Post by david on Jan 21, 2009 0:33:22 GMT -8
Billy Jack walks into the ice cream shop and realizes that bad-boy Bernard and two other young men have humiliated some children from the Indian School. Expelling a profound sigh, he removes his hat and draws his hand across his brow.
“Bernard,” he begins, “I want you to know that I try…”
He takes a few steps toward the bully.
“When Jean and the kids at the school tell me that I’m supposed to control my anger and be passive and non-violent like they are, I try, I really try,” he says.
“But when I see this girl, of such a beautiful spirit, degraded; and I see this boy, that I love, sprawled out by this big ape here; and this little girl – who is so special to us that we call her ‘God’s little gift of sunshine’ – and I think of the number of years she’s going to have to carry in her memory the savagery of this idiotic moment of yours; I just go berserk.”
With that, Billy proceeds to beat the stuffing out of Bernard and his homeboys.
Like Billy, I accept the wisdom of non-violence. I believe in choosing issues and in making a respectful effort to resolve conflicts without rancor.
But, when I see the way America’s biggest retail corporation – with well over a million employees and more than $10 billion in annual profits – treats people, I just go berserk!
Oh, I try. I really try. For the most part, I’ve managed my rage by simply staying away. I don’t often go to Wal-Mart – in fact, my December 23 visit may have been the first time I’ve stepped into the place in the last two years.
The reason I broke with this prudent tradition wasn’t important. It was, in fact, a trivial pursuit. Literally.
The Parker Brothers – now a subsidiary of Hasbro – recently developed a new, 25th anniversary edition of the classic board game and I decided it would make a suitable Christmas gift. I undertook some online research to find the best price in local stores.
The game was – and still is – available at Target, for $30; Sears offers the item for $39.99; and Barnes & Noble has copies for $39.95 – with $4 off for members like me.
Perhaps it was a mistake, but I decided to complete my due diligence by checking the Wal-Mart price. And that’s how all the trouble began.
Wal-Mart, by virtue of its giant customer base, is able to buy products in huge quantities. They use this ability to strong-arm vendors and obtain goods at wholesale prices much lower than smaller outlets can demand.
But I digress…
Wal-Mart, it turns out offered the new game for only $15 – much less than anyone else.
My aversion to the mega-marketplace evidently wasn’t enough to keep me from succumbing to a bargain of this magnitude.
So, holding my nose, I ventured into the gaping maw of the beast. I elbowed a few hundred fellow victims out the way and blazed a trail to the toy department where an ample supply of Anniversary Editions were piled on an unmarked shelf.
I grabbed the top copy and proceeded to the checkout.
A half-hour later, I was out the door. But before entering my car, I took a look at the receipt and noticed that I’d been charged $20, not the $15 advertised online.
The prospect of going back into that mass of shoppers in search of justice was more than I could bear at the moment, so I decided to go on home and take up the matter by phone or email.
Well, it should not surprise anyone who is at all familiar with the company to learn that my phone entreaty resulted in no refund. I’ll spare the details.
More online research, however, revealed that California Attorney General and former Governor Jerry Brown recently settled a lawsuit with Wal-Mart. The company, it seems, frequently charges more at the check stand than advertised or listed prices indicate.
Investigators uncovered pricing errors at 164 different stores in 30 California counties. On average, customers ended up paying more than $8 extra when checking out.
The company was forced to sacrifice a couple of million dollars as a result of cheating Californians. Talk about a drop in the bucket: two million dollars in penalties to a company that netted more than $10 billion in profit last year.
In addition to the fine, Wal-Mart agreed to reward shoppers who discover future overcharging by adding $3 to each refund. They also agreed to post a notice that warns customers that they’re dealing with a company with a history of putting a thumb on the scales.
Well, after learning all of that, I wasn’t about to let these sons of guns keep my $5.
So, I strode into the store last week, receipt and Internet printouts in hand, and confronted an unfortunate – and no-doubt underpaid – customer service guy.
He listened to my story and quickly realized that dealing with this $5 overcharge was above his pay grade.
I was forced to cool my heels for five or ten minutes while the assistant manager took the scenic route from wherever he had been hiding in the deep recesses of the store.
After checking the computer – and verifying that the store is still overcharging customers for the game – he politely informed me that I was wrong. Computers, his logic argued, are – after all – always right.
I took off my hat and expelled a profound sigh.
“Look,” I explained in as measured a tone as I could muster. “You’re going to end up giving me the money. Why not make it easy on both of us?”
The middle manager attempted a sigh of his own and then sized me up.
Finally, he correctly assessed the situation – he no doubt could tell that he was dealing with a new-age Billy Jack. He weighed the stakes and capitulated.
“As a courtesy,” he began, “I’m going to refund the money.”
“Plus three dollars,” I interjected, tapping my index finger on the required notice that was affixed to the countertop. “And it’s not a courtesy, it’s justice. It’s the law.”
A few minutes later, I walked out of Wal-Mart – hopefully for the last time, with $8.62 cents clutched in my sweaty little hand.
And I take some extra satisfaction in the fact that a calculation error led the assistant manager to return about 25¢ more than he should have.
