четверг, 30 апреля 2015 г.

uThis Independent RadioShack Isn’t Going Anywherer


4 4 4 9
  • (Nicholas Eckhart)

    (Nicholas Eckhart)

    If you don’t happen to live near one, you may have never heard of RadioShack dealers and franchisees. They’re locally-owned stores that happen to sell merchandise from RadioShack. However, they aren’t part of the RadioShack that declared bankruptcy in February and is in the process of closing down most of its stores. The owner of one of these Shacks in Virginia wants to make sure that customers know they’re staying open.

    The curious thing, of course, is that remaining RadioShack stores are now part of a joint venture with mobile carrier Sprint. Sprint’s branding is more prominent, or will be once the stores have their new signage. If the new owners don’t win the bidding for the brand name in next month’s auction, they will no longer have the right to call the new stores RadioShack at all. For now, though, the franchise and dealer stores get to call themselves “RadioShack,” and that may be why people are getting confused.

    “I want to reassure people that regardless of what happens with RadioShack (corporation), we have no intentions of going anywhere,” explains the president of Kittronics, the local company that owns the store. The store is even going to some effort to assure customers that they’re staying open: they’ve placed ads explaining how they plan to stay open, and also out signs out front and on the sidewalk.

    Thank you for your concern!

    This store is an independently owned and operated location.

    Although we display the name Radio Shack, we will not be closing. Please contact us directly with any questions.

    The company also sells DirecTV subscriptions, Exede satellite internet access, and metal detectors, which are arguably more popular than fuses and wires, but the store will continue to sell most of the same merchandise.

    RadioShack of Warrenton continues as independent [Fauquier Now]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


u1-Hour Photo Shops Are The Disappearingest Business In Americar


4 4 4 9

  • If you think that video stores are the business category that has disappeared the fastest, you’re wrong. If you found an exposed roll of film in a drawer and wanted to find out what was on it, where would you take it? Most likely, your local photo store is gone, and you might have a drugstore or other business that still does a few rolls of film every week.

    Let’s look at just shops that bill themselves as one-hour photo developers: analysis by Bloomberg Businessweek shows that there are only 190 of them left across the country. That’s a 94% decrease over fifteen years ago, the final years before digital photography started to become mainstream. In the same time period, 85% of video rental stores closed. Yes, there are still some video-rental stores.

    As a person who studied archives and preservation, I’m obligated to point out that while our digital photos are plentiful and portable, they are only as permanent as the cloud service we’ve uploaded them to or the hard drive they’re stored on.

    Twilight of One-Hour Photo, America’s Fastest-Fading Business [Bloomberg Businessweek]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uArbitration Fairness Act Would Reinstate Consumers’ Right To Sue In Courtr


4 4 4 9
  •  

    Companies have been taking away your right to sue them when they screw up for years, using small, hidden clauses to require mandatory binding arbitration instead. After years of consumer groups voicing their concern over this anti-consumer practice, there’s finally a new bill in congress that proposes to bring back your right to sue.

    The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2015 [PDF], which was introduced by Minnesota Sen. Al Franken and Georgia Rep. Hank Johnson, would eliminate mandatory arbitration clauses in employment, consumer, civil rights and antitrust cases by amending the Fair Arbitration Act to its original intent.

    The use of arbitration clauses has skyrocketed by companies since 2011, when the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that it was perfectly okay for companies to take away a consumer’s right to sue or their ability to join other wronged consumers in a class action case by inserting a paragraph or two of text inside lengthy contracts.

    To add insult to injury, most consumers are unaware that they’ve signed away their right to be heard in court. A Consumer Financial Protection Bureau report from March found that 75% of consumers surveyed did not know if they were subject to an arbitration clause in their credit card contract. And among consumers whose contract included an arbitration clause, fewer than 7% recognized that they could not sue their credit card issuer in court.

    “There is overwhelming evidence that forced arbitration creates an unaccountable system of winners and losers,” Sen. Johnson said in a statement. “Unlike America’s civil justice system, which has evolved through centuries of jurisprudence and social progress, forced arbitration does not provide important procedural guarantees of fairness and due process that are the hallmarks of courts of law.”

    According to a statement from Sen. Franken’s office, the Arbitration Fairness Act would restore the intent of the original Fair Arbitration Act (FAA) passed by Congress in 1925.

    When FAA was passed it made it was intended to target commercial arbitration agreements between two companies of generally comparable bargaining power. Over the years, however, the Supreme Court boarded the reach of the law to include consumer and employment disputes, effectively superseding all other federal laws protecting consumers, workers and small businesses.

    Under the newly introduced Arbitration Fairness Act of 2015, agreements to arbitration of employment, consumer, civil rights and antitrust disputes could only be made after the dispute has arisen.

    To be clear, the Act doesn’t prohibit companies and consumers from going to arbitration to settle a dispute, it simply mandates that the decision to go into arbitration not be made before the dispute has actually taken place.

    The Act seeks to ensure transparency in civil litigation by protecting the integrity of Civil Rights Act, the Equal Pay Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and others that are frequently skirted by companies using forced arbitration.

    Additionally, the Act would continue to allow pre-dispute mandatory arbitration to continue in business-to-business agreements, and does not apply to collective pardoning agreements.

    “The Arbitration Fairness Act, is a commonsense reform to our justice system that will restore Americans’ right to challenge unfair practices by corporations and ensure meaningful legal recourse when everyday Minnesotans and small businesses are wronged,” Franken says in a statement. “It’s clear that we’re at a point where big corporations can write their own rules and insulate themselves from liability for wrongdoing—this can’t continue.”

    Consumer groups, many of which have called on regulators to revise forced arbitration rules, applauded the Act’s introduction.

    Both the National Consumer Law Center and the National Association of Consumer Advocates say they support the new measure, calling on Congress to follow through restoring consumers’ Constitutional rights.

    “We should never have to give up our Constitutional rights just to do the everyday things in our lives,” NACA’s legislative director Ellen Taverna said in a statement. “The Arbitration Fairness Act stands up for consumers, servicemembers, workers and all Americans and restores our right to hold corporations accountable when they break the law.”

    Sen. Franken, Rep. Hank Johnson Lead Charge to Protect Legal Right to Day in Court [Al Franken]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uHey, AT&T Customers: If You Plan To Grab A Slice Of The Cramming Settlement, Do It Right Nowr


4 4 4 9
  • A friendly reminder to AT&T wireless customers: as a result of their $105m settlement with the FTC, the company has to pay refunds for cramming. The application deadline for refunds is May 1 — that’s tomorrow. You can visit the settlement website to see if you’re eligible or to submit a claim.


ribbi
  • by Kate Cox
  • via Consumerist


uFormer NFL Player Wins Case Over Cleveland’s “Jock Tax” Methodsr


4 4 4 9
  • Most people dreaming of a career in professional sports that will take them around the country to play for huge crowds in major U.S. cities are probably imagining the glitz and glamor that goes with that job. But then there’s the un-fun parts, like paying taxes in each one of those states, as well as some cities that levy taxes against income earned locally. One former NFL player filed a lawsuit against Cleveland’s so-called “jock tax,” not to dispute that he owed taxes there, but because of how the city calculated what he owed.

    Former Chicago Bears linebacker Hunter Hillemeyer won a lawsuit today in Ohio Supreme Court claiming Cleveland unfairly taxed him during his playing career when it came time for him to pay income taxes based on his time working there in the NFL, reports the Chicago Tribune.

    In his case going back to 2007, he argued that he was overtaxed for the games he played in that city. Cleveland had imposed a 2% tax on income allocable to the city, and determined that 5% of his income was taxable for the one game he played with the Bears each year in the city for the years 2004, 2005 and 2006.

    Not so fast, Hillenmeyer argued — he said players are compensated not just for the games they play, but for the work they put in practicing, attending strategy meetings and promotional activities. He said that his duty days added up to 163 days those years, only two of which each year were spent in Cleveland.

    Based on his calculations of the time spent in Cleveland, he should only have owed about 1.25% each year, he argued in the court papers. The court agreed in a unanimous opinion, finding that Cleveland’s tax method violated the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

    “Cleveland’s power to tax reaches only that portion of a nonresident’s compensation that was earned by work performed in Cleveland,” the opinion said. “The games-played method reaches income for work that was performed outside of Cleveland, and thus Cleveland’s income tax violates due process as applied to NFL players such as Hillenmeyer.”

