carriers.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    3. Re:If you need an honest man by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Informative

      He's no communist, and he's definitely not a kook. He's my congressman, and I've spoken with him at several public events. The thing is, he has throughout his career taken stands that upset the rich and powerful, so they often do their best to portray him as a kook.

      For instance, the most famous episode from early in his political career (as mayor of Cleveland) was refusing to sell Cleveland's municipal power company to the private company that controls most of Ohio's electricity market. The electric company's pals at the banks then threatened the city with default rather than rolling over the debt as they had been doing for decades. Dennis stood his ground, the banks made good on their threat, and Kucinich lost his reelection bid. But in the long run he saved residents and businesses in Cleveland millions of dollars in electric bills.

      His more recent exploits include:
        * Refusing to support the Patriot Act.
        * Refusing to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He consistantly votes against appropriations for those wars, and has been doing so since before they started.
        * Introducing articles of impeachment against both George W Bush and Dick Cheney.
        * Acting as one of the leaders of the backbencher holdouts for a public option in the health care reform bill. Unfortunately, Obama was able to convince him that HCR without a public option was better than no HCR, so he eventually voted for it.

      The Democratic leadership doesn't give a damn what he does, though, because he's not good at getting oodles of lobbyist dollars (gee, I wonder why). So when he was running for President in 2008, the questions he got during debates were about whether he'd seen a UFO, not about his plans for reforming health care without mandating that everyone buy insurance.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    4. Re:If you need an honest man by emt377 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      BTW binding arbitration doesn't mean much. Paypal tried to include that in their TOS but when they later were sued by State AGs for stealing money from customer accounts, the justice quickly nullified the clause as being in violation of consumer protection laws. He said that users cannot sign-away rights already protected by superior laws. Same applies here with the wireless carriers.

      Sounds plausible. From a broader perspective one has to ask whether a corporation that tries to make customers sign contractual agreements that make them think they've forfeited inalienable legal rights is bargaining in good faith. It ranks up there with usury and breaking people's legs to make them pay up. It also ought to run right into our constitutional right to due process.

  2. eh? by scarface71795 · · Score: 2, Funny

    At least this shows congress doesn't deepthroat the corporations dicks They just go halfway in

  3. Hmm this word you keep using... by jeffmeden · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Tis the season for the government to crack down on abusive practices by your secretly evil national wireless carrier

    That is the worst kept secret EVER. They are all evil, every last one of them, and if you don't know this by now then you must not have ever had a cellphone before.

    1. Re:Hmm this word you keep using... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Enumerate? 1. Subsidizing all those "smart phones" that are worth $500 to $800 (more?) by scamming the public into accepting expensive two year contracts. Yes, it's a SCAM! Sell those phones at their real value, be open and honest about what the phone really costs, then just sell phone service for ~$20/month, with unlimited talk and text, plus maybe another $20 for unlimited data. 2. Charging crazy rates for text. Everything that I've read says that it costs the phone company almost NOTHING to send out those text messages. 3. Accepting government funds to build infrastructure that never gets built. Phone and data companies are tripping over each other in the inner cities and wealthier suburbs - but the infrastructure doesn't make it out into the rest of the country. 4. Blocking local governments from building the infrastructure that the phone companies don't want to build anyway. 5. Sending out zillion dollar phone bills without ever even questioning the crazy amounts. I mean - if you sold a phone to an old guy who only calls his daughter once a week, and he talks for 10 minutes each time, then suddenly his bill is $20,000 - SOMETHING IS WRONG!!! Someone stole his phone, or your computers are borked! 6. Ironclad contracts that say that the company can never be wrong, never be liable, and if there is any question, review rules one and two. 7. Customer service SUCKS. They don't intend to serve any customers, it's just that simple. Enough?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  4. Just ban "forced arbitration" by jonwil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They should ban forced arbitration clauses in any one-sided contract including credit cards, telecommunications service, cable service and utility service.

    1. Re:Just ban "forced arbitration" by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      and employment contracts!

      those are even worse and we all have a lot more to lose on those.

      want to work for another company? is it related to what you do now? there is probably a 'no compete' clause that is actually illegal in your state and yet still prominently listed in your contract.

      cell phones affect 'the masses' and the worst that happens is you lose your phone and get upset. its a problem but its not 'americas biggest problem' right now. not saying employment is, either, but its FAR more life damaging if your company wants to put the screws to you than some stupid cell phone toy gadget. you NEED your job (or a job) to live. no one NEEDS cellphones, those are toys for the rich (even though every single commercial tries to convince you that 'everyone needs a cellphone'). I lived decades and decades without carry a portable phone. its NOT needed!

      but jobs, those are needed.

      forced arb. in employment contracts are far more evil an than any cellphone co.

      and nothing is being done about the state of employment contracts.

      arbitration is evil but why is congress only attacking the cellphone part of the problem?

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  5. Arbitration == Corporate Justice by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Arbitration is essentially a system of parallel, private courts run by corporations, for corporations and for the express purpose of denying justice and avoiding the laws of the land. It's an absolutely corrupt system and should not be allowed to exist in any form whatsoever. Allowing seemingly innocuous instances of this practice has lead to private companies forcing rape victims to give up their rights. Corporation employees can abuse people in any way they please and can rely on their own private courts to avoid any reprecussions. Judges support this creeping privatisation of the judiciary as they are rewarded with handsome salaries as the private magistrates of these twisted courts.

    Around the time of the Jamie Leigh Jones rape arbitration scandal, I remember speaking with someone in management about arbitration--I live in Ireland. He claimed that the trend in business--magazines, conferences and so on--was pushing arbitration heavily. As the "modern" way of doing business. The conversation sent a chill down my spine. The laws of my country and the people in it were being put in dire jeopardy, our legal protections being replaced right under our noses by this latest innovation in American savagery. At least I live in the EU; I can only imagine what must be occurring in Latin America or indeed the US itself.

    Arbitration is lawlessness. It is rule by the powerful over the weak. It's not even a form of order, as arbitration courts have no strict rules, no obligation to consider precedent, no means of appeal, and are not even obliged to publish their rulings, let alone have an open court. The North Koreans have a more enlightened legal system--and again that is not hyperbole. Any society that accepts the rule of such courts has abandoned all pretence of justice and equality and has turned the clock back a thousand years before even the Magna Carta. And no other society should follow them down the path to ruin.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
    1. Re:Arbitration == Corporate Justice by Phroggy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One is never obligated to enter into a contract requiring arbitration. I solve the problems you mention by not supporting companies that require it in the terms for their services.

      That may be technically true, but when one wants to be a normal functioning member of society, sometimes one needs the services provided by companies that have an arbitration clause in their contracts (and there is usually no competitive offer available from another company that does not include a similar clause in their contracts). Furthermore, since most of the public is generally unaware of arbitration and its implications, they're likely to skip over the fine print and just assume that it must be OK, since these contracts are "normal" and everyone else they know has already agreed to something similar.

      Free market capitalism depends on an educated and informed populace, and government intervention to prevent anticompetitive practices. When all companies in a market have an arbitration clause in their contracts, the people can't choose an alternative, and they're unaware that they should. It is wholly appropriate for the government to step in.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    2. Re:Arbitration == Corporate Justice by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And, you fail to point out, it is *completely voluntary*.

      So is any con game. Victims are willingly tricked into deals designed to hurt them. But that's not enough to make it legal, let alone ethical.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    3. Re:Arbitration == Corporate Justice by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Informative

      >>>private companies forcing rape victims to give up their rights

      Nice spin, but you blatantly skipped a crucial piece of information - The rape happened in Iraq, not here at home where US laws apply. No corporation could ever get away with raping a woman on US soil, and then force her to go to arbitration. The US and State Laws would apply.

      .

      >>>At least I live in the EU; I can only imagine what must be occurring in Latin America or indeed the US itself.

      Yeah it's like the Wild West in the US. (rolls eyes) I'm all for hating on corporations, but that doesn't mean it's okay to Lie via omission, or twisting the facts, which is what you are doing. No wonder every time I speak to a European, my compass gradually tips from the "love" to the "anger" part of the scale. The ANTI-american Hatred directed towards us is really growing tiresome (dare I say? racist?).

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    4. Re:Arbitration == Corporate Justice by n4djs · · Score: 2, Interesting
      This reminds of the time where I was at a go-kart track in NW Atlanta with my 11 year old son. Tons of signs "not liable for injury, we maintain no insurance"... He smacked the kart into the end of a concrete lane separator at ~20-25 mph, and his mouth hit the steering wheel of the kart, and his upper lip hit his teeth, resulting in a fair amount of blood. People from the track came to help, and they were looking at him and suggested that we take him to the emergency room. I suggested that they had not strapped him in correctly, or it would have been impossible to occur in the first place, and that I expected them to cover the medical bills. We took him on the hospital, and as it turned out his injuries were minor. The interesting things was that the next day, we heard from the track's insurance company that they would in fact take care of any deductibles or out of pocket expenses.

      Arbitration mentions in a contract are a lot like the signs at the go-kart track - they are designed to make people think that they have no legal recourse. To paraphrase a previous poster, judges don't take kindly to those who say they don't have a say in a situation that is placed in front of them. These clauses often get thrown out if a lawyer is involved, from what I have seen.

  6. Re:ooh ooh can it be removed form job contracts ne by DRJlaw · · Score: 3, Informative

    And having worked for the mobile phone company that has said forced arbitration, that was the favorite cause to beat customers around with when they say lawsuit. Not that anyone in customer care actually had any idea what the difference was between a lawsuit and arbitration was, just that 'we win automatically.'

    There's nothing inherently wrong with mandatory arbitration -- it is a cheaper way to resolve a dispute than going to court. However, like all decisions, even one made by a judge or jury, the decisionmakers have inbuilt biases and/or philosophies (I have no desire to argue over semantics, thank you very much).

    The problem with mass arbitration is that the ordinally sensible rules of arbitration are susceptible to gamesmanship, and the repeat player, i.e., in these cases the phone companies, have superior information that permits them to shift the odds of a favorable decision substantially towards them.

    In normal binding arbitration, each side has some ability to shape the arbitrator by objecting to the randomly assigned arbitrator (if there is a single arbitrator), or some of the members of the panel (if there is a panel of 3, the usual but less common alternative).

    Joe Schmoe may have been to arbitration once before in his life. He has no reason to object to an arbitrator that he doesn't know from Adam. MegaCorp keeps records of all its arbitration results. It knows that Arbitrator X rules against it in some non-trivial percentage of the cases before him/her. It objects in the hope of pulling another Arbitrator who is more favorable to it. Arbitrator X does not get paid for being an arbitrator in that case. Lather, rinse, and repeat. On average, the panels can be shifted to be more favorable to MegaCorp by strategic objection (object if record is unfavorable, do not if record is favorable), and Arbitrator X is not making nearly as good of a living as Arbitrator Y because he/she keeps getting removed from potential arbitrations. Arbitrator Y is making a good living due to a good record. You do not need to assign 'evil' motives to Arbitrator Y -- the pool of arbitrators will naturally enrich with those who are philosophically favorable to MegaCorp.

    And that, my friends, is why one never ever agrees to binding arbitration involving a repeat player who is permitted to object without cause. Of course, if you are facing a take-it-or-leave-it situation where the practice pervades an entire industry, then you need to turn to those dirty interventionist liberals (says the generally libertarian lawyer -- individuals have liberties, corporations not so much).

  7. Hrrrrm What is Congress up to by LouisJBouchard · · Score: 3, Informative

    The problem is that the Federal Government did not do anything to get arbitration removed by Credit Card issuing banks.

    What happened was that the banks used an organization called NAF which was literally funded by the banks. Of course NAF found for the banks 99% of the time. Then the MN Attorney General looking to make a name for herself took NAF to task and NAF folded. That left 2 arbitration forums that were more expensive for the banks and more consumer friendly than NAF.

    Some consumers actually read their contract and when they were brought to court for not paying their debts, used the contract against the banks to force the banks into paying 5-figure arbitration fees for 4-figure debts. The court judges in some states started to go along with the consumers. Hence, the banks removed arbitration from their contracts because they could not outright use it to screw over the customer anymore. Of course, the banks have a 98% success rate in court but that is because people do not answer the cases when summoned and even if they do answer, most answer "I cannot afford to pay".

    Do a search on credit debt collection boards and you will find what I mean about the above.

    So, since congress did not remove the arbitration clauses, why are they saying they did. Are they trying to turn this into something like the Providian case where they OCC entered at the last minute then turned around and said that state AGs cannot take banks to court for violations using that case as a success (again, look up Providian Credit Card Case)? I wonder if they are trying to protect the cell phone companies rather than the consumers.

  8. Re:In California - by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'd care MORE about employment contracts and forced arbitration.

    note: sorry for the very long post, but its important as it deals with employment in the tech field.

    I spent a good month dealing with an asshole company who would not give in on basic simple concepts. they created an employment contract, I rejected many lines in it and asked them to rewrite it. at first they understood that what they were asking for was illegal in california and unenforceable. a week later, their legal 'team' refused to edit even a single line in the employment contract. we tried another tact and gave them our own (I was going thru a middelman at the time) contract which I believed was a lot more fair to both sides. they refused.

    this went around and around for over a month. in the end, I walked away, at the advice of pretty much everyone.

    cellphones are BS, I can (and do) live well without one. nope, I don't own or carry one (at all). but I do need to have a job and the jobs are coming with 'strings attached' when you read the current crop of contracts.

    even if you say 'this is not enforceable in XYZ state' they won't back off.

    I learned one thing: when you get an employment offer, say 'thanks!' and then follow it with 'as soon as my lawyer reviews this, I'll get back to you'. non-confrontational but do NOT EVER EVER EVER sign an employment contract (these days) without YOUR legal guy looking it over.

    the way it has to work (again, as I learned my lesson) is: my 'guy' will call your guy and they'll talk legal shit to each other. 'where did you go to law school? oh yeah, did you know so and so?' etc etc.

    they connect and they review the doc and say 'you don't REALLY think its legal or fair to ask for clause #3, do you?' and it progresses with both lawyers comparing dick sizes (so to speak) and eventually coming to an agreement. what makes this work is that they both know that they know the laws and you can't BS a BSer. that's one key concept. the other is that you have to allow your layer to be the 'bad guy' and you should NEVER come off to the new company as the bad guy. you WANT to sign that contract but your lawyer (the 'bad guy') won't let you. you appear good to the new company but you also do NOT give up your rights.

    in the end, the company respects you, you KNOW you have a fair contract and no 'cannot work for competitors for next 10 years' BS clauses in there. your lawyer played good cop/bad cop with you and the company and you get a straight deal.

    if you do not do that, dollars to donuts you signed an indentured servant contract and didn't even realize it.

    especially NOW when the econ is in the dumps, companies are trying to screw you over with your employment contract. they count on the fact that you are 'desparate' enough to sign anything.

    don't object to HR when you are there. smile, thank them and tell them that as soon as your 'guy' checks this over, you'll be happy to sign it. then let your hired guy defend you before you sign that rotton scummy endentured servant agreement.

    lesson learned! please use this procedure next time you get an offer letter. I've found that in sofware (my field) almost NO ONE reads or even tries to cross out any lines in their contract. get a lawyer. its not just for 'top execs' anymore. we ALL need those guys to review our docs and fight for us.

    (you would not believe the legally unenforceable things in the text of my last contract. it made me and my recruiter pretty sick, I'll tell you.)

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  9. The Fed by sjbe · · Score: 3, Informative

    Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. I saw them on television recently, discussing all the things they had in common.

    How they are both fringe loonies that few people take very seriously? I've met Dennis Kucinich in person. Not a guy I'd vote for.

    For example, both think the Federal Reserve (central bank) is a business monopoly that screws the customers by devaluing paper money...

    A retarded notion. First off, only a tiny percentage of the money in the economy is actual paper/coin currency. We're talking single digit percentage. Second, the fed adjusts the amount of money in circulation both up and down to respond to the needs of the economy. Devaluing (usually called weakening) the currency is not necessarily bad because it makes exports more competitive. This is exactly what China has done with their currency - they hold it below its natural market value because it makes their exports cost less in other markets. Conversely, if you strengthen the dollar (take dollars out of circulation) you make imports cheaper but you hurt exports.

    , and should be audited at least once per decade to find out where the money is being spent, and possibly dissolved.

    While there are limits which are deserving of criticism, the Fed is regularly audited by the GAO. There are as we speak transparency laws and some (recently successful) lawsuits that should address some of these issues.

    As for dissolving the Fed, you'll need to first address how you are going to resolve the issues that the Fed currently exists to handle including check clearing, being a lender of last resort, managing nation wide payment systems, balancing the interests of private for-profit banks with that of government, keeping reserve funds for the banking system, adjusting the money supply, providing liquidity to lending institutions, reducing the chance of and impact of bank runs, controlling systemic financial risk and more. While the Fed is hardly a perfect institution (far from it), it serves a number of vital purposes. I have yet to hear anyone who proposes eliminating the Federal Reserve System actually address in any detail a replacement system. Central banks exist for some very good reasons.

    1. Re:The Fed by cob666 · · Score: 3, Informative

      If a candybar cost 1 penny in 1910, and now costs about a dollar for the Same candybar, it's obvious the money has been devalued to 1/100th its previous value.

      You're confusing devaluation with inflation.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
    2. Re:The Fed by vux984 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Put another way: If they had held the money supply constant, as they did in the 1800s, then a candybar would still cost just 1 penny. A man's business suit would still be just $5. And so on.

      If they'd held the money supply constant, things would be pretty out of whack by now simply due to the population expansion.

      76 million people in 1900 with all the currency distributed amongst them... 300+ million people now... that means the currency is going to be distributed a lot more thinly... better hope a business suit doesn't cost $5. Few would be able to afford it.

    3. Re:The Fed by vux984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have no idea what you're talking about

      Its simple. If you hold the money supply constant while the population quadruples you create a currency shortage. No different than if you held anything else constant... housing for example.

      Bottom line, you can't hold currency constant.

      You think people benefit because now they have to spend $500 to get a business suit instead of the $5 it cost in 1910? Or ~$200/week on food instead of the ~$2 it used to cost? If you do think that's beneficial, then you're no better than the corporations.

      I didn't say this benefits people. I just said holding it constant doesn't. So to sum up: Not expanding it causes problems. Expanding it to much causes problems.

    4. Re:The Fed by vux984 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Say, I have $1000 and there is 100,000 in circulation. That means my share of the total wealth is 1/100. Now if the Fed pumps in another 100,000 my share is suddenly 1/200.

      That's why wealthy people don't have a lot of cash. Wealth is measured in dollars, but only a fool would keep his wealth IN actual dollars. Dollars are not a store of wealth, they are convenient for transactions.

      A plot of land, a herd of cattle, a gold bar, a factory,... if the fed pumps in another 100,000 the valuation of these assets just goes up in dollars. Your real wealth is unaffected.

  10. Re:Where's the technology? by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here is what AT&T charges above the advertised rate for my wireless:

    Credits, Adjustments, and Other Charges:
    * Regulatory Cost Recovery Charge: 0.66
    * Federal Universal Service Charge: 1.04
    * TX Franschise Tax Recovery: 0.30
    * Texas Universal Service: 0.65

    Taxes:
    * 911 Service Fee: 0.50
    * Tx State Telecom Tax: 2.72
    * City Telecom Tax: 0.44
    * City District Telecom Tax: 0.29

    The important thing to note here is the "Credits, Adjustments, and Other Charges" section is not taxes. They are fees with names made up by AT&T to sound like taxes so customers won't complain. In reality this section is just an additional $2.65 monthly charge not included in the advertised rate. They should clearly state a rate for everything that is not taxes. But, of course, they are evil and regulation is weak so that will never happen.

  11. Re:Where's the technology? by Swanktastic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Universal Service Fund really is a tax. The bill was written specifically to make the phone companies look bad (ha ha I know) by taxing them above and beyond normal federal tax rates, then giving them the option to pass the charge onto their customers. Every business on the planet is going to pass that tax on, but congress can look good by saying "Hey your evil phone carrier is not voluntarily taking this tax out of their profits!"

    When possible, politicians try to have someone else collect their taxes so they're not the ones getting shot in a "shoot the messenger" situation.

  12. Re:Ummmmm... No by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The whole point is just to keep costs down.

    Yes, and this is done by denying people their rights. It's much cheaper to pay a rent-a-judge to deliver the verdict you'd prefer; I'm not disputing that. But my position is that this is an illegitimate system, and is essentially lawlessness in a pinstriped suit.

    Also please note that the KBR case is a bit of an oddity.

    It was the purest form of arbitration. The whole rotten system was laid bare for the world to see just how corrupt it really was, and exactly what its true purpose is. There are numerous examples of companies having people signaway their rights with smallprint mines in contracts. It's fraud, and the financial system once again leads the way, with credit card contracts being rife with these crooked mandatory binding arbitration clauses.

    The problem was that there was (and really is) no Iraqi justice system to go to.

    So where there is no law, we must rely on private industry to make its own. No. Never. Better no law at all than a corporate one--and that's not hyperbole!

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  13. Re:Where's the technology? by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Informative

    >>>"Credits, Adjustments, and Other Charges" section is not taxes.

    Uh, yes, yes they are taxes (and all it took was a google search to find this shit):

    - "The Federal Universal Service pays for four programs: Lifeline/Link-Up, High-Cost, Schools and Libraries, Rural Health Care (fcc.gov)
    - TX Franschise Tax Recovery is a tax (www.state.tx.us)
    - Texas Universal Service - ditto (www.state.tx.us)
    - "The Regulatory Cost Recovery Charge is a charge assessed by AT&T associated with payment of government imposed fees and to recover the costs of compliance with government imposed regulatory requirements." (att.com) It includes: Federal Regulatory Fee- annual fee imposed on AT&T by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) - AT&T is required to make into the Federal TRS fund. Enhanced 911 (E911) - surcharge inposed by certain states. And so on for about ten more government-imposed items.

    Taxes. Every one of them.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  14. Re:So by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I did not pony up for a lawyer the last time around, so I don't know the rates.

    I don't care about the rates. its a one-time fee, more or less, for the duration of the job.

    some things to worry about: non-compete clauses; sections that talk about what the company 'owns' when it buys you (hint: if you do your own software work on the side or ANY business, the company you are applying for seems to think - these days - that they get to own ALL your efforts. even if not related to the core business!

    example from my last contract:


    "outside activities: while you render services to the company, you
    agree that you will not engage in any other employment, consulting or
    other business activity without the prior written consent of the
    company"

    I was shocked to see that! that was verbatim quotation from my last contract (that I refused to sign).

    under that clause, if I sell a house, mow a lawn for a fee, fix a computer for a fee or write C++ code for someone on the weekends, the company gets to own all or any part of that 'work' they want. its absurd! beware of these 'no outside business' bullshit clauses.

