среда, 21 октября 2015 г.

uCoach Store Employee Claims She Was Fired For Gaining 100 Poundsr


4 4 4 9
  • (Michael Daddino)
    A person of any size can look good while holding a purse, but the upscale accessory seller Coach has an image to uphold. Is that the reason why they fired a retail store manager who gained 100 pounds in the decade that she worked for the company? The former manager thinks so, and is suing the company, but the retailer says that the real reason for her firing involved her performance.

    The former manager’s attorney recounted incidents that made it clear that her weight wasn’t acceptable. During her performance review, she was asked why she no longer brought in frozen diet meals for lunch every day. A supervisor would also encourage her to watch “The Biggest Loser” or other weight loss-related reality shows.

    In most states, people who are over- or underweight aren’t a protected class when it comes to discrimination, but this store is in Michigan, where discriminating against someone for their height or weight is part of civil rights law.

    The former manager is suing for unspecified damages in federal court.

    Fired Over Weight Gain? Woman Suing Coach Retailer For Discrimination [CBS Detroit]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uUPS Agrees To Pay $4.2M To Resolve False Delivery Claims With 17 Statesr


4 4 4 9
  • (So Cal Metro)

    We’ve all been there: you’re waiting for a package, you check the tracking, and it says they tried to deliver. Except you’ve been paying attention the whole time, and no knock has ever come. When it’s just one resident, that really stinks. When it’s a whole bunch of packages being delivered on government contracts, though, it’s lawsuit time.

    That’s why UPS will be paying $4.2 million in settlements with 17 states, USA Today reports.

    According to the settlement, UPS drivers applied inapplicable or inappropriate “excepting codes” that excused late arrivals of next-day delivery packages.

    These codes were based on false claims of adverse weather or other conditions. Because of this, government customers were unable to qualify for refunds on late arrivals.

    “UPS improperly profited from charging New York State government entities — and ultimately our taxpayers — when its employees failed to meet its guaranteed delivery times for overnight deliveries,” New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, said in a statement.

    States covered under the agreement include: California, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia, as well as three cities.

    Under the settlement, UPS does not acknowledge liability and disagrees with the position of state officials.

    UPS to pay $4.2 million for false delivery claims [USA Today]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uFCC Now Sharing Weekly Robocall Complaint Data For Use In Building Call-Blocking Toolsr


4 4 4 9
  • (Jenn and Tony Bot)
    The FCC has been on a bit of a crusade this year to try and curb the scourge of robocalls, one of consumers’ biggest complaints. To that end, they’re now going to share a new tool to help build weapons for that fight: consumers’ complaints.

    The FCC gathers consumer complaints about robocalls and other issues, and has for some time. The change is that they will now be making a file of the data available to the public on a weekly basis.

    The idea behind sharing the data is that businesses and individuals that develop call block-lists can import the information and block more spam and scam numbers.

    The commission ruled in June that consumers do indeed have the right to use whitelisting or do-not-disturb technologies to cut back on robocalls. There are several technologies already on the market, but most of the tools at consumers’ disposal are only effective on smartphones or VoIP landline systems, leaving millions more consumers having to put up with their “free trip to the Bahamas” or “Rachel from cardholder services” trying to reach them.

    “Consumers want and deserve effective tools to empower them to choose the calls and texts they receive. This data will help improve do-not-disturb technologies so they can provide the best service for consumers,” said Alison Kutler, chief of the FCC’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, said in a written statement. “As we encourage providers to offer these services, and as the Commission recently made clear that there are no legal barriers to doing so, we continue to look for ways to help facilitate important consumer tools.”

    The FTC also collects and releases similar data.



ribbi
  • by Kate Cox
  • via Consumerist


uReminder: Deferred Interest Credit Cards Aren’t All They’re Cracked Up To Ber


4 4 4 9
  • deferred-interest-image2Each year, consumers marking items off their holiday shopping lists are tempted by retailers’ store-branded credit cards and the offers of “0% interest for 12 months” or “special financing.” And this year – although it’s only October – is no different. 

    While these offers are incredibly alluring, the folks at CardHub.com remind us they are like “a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” leaving consumers thinking they’re getting a great deal, while actually paying more if they miss the fine print.

    Remember, as opposed to true 0% interest offers, where you are not accruing any interest during the introductory promotional period, a deferred interest card account is actually accruing that interest during those months.

    So in most cases under deferred interest plans, if you leave an unpaid balance of even $1 at the end of the introductory period, or if you miss even a single payment, interest is retroactively applied to your entire purchase amount.

    To illustrate the difference, use this example of an $800 purchase for your children’s wish list from their favorite store: One card offers a true 0% interest offer for six months. A second card is a 0% deferred interest account for six months. Both have 20% APRs (which is about average for retailer-branded cards) after their intro periods.

    According to CardHub’s report, if you pay off that $800 before the six months is up, you don’t have anything to worry about in either case.

    But if you need a seventh month, the difference is huge. That extra month will only hit you with around $2 in interest for the true “0% for six months” offer. But if you need a seventh month and you used a deferred interest card, you’ll be hit with all of the interest that has accrued during the six months, which is around $55, according to CardHub.

    In its report, CardHub found that nearly three-fourths of major retailers offer financing options to shoppers, many of which offer deferred interest plans.