I’m tempted to take my recovered cash back to Wal-Mart and to buy myself some black clothing and a “Billy Jack” hat.
I’d like to see them try to overcharge me for that gear!
“Bernard,” he begins, “I want you to know that I try…”
He takes a few steps toward the bully.
“When Jean and the kids at the school tell me that I’m supposed to control my anger and be passive and non-violent like they are, I try, I really try,” he says.
“But when I see this girl, of such a beautiful spirit, degraded; and I see this boy, that I love, sprawled out by this big ape here; and this little girl – who is so special to us that we call her ‘God’s little gift of sunshine’ – and I think of the number of years she’s going to have to carry in her memory the savagery of this idiotic moment of yours; I just go berserk.”
With that, Billy proceeds to beat the stuffing out of Bernard and his homeboys.
Like Billy, I accept the wisdom of non-violence. I believe in choosing issues and in making a respectful effort to resolve conflicts without rancor.
But, when I see the way America’s biggest retail corporation – with well over a million employees and more than $10 billion in annual profits – treats people, I just go berserk!
Oh, I try. I really try. For the most part, I’ve managed my rage by simply staying away. I don’t often go to Wal-Mart – in fact, my December 23 visit may have been the first time I’ve stepped into the place in the last two years.
The reason I broke with this prudent tradition wasn’t important. It was, in fact, a trivial pursuit. Literally.
The Parker Brothers – now a subsidiary of Hasbro – recently developed a new, 25th anniversary edition of the classic board game and I decided it would make a suitable Christmas gift. I undertook some online research to find the best price in local stores.
The game was – and still is – available at Target, for $30; Sears offers the item for $39.99; and Barnes & Noble has copies for $39.95 – with $4 off for members like me.
Perhaps it was a mistake, but I decided to complete my due diligence by checking the Wal-Mart price. And that’s how all the trouble began.
Wal-Mart, by virtue of its giant customer base, is able to buy products in huge quantities. They use this ability to strong-arm vendors and obtain goods at wholesale prices much lower than smaller outlets can demand.
But I digress…
Wal-Mart, it turns out offered the new game for only $15 – much less than anyone else.
My aversion to the mega-marketplace evidently wasn’t enough to keep me from succumbing to a bargain of this magnitude.
So, holding my nose, I ventured into the gaping maw of the beast. I elbowed a few hundred fellow victims out the way and blazed a trail to the toy department where an ample supply of Anniversary Editions were piled on an unmarked shelf.
I grabbed the top copy and proceeded to the checkout.
A half-hour later, I was out the door. But before entering my car, I took a look at the receipt and noticed that I’d been charged $20, not the $15 advertised online.
The prospect of going back into that mass of shoppers in search of justice was more than I could bear at the moment, so I decided to go on home and take up the matter by phone or email.
Well, it should not surprise anyone who is at all familiar with the company to learn that my phone entreaty resulted in no refund. I’ll spare the details.
More online research, however, revealed that California Attorney General and former Governor Jerry Brown recently settled a lawsuit with Wal-Mart. The company, it seems, frequently charges more at the check stand than advertised or listed prices indicate.
Investigators uncovered pricing errors at 164 different stores in 30 California counties. On average, customers ended up paying more than $8 extra when checking out.
The company was forced to sacrifice a couple of million dollars as a result of cheating Californians. Talk about a drop in the bucket: two million dollars in penalties to a company that netted more than $10 billion in profit last year.
In addition to the fine, Wal-Mart agreed to reward shoppers who discover future overcharging by adding $3 to each refund. They also agreed to post a notice that warns customers that they’re dealing with a company with a history of putting a thumb on the scales.
Well, after learning all of that, I wasn’t about to let these sons of guns keep my $5.
So, I strode into the store last week, receipt and Internet printouts in hand, and confronted an unfortunate – and no-doubt underpaid – customer service guy.
He listened to my story and quickly realized that dealing with this $5 overcharge was above his pay grade.
I was forced to cool my heels for five or ten minutes while the assistant manager took the scenic route from wherever he had been hiding in the deep recesses of the store.
After checking the computer – and verifying that the store is still overcharging customers for the game – he politely informed me that I was wrong. Computers, his logic argued, are – after all – always right.
I took off my hat and expelled a profound sigh.
“Look,” I explained in as measured a tone as I could muster. “You’re going to end up giving me the money. Why not make it easy on both of us?”
The middle manager attempted a sigh of his own and then sized me up.
Finally, he correctly assessed the situation – he no doubt could tell that he was dealing with a new-age Billy Jack. He weighed the stakes and capitulated.
“As a courtesy,” he began, “I’m going to refund the money.”
“Plus three dollars,” I interjected, tapping my index finger on the required notice that was affixed to the countertop. “And it’s not a courtesy, it’s justice. It’s the law.”
A few minutes later, I walked out of Wal-Mart – hopefully for the last time, with $8.62 cents clutched in my sweaty little hand.
And I take some extra satisfaction in the fact that a calculation error led the assistant manager to return about 25¢ more than he should have.
I’m tempted to take my recovered cash back to Wal-Mart and to buy myself some black clothing and a “Billy Jack” hat.
I’d like to see them try to overcharge me for that gear!