    and as for picking the right or best lawyer, I'm not sure that matters as much. what DOES matter is that you show up with 'same' so as to balance things. they have a lawyer and you'd be nuts to not have one, as well. they are TRYING to craft a document that expressly and clearly screws you. they hope you won't try to cross out lines. they KNOW what they ask for is technically illegal but they push it anyway.

    ie, as engineers, we tend to see the world in a light of honesty. we want our code to be clean and run correctly and have no 'incorrect' things (bugs, malicious code, etc). BUT, big lesson here: much of the rest of the world does not follow our code of ethics. they TRY at every turn to lie, cheat and screw you over. such is the job of HR. I'm not kidding; I wish I was. their job is to create the most absurd contract they can get away with, legal or not. even if you sign it, you are not bound by illegal rules but they get you to THINK you are. quite evil.

    the larger co's have optimized this and know what to back down on. the smaller ones are the ones you have to watch out for. they don't tend to have enough experience (as companies) to know what's fair and what they can and cannot get away with. smallers ones are very screwed up and you have to watch them like a hawk. they haven't been burned by their own bad behaviour enough to know better.

    simply showing up (over the phone, I mean) wiht a lawyer is sufficient for most of what you are trying to do. its a show of force and also showing them you are SERIOUS about your job but you also realize that things must be done 'in a certain way' and that means if they have high powered lawyers crafting their screw-you document, you at least have to show up with SOMETHING other than your social security card and a pen. they count on the fact that you assume they have legally vetted their own doc. they have, but not in the way you think!

    I'm nearly 50 and have been working in software for over 30 yrs. it took me a LONG time to learn this lesson. please benefit from this and save yourself a lot of hassle. no matter what, don't bypass this! you may think the company is above-board but corporate ethics are at an all-time low these days. you'd be surprised what a lawyer ON YOUR SIDE can find fault with, in those scummy employment one-sided contracts.

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  15. Re:Where's the technology? by JustNilt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They're taxes, yes. The thing is, they're taxes on the telco that they are passing through to you based on an estimation of your share" of their actual obligation. The money you pay the telco goes in their pocket and if they slightly over-collect from enough people they can pocket it. This is distinct from sales tax which mandates any over-collection to be turned over to the state. The "taxes" section is taxes you owe that the business collects on the government's behalf. This distinction is why they're separate.

    Honestly, what a business should do when they get a tax increase is raise their rates. People object, of course, so the telcos lobby heavily to be allowed to "pass this on" directly so they don't look like the bad guy. In reality, it's a simple cost of doing business and should be rolled into the normal rate. At least, that's my opinion.

    --
    You know the thing about UDP jokes? I don't care if you get it or not.
  16. Re:Ummmmm... No by wanax · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Arbitration is useful in many circumstances.. just not when it's in one-sided contracts. My grandfather, for example, served as an arbiter for quite a few years after he retired. Most of the disputes he presided over had to do with local business disputes over payment, quality of goods, etc.. they were too large to be adjudicated in small claims court, and too small for it to make sense paying lawyers for full blown civil litigation. Sometimes there initially would be a court filing, and the judge would recommend the parties go to arbitration instead since it would be cheaper for both, in which case most of the time the parties both go and select a mutually acceptable arbiter.

    The main problem with arbitration occurs when one party gets to choose the arbiter, which leads to moral hazards and conflicts of interest. Even consumer-corporation binding arbitration would not ipso-facto be a bad thing, so long as the consumer had equal say in choosing the arbiter (which would tend towards local arbiters). The two problems with binding arbitration in the consumer contract world is that the corporation chooses the arbitration firm, and the locale. This means that it's often no cheaper for the consumer to go into arbitration than it would be for them to sue (since say, they live in Kansas and the arbitration firm is in California), while the corporation can put a lot of pressure on the arbitration firm to find in their favor as the price of continued business.

    As long as arbitration remains essentially local, and the arbiter is mutually acceptable to both parties, it's often a lot cheaper while being just as equitable as a civil tort (more so in some cases, since you can pick an arbiter that has expert field knowledge, rather than hoping the judge is a quick learner).