    He’s due a partial refund of the tax paid, the court said, which he claims comes down to a total refund of $5,062 for the three years.

    Former Chicago Bear wins suit over Cleveland’s ‘jock tax’ [Chicago Tribune]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uComcast Decides Competing Against Municipal Fiber Is Just Fine, Brings 2 Gbps Service to Chattanoogar


4 4 4 9
  • Chattanooga: pretty blue bridges, municipal broadband, and Comcast. (ash)

    Chattanooga: pretty blue bridges, municipal broadband, and Comcast. (ash)


    While most of us languish away without even a flicker on the horizon of someday getting gigabit speeds or real broadband competition, residents in a handful of cities are lucky enough to have both. This summer, Chattanoogans will join the shortlist of Americans who not only have blazing fast internet, but also a choice of providers.

    The Times Free Press reports that Comcast is promising Chattanooga the same “Gigabit Pro” service they’re rolling out elsewhere: fully symmetrical 2 Gbps, fiber-to-the-home connections. The roll-out is planned to begin in June and will reach up to 200,000 homes.

    “But wait,” you might say. “Chattanooga sounds really familiar. Something something municipal fiber internet?”

    Chattanooga, as we’ve discussed several times over the past year, is well known for its super fast, globally competitive symmetrical gigabit fiber network — a public utility that the FCC recently granted permission to expand, despite restrictions in Tennessee state law.

    Comcast’s previous Gigabit Pro announcements have been oh-so-coincidentally appearing in cities that are either currently targeted by Google Fiber (as in Atlanta) or by AT&T’s GigaPower service (as in Florida and California). So in bringing their new service to Chattanooga, they’re doing essentially the same thing, only targeting the public sector.

    Chattanooga created its municipal fiber network in the first place because existing, incumbent ISPs (*coughComcastcough*) were unwilling or unable to provide high-speed, reliable, affordable service to the city and its residents. We’re sure it’s entirely coincidental that Comcast should have chosen now, right after the city’s gotten permission to expand and improve their popular network even farther, suddenly to bring their A-game to town.

    Comcast is staunchly against the existence of publicly-owned or -operated networks and does not believe it should have to compete with them. The company and its executives work fiercely to make sure that as many states as possible (currently about 19) pass or maintain protectionist laws that block public networks.

    There’s still no word on how much Comcast plans to charge for their double-gigabit service. Chattanooga’s Electronic Power Board (EPB) currently offers its 1 Gbps service to area residents for about $70 per month. Google Fiber also runs $70 monthly, in cities where it’s offered, and AT&T more or less matches the price point if there’s a competitor in town.



ribbi
  • by Kate Cox
  • via Consumerist


uPopeyes Manager Fired After Armed Robbery Returns To Work Tomorrow, Announces Plans To Suer


4 4 4 9
  • (KHOU 11)

    (KHOU 11)

    Last week, we shared the story of a Popeyes shift manager who was fired after an armed robbery while she was on duty. Depending on whether you ask the manager or the franchisee, she was fired for refusing to pay back the $400 taken in the robbery, or for keeping too much money in the cash drawer at a time. After the story made headlines nationwide, she received a job offer and an apology from the store’s owner, and says that she plans to sue for emotional distress.

    KHOU reports (auto-play video) that the manager’s attorney has sent the local franchisee a letter about her demand for $5.5 million for emotional distress. The company has 30 days to respond to her demand.

    It’s understandable that she felt distressed: living through an armed robbery is stressful enough, but she had abruptly lost her job while pregnant and responsible for her three other children.

    The manager maintains that even if her mistake was keeping too much cash in the register at a time, they were so busy in the period before the robbery that she didn’t have time to deposit cash in the safe, and the $400 taken represented only about an hour’s sales.

    She had accepted a job with a different local Popeyes restaurant: it’s not clear whether that location has the same owner as the franchise that fired her.

    Popeye’s manager fired after robbery, asking for $5.5M [KHOU]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist