Posted by G.A. Napier on January 17, 2009
I have subscribed to Insight Cable, telephone and internet for a number of years for services at my home. Over a year ago I asked if they would allow me, as a loyal customer, to add the unlimited long distance they were advertising for new customers to my phone service for the advertised rate (free). They allowed me to do this, never explaining that I would now be bundled into an introductory service plan. I thought they were just doing smart business by rewarding a long time customer. Nope – after a year I was informed that my “introductory package” price was being jacked up an extra ten dollars. I discovered a new line on the bill that showed “unlimited long distance” as costing me $11.95, an astronomically high amount with today’s options from VOIP (voice over internet protocol) companies.
Since the $11.95 was a line item, I thought I could merely call and cancel that particular service. Again – NOPE! Sure, I could drop down to basic phone service at $23.00 per month, but my internet and cable charges would jump up higher than what I would be saving by losing the unlimited long distance. I was TRAPPED by Insight’s bundle. Not only that, I walked into it blindly by not being told and not realizing that I was being put into an introductory offer. I am currently pondering the legalities of this. Specifically, if nothing on the bill and no contract exists that says the prices listed are only because they are bundled together, is it unlawful (civilly or criminally) to refuse to drop a single, unwanted service. If enough of us are frustrated by this practice, we could apply market pressures and possibly explore the viability of a class action lawsuit. Beyond that, though, there are some lessons here that are a tenuously about economic justice.
First of all, Insight is engaging in poor business practices in that they effectively punish people who become loyal customers. Their marketing is targeted only to getting people to switch away from some other provider. Unfortunately, they know that most people do not make changes readily and will continue on with them even in the face of mounting charges on their bills because of the effort it takes to change. The second lesson then is that our reluctance to change is our enemy. We must fight against that lethargy and be willing to reject deals such as these that promise short term savings, but cost more in the long run.
The third lesson is that when a company gets large enough, they no longer have to reckon with the individual customer. They can use their economic clout to make the customers conform and even force billions of dollars in welfare type loans and incentives from the government. This became even more evident when I called to talk to Insight about canceling certain services. I spoke with a person who appeared to be inflexible both by nature and training and who gave me the most ludicrous explanation for the charges. They insisted that they simply put $11.95 down for the long distance charge as a random number and it could have been placed on any other particular item so the cost of the phone service was just $35.00 no matter which way you worked it. Again, $35.00 for phone service is ridiculously costly in this day and time. When possible, go small. Smaller companies have to be responsive to individual customers to thrive.
Tying this personal soapbox back into the theme of justice is pretty easy. Those without resources need to band together to have a voice and to be treated with justice, especially in these economic times of trouble.
Oh, just so you know, I canceled the long distance, canceled cable, plan to go to a VOIP company for phone service and will look at Windstream’s prices for internet.
Posted in Life & Law, Solo & Small Firm, Solo - Small Firm Practice | Tagged: bad business practices, big business, bundling schemes, false advertising, Insight Cable, Insight communications, internet, VOIP, Windstream | 13 Comments »
Posted by G.A. Napier on March 23, 2008
A chapter of the Christian Legal Society is forming in the Bluegrass area of Kentucky. For more information about this forming CLS chapter, contact Gregory A. Napier in Lexington, Kentucky. Integrating one’s walk of faith with their practice of law, so that they are one and the same, will make the pursuit of justice less elusive!
Posted in ethics, Life & Law | Tagged: Christian Legal Society, Christianity, ethics, law | 1 Comment »
Posted by G.A. Napier on February 23, 2008
Apathy is the predominate risk with judicial venues where the majority of defendants are guilty of what is alleged against them, such as criminal court or dependency, neglect and abuse court. This systemic apathy leads to the few truly innocent people who come through those courts to be shuffled along as expeditiously as possible and often being presumed guilty because they are amongst the guilty. The only way to combat this apathy systemically is through proper funding so that mandates can be met and advocates are encouraged to advocate. The only way to combat this apathy individually is through personal integrity. We need both!
For lawyers, this means engaging the political system to adequately fund the systems that handle criminal law and quasi-criminal matters such as dependency, neglect and abuse. It also means practicing law with more than just compliance with ethical rules; it means practicing with personal integrity.
Posted in child protection, Crime & Punishment, Life & Law, Politics | Tagged: child abuse and neglect, criminal law, integrity, systemic apathy | 1 Comment »
Posted by G.A. Napier on February 17, 2008
I encourage everyone to read this full article on an interview with Professor Robert G. Lawson in the Courier Journal. Bob Lawson is that rare individual who is willing to go against the popular tide and critical examine a position most take for granted and it was an honor to be taught by him. The popular position is that we must be tough on crime; being tough is the only way we can keep our families safe. This mantra has certainly won plenty of elections for Lexington’s Commonwealth Attorney, Ray Larson. And yet, the evidence is showing that popular notion to be flawed. For those who won’t read the entire article, I’ve included some especially pertinent excerpts quoting Professor Lawson:
“Now, here’s what I say to the public. Most of the inmates we lock up in the jail system are going to be in there for a while, and then they’re going to come out of there. They’re going to come out of there, in my opinion — because of the way we’re treating them — meaner than they were when they went in. Now whenever you look beyond the jails to the corrections system itself — I’m talking about prisons and what we’ve been doing now for almost 30 years — we’ve got so many locked up in this country — we’ve got 2.25 million people locked up. We’re releasing every year from just the federal and state prison system 500,000 people. They’ve been kept there longer than at any time in our history. They’ve been kept away from their families longer, away from their communities longer; they have been kept under the worst conditions in our recent history; they’ve had less done for them than any group in our recent history, all because of the number that we’re locking up, and we’re releasing them into a re-entry system that is incapable of helping them. Because there are so many on probation or parole — we’ve got about 5 million in the country on probation or parole.”
“Now, I’m down there going through these jails and I hear discussion by these jailers about a change in the standards. I’m looking and I find in virtually every jail I’m in inmates sleeping on the floor. So I come back and I get into these regulations and I discover it’s 2005 and they have lowered their standards now to 40 square feet per inmate. You know how much space there is? Stretch out your arms and circle yourself, and it’s that much space.
Why does that matter?
In our country, under our system, we have to insist on decent treatment of people we lock up.
And then, what I would say to the public is that you had better realize all of these people are going to emerge from these places and they’re going to live beside you. They’re going to live in our communities. And if we put them under conditions that make them worse than they were when they went in, then I think we pay the price. And I quite frankly think the day of reckoning for that is at hand, because we’ve been doing this now for 25 years.”
“Here’s another thing we do: As we’ve gotten overloaded, they used to have to have a face-to-face meeting with inmates when they are up for parole. Now you still have to have a face-to-face meeting between the parole board and the inmate if you’re in prison, but if you’re in jail they don’t see them face to face.
If I’m trying to find inmates who would be more likely to stay out of trouble if they got out of jail, and would not threaten public safety, it would be the ones in the jail and not the ones in the prison. The serious offenders are the ones in the prison system. But the rates show that more prison inmates get paroled.”
“Well, the public first. I think the public needs a better understanding of what is going on here. The public needs to understand what we’ve done here, and what we’re doing and whether or not it makes any sense. And it’s my belief that what we’re doing here does not make any sense, whether you’re talking about the way you treat people or whether you’re talking about crime control.
You take a bunch of people, lock them up in close confinement with a television set up on the wall, and that’s all they do — and they do that for years. And they’re in there together, a broad mixture of people, none of which are model citizens — I guarantee you there’s no discussion going on there about how to improve the school system. That’s not what they’ll be talking about.
I don’t think there is an appreciation of the fact that there will be a fallout from this sooner or later. And I believe it’s apt to be sooner rather than later.
In this state, we’re not willing to pay for things we agree with, like increased quality of education. Isn’t it a big leap to think people would support making conditions more humane for inmates of jails and prisons?”
“So the solution isn’t locking people up for longer periods of time. It’s what?
Distinguishing between people that we should be afraid of, that we would lock up, and people that we’re mad at.
And who should we want to lock up, and who are we just mad at?
We’re mad at drug offenders. We’re mad at people that won’t support their kids. Someone recently was quoted in the paper saying there are 1,000 people in prison for non-support of their children. You’re taking a guy that won’t support his children, and we’re locking him up in prison. The average cost here, $18,613 a year — does it make sense to take somebody who won’t support his children, lock him up and pay that kind of money to keep him?
When we wrote the penal code in 1974, I remember this argument. We couldn’t decide whether non-support should be a Class B misdemeanor, which would have 90 days in jail, or a Class A misdemeanor, which would give him up to 12 months in jail. Well, we finally settled on the high one. It could be a lower penalty, but that would be the maximum.”
I suspect that Professor Lawson is correct in that we are approaching a time when the consequences of the last 30 years becomes inescapable (sort of like what’s happening with global warming). I also suspect we will resist change for a decade or so more just to be sure we were wrong. Hopefully, though, Bob Lawson will plant seeds that will take root and grow.
Posted in Crime & Punishment, Life & Law, Politics | Tagged: Bob Lawson, crime, kentucky penal code, prison overcrowding, prisons, punishment | 1 Comment »
Posted by G.A. Napier on February 17, 2008
Its an obvious truth that people resist change. Systems resist change too. Resistance for the sake to resisting change is the enemy to individuals and to systems. We shut out possibilities and shut down creativity by resisting new perspectives and ideas. This leads to decreased justice. The image that comes to mind is a nearsighted rhinocerous barreling down a path and trampeling anyone and anything that got in its way just because something spooked it.
I found this list of resistance mechanisms by Ken Cloke and reprinted at Settle it Now Negotiation Blog to be very insightful:
1) Marginalization: Making ideas, people, perspectives, or insights that could threaten the system appear unimportant, irrelevant, irrational, or impossible to achieve.
2) Negative Framing: Using language that frames new ideas and critics negatively so that nothing that threatens the system can be thought or communicated successfully.
3) Exaggeration: Stereotyping or exaggerating one part of an idea in order to discredit the other parts and the whole.
4) Personalization. Reducing ideas to individual people, then discrediting or lionizing them.
5) Sentimentalization: Using sentimental occasions, ideas, emotions and language to enforce conformity and silence criticism.
6) Seduction. Describing the potential of the existing system in ways that unrealistically promise to fulfill people’s deepest dreams and desires and blame the failure to achieve them on others.
7) Alignment: Communicating that in order to exist, succeed, be happy or achieve influence, it is necessary to conform to the system regardless of its faults.
8 Legitimization. Considering only existing practices as legitimate an all others as illegitimate.
9) Simplification. Reducing disparate, complex, subtle, multi-faceted ideas to uniform, simplistic, superficial, emotionally charged beliefs.
10) False Polarization: Limiting people’s ability to choose by falsely characterizing issues as good or evil, right or wrong, either/or.
11) Selective Repression. Selecting individual critics as examples, bullying them for disagreeing or failing to conform and ostracizing them.
12) Double Binds: Creating double standards that require people to live divided lives, or make it difficult for them to act with integrity.
When individuals who lean away from creative thinking work for systems that discourage creative thinking, like the Cabinet for Health & Family Services, the resistance encountered rises exponentially. Unfortunately, non-creative thinkers, in my experience, tend to be drawn to such organizations.
Posted in Life & Law, Politics | Tagged: bureaucracy, change, creativity, resistance, resistance to change | 2 Comments »
Posted by G.A. Napier on February 10, 2008
Thanks to the US Post Office, I found the following quote that said my point in my prior post far more concisely:
“Let us dare to read, think, speak and write.” John Adams, 1765.
Posted in Life & Law, Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »
Posted by G.A. Napier on January 28, 2008
I was recently complimented by two opposing counsel because they each like working with me. I had to pause and consider the deeper ramifications of being complimented by opposing counsel: did it mean I was a pushover? Since, in both cases, I kept moving forward for favorable outcomes and stayed on top of outstanding issues, I do not believe it was implied that I was too easy. Instead, I believe the difference was my willingness to bring in, and to entertain from them, creative resolutions.
It is so easy to lock onto one outcome or set of results to the exclusion of creative ideas. This tends to promote dug in heels and escalating rhetoric. When an impasse is reached, I do two things: prepare for the fight that may be inevitable and generate new options. I believe this has allowed for the deescalation of some fights and more outcomes that my clients can be happy with. I have no monopoly on creativity so I do not see this as bragging. I do believe, though, that when creative approaches are embraced, the likelihood of justice being achieved is maximized.
Posted in Life & Law | 1 Comment »