Although your favorite shit-gripper is very much an ex-beer drinker, he nevertheless remains incensed by this article in the Wall Street Journal about restaurants and bars short-changing their customers.
Many have quietly replaced their 16-ounce pint glasses with 14-ouncers, naturally charging the same price as before. The glasses look the same but have an artificially-thick bottoms and are known as "falsies" by bartenders.
Bartenders are also encouraged by owners to increasingly pour 'pints' with heavy heads of foam, potentially denying drinkers up to two extra inches of beer in their glass!
Thankfully, beer drinkers have a voice in the shape of website Beer Advocate where forums are full of stories 'outing' rogue pint-pouring establishments across the country with comments from consumers and unhappy bartenders alike.
A GameWorks bartender is quoted as saying their staff are actually trained to say "it's a pint" when serving a (mere) 14-oz glass of beer, whilst the director of marketing for RMD Corp (a franchisee for Hooters Restaurant) boasts that by serving 14-oz pints they can get "20 more beers out of a keg".
Maybe the ultimate bit of 'spin' comes from Tanny Feerer, a vice president at Damons International (owner of Damon's Grill locations). She claims that "someone who comes in and wants a beer doesn't want a huge glass". What an idiot.
The shit gripper suggests that if you ordered a PINT of beer - you should kick up a fuss to make SURE you receive a PINT of beer.
Beer
Arbitration Clauses
Frightened of too much 'bad publicity' arising from fully-blown court cases, many companies - including home builders, car salesman, banks, credit card vendors, health offices and medical establishments - are asking customers to sign papers agreeing to arbitration in the event of any problems, billing issues, etc.
It Grips My Shit would like to advise people that arbitration strips consumers of their rights, and that it benefits nobody... except of course the corporation asking you to sign what may seem like an innocuous form.
• An arbitration claim will normally cost you a large chunk of change to set up.
• You are often limited to the evidence you can bring to an arbitration session.
• Arbitration sessions are generally held in far away offices so as to deliberately disadvantage the consumer.
• Arbitration decisions can rarely, if ever, be overturned.
• There is NO public record of any arbitration.
• Awarded damages are generally much lower than if made in a proper court setting.
Worst of all though are the relatively new arbitration services springing up across the country. Arbitration services actually sell their services to corporations, claiming they will save them money. They claim to be non-partial and unbiased but secretly market themselves as "an effective tool for collecting debts"
One arbitration service is NAF (National Arbitration Council), a company specializing in credit-card arbitration, and the recent subject of a major investigation by Business Week.
Employing some 1700 freelance arbitrators, accusations are made that NAF often rushes its part-time employees into making snap decisions, often blaming inadequate paperwork from the very corporation they are claiming to represent. It is also alleged that NAF deliberately delays arbitration hearings until a sympathetic (to the corporation, naturally) arbitrator can be scheduled.
If anyone is still under the impression that arbitration is a good thing for the consumer, it grips my shit to report that in California (one of the few states where arbitration results are made public) creditors (i.e. the corporations) won 99.8% of the disputes handled by NAF.
Richard Neely, a former West Virginia supreme court justice is quoted as saying "NAF is nothing more than an arm of the collection industry hiding behind a veneer of impartiality". His words are supported by the statistic that in a 26-month period (ending March 2007), and out of almost 34,000 cases handled by NAF, a grand total of just 30 were awarded in favor of the consumer.
NAF is now the subject of a lawsuit brought by the City of San Francisco, accused of making awards in favor of creditors (corporations) without sufficient justification. The city's attorney further alleges (in the same Business Week article) that NAF strips consumers of their legal right to a fair collection process.
I wonder why NAF didn't opt for arbitration?
Pharmaceutical Industry
Almost every page of Melody Peterson's excellent book "Our Daily Meds" is managing to grip my shit.
Her expose of how the pharmaceutical industry operates - immorally, and naturally for profit before any genuine care for health - should be on everybody's reading list, as eye-opening and damning as it is.
I have to hope that the drug companies influence over government is cut-back, curtailed even, [if?/when!] Obama becomes President in November, him being the only candidate not to have taken lobbyists dirty money during the election campaigns.
In the meantime, read and recommend Peterson's book, so that the truth about the big pharma industry is spread loud and wide. Ask for it at your local library or top-up the author's deserving bank account by buying a copy from your local bookstore or online.
You'll discover that the next time you visit your doctor or healthcare professional it could become very important to ask which drug companies they are beholden to before they write you a prescription, and exactly why America is now sicker than it has ever been before.
U-Haul
Just like the airlines with their totally bogus "fuel surcharges", this fee is a massive crock of gripped shit. The disposal and treatment of hazardous waste items are entirely the company's responsibility, and, as such, the costs associated with them are all part of U-Haul's regular operating procedures, therefore those costs should be swallowed up in the fees they charge consumers. Not tacked on like a third testicle.
BUT, I guess, a "$19.99 rental" is nowhere near as attractive to advertise as a "$24.99 rental", so u-Haul instead use fuzzy math to rip its customers off, additionally adopting the familiar - and apparently well-loved - "American" bait and switch method of doing business.
There's nothing like misappropriating a genuine global concern to try and up your profits is there? Company officials, management, shareholders and workers should all feel embarrassed by the introduction of this fake fee, and I REALLY hope people start abandoning U-Haul in their droves as a result.
Airline Surcharges II
I've laughed so hard it gripped my shit
This posting of mine on Jan 12th spoke of a $50 round-trip fuel surcharge being introduced by Delta & US Airways. I commented on how fake it was to be described as a 'surcharge'.
On Jan 15th Delta and US rescinded the surcharge saying they, in fact, wanted to remain "competitive" with other airlines who had not introduced the surcharge.
Good news.
Good news only until Jan 17th, when American and Delta Airlines introduced a new $40 surcharge, a fee instantly mirrored just one day later by United and Continental.
Of course, there's absolutely NO collusion whatsoever between these primary carriers. It's a mere quirky coincidence that they all thought of their price increases (which is what this actually represents, albeit one shrouded outside the airlines 'advertised prices') within 24 hours of one another.
I'm sure they'll spin this as consumers being ten bucks better off than $40 to the poorer.
Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac
Firstly, there should NEVER be a mortgage guarantee company called "Fannie Mae" because that just sounds like some kind of sexual promise.
As if that isn't deceptive enough, check out the latest news regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgages.
In a nutshell, borrowers of these kinds of mortgages are going to be socked with extra fees (starting at $250 per $100k loaned, and dependent on your credit score) to compensate FM & FM for the "risks inherent in lending money in an era when house prices are declining".
So, in addition to charging, often, exorbitant interest rates for their loans, the FMs are now clobbering new mortgagees with fees to cover their poor prime and sub-prime lending in the last couple of years.
Whilst I admit individuals should be held responsible for their own actions and not borrow more than they can afford to repay, the mortgage companies should also be regarded equally culpable for lending money to risky propositions in the first place. Socking new borrowers to somehow pay for existing borrowers - and all to shore up the bottom line - is a truly appalling business model. At least Dick Turpin wore a fucking mask.
Of course, the biggest shit-gripper in all of this is that there, plainly, NEEDS to be FAR more regulation in the financial/lending industry here in the USA. Similar to that of Europe and most other civilised nations. Predatory lending will always happen IF it's allowed to happen.
Airline Surcharges
United Airlines (united in what exactly? price gouging?) have just announced that they are increasing their "fuel surcharge" to $50 for a round trip domestic fight.
Every other airline, including my "favorite", Delta, will line up like sheep to emulate this move.
United - and the others - will continue to advertise their deceptive "low cost fares" because, unlike Europe, it is still legal to to promote a price BEFORE all airport taxes and surcharges have been added. (Washington lobbyists will doubtless ensure the alternative will never go into force, heavens forbid we should be told the REAL price when we try and book a flight?!)
The FACT that the fuel surcharge was introduced to cover "sudden fluctuations" in the cost of oil doesn't seem to be considered. The fuel surcharge has never gone down when the cost of oil has gone down, it has only gone up every time the airlines think they need a little more cash in their coffers.
Fuel/Oil is an operating cost, one which you already make a profit from in your seat pricing you assholes. Passing off your operating costs as a 'surcharge' - allowing you to advertise "low cost flights" - just makes you seem like shit-gripping scumbags. Just so you know.
Trial Software
Companies which do the whole "bait and switch" thing with bundled trial software really grip my shit.
Case in point. Western Digital bundle Memeo Backup Software with their "My Book" External hard-drives.
That's what buyers of the drives think. There's certainly nothing to suggest otherwise.
But only AFTER loading the software, taking time to configure it and running the first backup do you discover it is a "30-Day Trial" version, requiring a further $30 purchase to retain it.
First impressions count. My impression is that Western Digital suck for bundling it, and Memeo sucks for using deceptive business practises. When it comes to buying another HD, I will be sure to avoid Western Digital products.
Lipitor/Zocor/Statins
Best Buy
Despite being sued for deceptive practises a few months back, Best Buy persist in using in store kiosks that - on the face of it - appear to be connected to the internet.
Instead they are connected to the company's own intranet.
The prices shown end up usually being higher than those a customer may have found at online at home, resulting in confusion when he or she is finally at the store to actually buy something.
Best Buy staff members use the kiosks to "check prices" for shoppers, presumably trained by management to do so, and thus fully aware of the deception they are then perpetuating by doing so.
This practise - something which obviously grips my shit - needs to be commented on and reported wherever possible, so as to make the public aware that one of the nation's major corporate retail chains is, to all intents and purposes, ripping them off.
The FDA & Drug Companies
The FDA is the Food & Drug Adminstration, a government entity set up to protect us mere "meaklings" from the horrors of, well, bad food or pharmaceuticals.
Since 1992 it has accepted payments from the larger "pharmies" to accomodate the 'fast tracking' of clearance of certain drugs.
Since 1992, the pharmaceutical companies have concentrated on "lifestyle" medicines, the ones more likely to make them a larger profit - and which are easier to advertise on television - rather than ones that address serious medical problems.
The FDA is complicit in this, basically accepting 'bribes' by another name.
It's similar to having all your local thieves, burglars and rapists funding the local police station in return for not being arrested.
It could only happen in America - where money appears to be a million times more important than people's health.
Guess what? It grips my shit
This little dude on the toilet was created by lego artist