    Among the stores offering deferred interest cards are: Apple, Macy’s, True Value, Dell, JCPenney, Menards, Sears, Home Depot, Office Depot/Office Max, Staples, Walmart, Best Buy, Toys ‘R’ US, Pottery Barn, Lowe’s, Tractor Supply Co., and Amazon.

    While these companies may offer some questionable cards, many are good at actually relaying that information to customers.

    For example, Best Buy and Walmart do not go out of their way to hide the fact that you will be hit with all the interest if you have an unpaid balance at the end of the promotional period, CardHub found.

    Conversely, Apple and True Value scored the lowest overall on transparency. This was a stark contrast for Apple, which CardHub reports had the highest transparency ratings in both 2013 and 2014.

    Not only can deferred interest cards hit you in the back of the head if you don’t pay off the balance in time, that interest is often bordering on usury.

    For example, Staples offers an APR of 27.99%, while TJ Maxx, Toys ‘R’ US, GameStop, Pottery Barn, Macy’s, and JCPenney offer APR at 26.99%.

    Bottom line, whatever card you choose, you should do everything you can to pay off your balance before that promotional APR expires. Credit card companies are banking that you won’t be responsible enough to do that, so prove them wrong.



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uSodaStream Shrinks Flavor Syrup Bottles Significantlyr


4 4 4 9
  • A lot of Consumerist readers are Sodastream fans, and a number of you wrote in with some sad news: as part of a redesign of its proprietary line of flavoring syrups, the bottles are now smaller. How much smaller? The old version made 50 servings of flavored drink, and the new versions make only 29. Why 29? Why not 30? Such are the mysteries of the Grocery Shrink Ray.

    Reader Rob sent along these photos. In grand Shrink Ray tradition, the new bottles are somehow taller even though they’re smaller. On the positive side, they no longer look like petite laundry detergent bottles.

    drpete

    sparklinng

    nutrish

    The old versions are still available on SodaStream’s site for now, as “Classics,” but readers report that they only find the shrunken version in brick-and-mortar store.

    Maybe SodaStream made this change because they know that the product still looks reasonably priced next to its new competitor, the Keurig Kold. Maybe. We don’t know: we’ve called SodaStream’s media relations team repeatedly, and they haven’t responded to our messages.



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uLawmakers Introduce Legislation To Curtail Surprise Medical Billsr


4 4 4 9
  • frankieleon

    There are good surprise and there are bad surprise. Falling into the latter category are unexpected medical bills, which affect nearly 30% of privately insured Americans. This week, lawmakers took steps to shield consumers from these often burdensome tabs. 

    Texas Representative Lloyd Doggett, along with 20 co-sponsors, introduced the Ending Surprise Billing Act with the aim to put a stop to unfair and unexpected out-of-network charges.

    Under the proposed legislation, patients can no longer be charged balance bills if they go to an in-network facility in an emergency.

    In the case of non-emergencies, they cannot be balanced billed unless they are given 24-hours-notice that an out-of-network specialist is providing care, an estimate of the charges, and then provide written consent to those charges.

    If the conditions of the legislation aren’t met, patients would only be responsible for what they would have paid for services if they received them from in-network providers.

    “Patients under anesthesia shouldn’t have to pay out-of-pocket unexpectedly for a health care provider outside their insurance coverage network,” Doggett said in statement. “Surprise billing is a complex problem. But we should all agree that requiring patients to pay unfair and unexpected bills is not the solution.”

    Consumer advocates were quick to applaud the introduction of the bill.

    Our colleagues at Consumers Union called the legislation an important step in protecting consumers.

    “The unfortunate fact is that thousands of consumers across the country are hit with surprise medical bills, even when they’ve done their due diligence to find hospitals and doctors covered by their insurance plans,” Betsy Imholz, Director of Special Projects for Consumers Union, said in a statement. “This legislation is an important step in taking the ‘surprise’ out of surprise medical bills and ensuring that consumers aren’t on the hook for unexpected charges, especially in emergency situations.”

    Families USA also endorsed the legislation, noting that the issue “cries out for national legislation.”

    “The way it stands now, a consumer can do all the homework asked of them, know with certainty the facility they are checking into is part of their insurance network, and still check out with thousands of dollars in charges for out-of-network services from medical specialists they often never even met, let alone consented to be treated by,” Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, said in a statement.



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uMcDonald’s Testing Sales Of Monster Energy Drinks In Five Statesr


4 4 4 9
  • (Steven Depolo)

    Need a little pick-me-up after a greasy burger and fry value meal? McDonald’s thinks it has the answer: sell energy drinks. 

    The Golden Arches is testing sales of Monster energy drinks in about 20 restaurants around the country, Bloomberg reports.

    “We’re always gathering feedback from customers on the food and beverages they’d like to be served at McDonald’s and this is another example,” the company said in statement.

    The tests, which actually began over the summer, are taking place in Michigan, Ohio, Georgia, Florida and Illinois.

    Customers looking for a little energy bump via the caffeinated drink have to shell out a bit more cash: the beverages are typically sold as part of a value meal for an extra $1.50 charge.

    Whiel customers have long been able to order soft drinks, water and juice with their McDonald’s meals, the addition of Monster drinks isn’t exactly unusual.

    Monster formed a pact last year with Coca-Cola that transferred all of its U.S. and Canada distribution to the soft drink giant. And McDonald’s just happens to have a long-standing supply contract with Coca-Cola.

    So far, analysts tell Bloomberg that the tests have generated incremental revenue and traffic for stores.

    McDonald’s testing Monster energy drinks [Bloomberg]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist