OK, so the title should read "I Want My $52.97, but I'll Take $53 Please." But it's not as catchy. Why should it read that? Because that is the amount that Dave & Buster's at 1030 N. Clark St in Chicago, IL (aka Goldcoast) owes me for purchasing a battery charger for a video camera. I needed to purchase this charger so that I could complete a video job for their annual (used to be semi-annual) All Store Meeting. I completed the project on the 21st of January and shipped the video to them on the 22nd. They received it on the 23rd.
A little background here. I used to work for D&B. When I moved to Chicago in 2001 I befriended someone that is a wiz in video editing, though it's not his profession. He agreed to help me with this introduction video a few times. He eventually moved away and I coincidentally got a new laptop and took up the task of doing the editing. I continued to work for D&B until February 2005.
At that time, I figured I had done my last video. So I was very happy and honored to be asked to do their video a few months later. Since I no longer worked for them I decided to do a trade with them for my services. Over the years it was a good relationship. I got to have some fun and get paid (in trade) for it.
When I moved down to San Antonio in June of last year (2008) I figured I had not only done my last D&B video, but also my last ESPN Zone video. Imagine my surprise at getting a text message saying in a somewhat matter-of-fact way that I was doing this year's video. I laughed at first and replied that they needed to send the camera, tape, and my trade payment along with a return label. I was told that would be no problem.
A week or so later the package arrives sans payment. And sans battery charger or power cord for the camera. A back and forth happens and eventually a week later I just go ahead and buy a battery charger. From Circuit City no less as they are the ONLY store in my city that carries this charger. No one else has it unless I want to order it online. I don't have that kind of time. It was agreed that I would be reimbursed monetarily too, not additional trade.
When I leave the store, things only get better. I walk out to find that I have a flat tire. Oh, and my spare is flat, of course. So another $80 or so spent, watch the inauguration at Firestone, then head home to finally import the entire footage. Around 4AM the next morning I finish the editing and I set the computer (the same computer I bought 5 years ago BTW) on the task of creating the movie file so I can watch it on the big screen TV. That afternoon it's all finished and two DVDs are burned. The next afternoon I go to FedEx to return everything.
A week goes by and I still haven't received my money (or trade). I inquire with my contact and am assured it will be sent. Another week, and the trade comes and more assurances the cash will be sent. A third week and I talk with the person that is actually in charge of getting the money and shipping it to me and assured it will be sent. ANOTHER WEEK and I am told, "you'll have it by Wednesday." That was yesterday, and today I'm writing a blog about it at 4:15AM. WTF? Cue Johnny:
Seriously. 4 weeks, and 20 newspapers later and I still haven't been paid. So it's time to take it to the next level. I am no longer Johnny the Paperboy from Better Off Dead. I am now Stewie from Family Guy. Cue Stewie:
Cue my hourly tweets to this blogpost via Twuffer. Cue my phone call to the GM when I wake up in the morning. And Cue me making private all of D&B Goldcoast's videos I (and my friend) have done over the years until I get paid. For an example of what they look like, feel free to go to my You Tube page and watch the ESPN Zone videos:
My You Tube Page
This is ridiculous. I mean, seriously. It's not like I'm destitute and am in dire need of $52.97. I'm not. The point is I shelled out my own money, spent time and gas, and had the fun time of sitting in a Firestone getting a new tire to complete a video that I was getting paid (in trade) about 1/10 of what a professional would get paid (plus the licensing fees for the music). All because I still know people there and do it as kind of a favor as they have no one else to do it. I also enjoy it tremendously.
So where's my money?
l8r,
Marz
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Show Me the Money
So President Obama announced his salary cap for executives at companies receiving financial assistance from us, the taxpayers. $500,000. Of course, there is a loophole of sorts. Companies that already received money are grandfathered. While on first look most people will view this as a good thing, I don't. And I'll explain why it's not "fair" like Obama claims it is.
First of all, I understand why we have this animosity towards executives at the Wall Street firms, banks, and auto makers for getting huge bonuses, going on junkets, sponsoring Superbowl "Fan Experiences", and flying to Congress in their private jets with "hat-in-hand." I get it. Some of these things are just boneheaded. However some of these cannot be changed due to the contractual obligations of the companies involved. And while many people feel taking the company jet being wasteful, it was more wasteful for those Big-3 Auto execs to drive themselves cross-country (in 3 different vehicles by the way), than to decide to jet pool. That travel time probably cost their companies more than taking a jet.
Anyway, the problem I have with this is it's changing the rules in the middle of the game. We gave these bozos $700mil dollars of our money with effectively no oversight. Thanks, Hank. So why are we upset that they decided to use it however they felt was appropriate for the survival of themselves, er, I mean their companies? The problem is we gave them the money in the first place, instead of playing hardball by telling them to slash their payrolls without laying off people. Take commercial flights. Cancel the junkets, parties, etc. Focus on cost-cutting, building your brand, advertising, and making products that people want to and can afford to buy.
But, no. We were sold a bill of goods. It was so bad that we were on the verge of collapse if we didn't pass this bill on that day day, at that hour. If we waited even just another week, we would see rioting in the streets. No offense to the Europeans already experiencing this. We let the same bunch of crooks that got us into the mess decide how much money was going to be doled out and to whom. They all know each other, worked for each other, and therefore will take care of each other. And now, we need to spend another $800mil - $1tril?
So back to this salary cap. It's on future help to companies. OK, fine. So when Acme, Inc. decides it needs help and Joe Executive makes $5mil, his VPs make $2mil ea, and some other execs make $750k, maybe if they just did their own cost-cutting of the highest paid guys they could weather some bad times? Of course, they don't and just do freezes on raises for everyone. That means the 50%+ employees making minimum wage or just above get screwed at trying to stay even, and Joe Executive still gets his money.
Of course, the more money you have, the more money you spend. In general. Joe Executive is no different than Six Pack Joe. Just that Joe E. buys more expensive beer. No Natty Light for him, only Samuel Adams Utopias will do. Joe E. doesn't live in a double-wide, he lives in one of several 10-room mansions. But I'm not faulting Joey E. It's his money, and he can spend it, or not spend it, any way he wants.
My issue with today's announcement is the government coming up with a maximum wage. Yeah, it's only tied to government aid. Buy why $500k? Why not, $250k, $1mil, $100k? We already have a minimum wage. We need a maximum? Didn't I warn about Obama taking us down the path of Socialism a couple months ago?
It starts with this, then government contractors who are financially stable, then large businesses, and finally little Joey E. who has that lemonade stand on the corner. They tie the maximum wage to a company's gross revenue. So little Joey E. has a hard time expanding and getting ahead in his personal life, because he doesn't sell enough lemonade for him to upgrade from a 3-speed to a 10-speed bicycle.
I feel that a person should be compensated for his or her work. If you want to add a bonus based upon some kind of score or performance level, fine. But it shouldn't be something that is automatic. The bonus (or commission) should be reasonable.
If Acme, Inc. decides that it's CEO is worth $22mil, then they should be able to pay him that. If the company underperforms and their CEO isn't performing, either fire him or cut his pay. But it should be the market doing this, not government.
Here is what should have happened with the bailout money. An oversight committee of some sort should have been created. Any company requesting assistance should have been audited to explore what cost-cutting measures (including payroll reductions, but avoid layoffs initially), should be implemented first. This allows the company to do everything it can to trim the fat short of firing employees.
If a company has already done that, give them the money. But let them know it comes with restrictions. You don't necessarily need to tell that company it's capped at $500k for its executives. Some smaller companies might not pay their CEO that much anyway. And those that pay their CEO tens of millions may not realistically be able to cut that CEO's salary to $500k. Use the model of those credit counseling companies. Make arrangements on how to reduce your debt and if you break that arrangement, then you're stuck with your debt.
The key is, there should have been conditions to being able to get this money, and penalties for abusing the aid. But Paulson and his cronies figured that they could just give away the money and the public wouldn't get outraged. Now the Congress is red-faced in embarrassment and outrage for being duped. And so John Q. Public.
Get rid of this salary cap. It's a bad idea. It's only there to make us "feel good" about sticking it to these evil executives. We gave them the money with no stipulations. If they screw up, then let them. Let the companies that use the money wisely come out ahead, and the companies that don't fail or get bought out.
If not, then have all of us just make $500k/yr regardless of our job. If you want fairness, then everyone just gets paid the same amount of money. We don't own anything. The government gives us our homes. We get rations of food. Oh wait, didn't someone already try that a few times? Communism anyone?
First of all, I understand why we have this animosity towards executives at the Wall Street firms, banks, and auto makers for getting huge bonuses, going on junkets, sponsoring Superbowl "Fan Experiences", and flying to Congress in their private jets with "hat-in-hand." I get it. Some of these things are just boneheaded. However some of these cannot be changed due to the contractual obligations of the companies involved. And while many people feel taking the company jet being wasteful, it was more wasteful for those Big-3 Auto execs to drive themselves cross-country (in 3 different vehicles by the way), than to decide to jet pool. That travel time probably cost their companies more than taking a jet.
Anyway, the problem I have with this is it's changing the rules in the middle of the game. We gave these bozos $700mil dollars of our money with effectively no oversight. Thanks, Hank. So why are we upset that they decided to use it however they felt was appropriate for the survival of themselves, er, I mean their companies? The problem is we gave them the money in the first place, instead of playing hardball by telling them to slash their payrolls without laying off people. Take commercial flights. Cancel the junkets, parties, etc. Focus on cost-cutting, building your brand, advertising, and making products that people want to and can afford to buy.
But, no. We were sold a bill of goods. It was so bad that we were on the verge of collapse if we didn't pass this bill on that day day, at that hour. If we waited even just another week, we would see rioting in the streets. No offense to the Europeans already experiencing this. We let the same bunch of crooks that got us into the mess decide how much money was going to be doled out and to whom. They all know each other, worked for each other, and therefore will take care of each other. And now, we need to spend another $800mil - $1tril?
So back to this salary cap. It's on future help to companies. OK, fine. So when Acme, Inc. decides it needs help and Joe Executive makes $5mil, his VPs make $2mil ea, and some other execs make $750k, maybe if they just did their own cost-cutting of the highest paid guys they could weather some bad times? Of course, they don't and just do freezes on raises for everyone. That means the 50%+ employees making minimum wage or just above get screwed at trying to stay even, and Joe Executive still gets his money.
Of course, the more money you have, the more money you spend. In general. Joe Executive is no different than Six Pack Joe. Just that Joe E. buys more expensive beer. No Natty Light for him, only Samuel Adams Utopias will do. Joe E. doesn't live in a double-wide, he lives in one of several 10-room mansions. But I'm not faulting Joey E. It's his money, and he can spend it, or not spend it, any way he wants.
My issue with today's announcement is the government coming up with a maximum wage. Yeah, it's only tied to government aid. Buy why $500k? Why not, $250k, $1mil, $100k? We already have a minimum wage. We need a maximum? Didn't I warn about Obama taking us down the path of Socialism a couple months ago?
It starts with this, then government contractors who are financially stable, then large businesses, and finally little Joey E. who has that lemonade stand on the corner. They tie the maximum wage to a company's gross revenue. So little Joey E. has a hard time expanding and getting ahead in his personal life, because he doesn't sell enough lemonade for him to upgrade from a 3-speed to a 10-speed bicycle.
I feel that a person should be compensated for his or her work. If you want to add a bonus based upon some kind of score or performance level, fine. But it shouldn't be something that is automatic. The bonus (or commission) should be reasonable.
If Acme, Inc. decides that it's CEO is worth $22mil, then they should be able to pay him that. If the company underperforms and their CEO isn't performing, either fire him or cut his pay. But it should be the market doing this, not government.
Here is what should have happened with the bailout money. An oversight committee of some sort should have been created. Any company requesting assistance should have been audited to explore what cost-cutting measures (including payroll reductions, but avoid layoffs initially), should be implemented first. This allows the company to do everything it can to trim the fat short of firing employees.
If a company has already done that, give them the money. But let them know it comes with restrictions. You don't necessarily need to tell that company it's capped at $500k for its executives. Some smaller companies might not pay their CEO that much anyway. And those that pay their CEO tens of millions may not realistically be able to cut that CEO's salary to $500k. Use the model of those credit counseling companies. Make arrangements on how to reduce your debt and if you break that arrangement, then you're stuck with your debt.
The key is, there should have been conditions to being able to get this money, and penalties for abusing the aid. But Paulson and his cronies figured that they could just give away the money and the public wouldn't get outraged. Now the Congress is red-faced in embarrassment and outrage for being duped. And so John Q. Public.
Get rid of this salary cap. It's a bad idea. It's only there to make us "feel good" about sticking it to these evil executives. We gave them the money with no stipulations. If they screw up, then let them. Let the companies that use the money wisely come out ahead, and the companies that don't fail or get bought out.
If not, then have all of us just make $500k/yr regardless of our job. If you want fairness, then everyone just gets paid the same amount of money. We don't own anything. The government gives us our homes. We get rations of food. Oh wait, didn't someone already try that a few times? Communism anyone?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
facebook friend
twitter friend
viddler friend
myspace friend
