Government Regulation Makes USA Business Great

17 Sunday Dec 2017

Posted by Paul Kiser in About Reno, Business, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Employee Retention, Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, History, Human Resources, Management Practices, Politics, Pride, Public Image, Public Relations, Respect, Taxes, Technology, US History, Women

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

corporations, discrimination, enterprise, ethical business, Gender, Government oversight, products, race, regulation, service, Unethical Business Practices

Conservatives trash government regulation as a business killer. Ironically, the fact is that government regulation is what makes business in the United States successful. Without regulation, ethical business is pushed out to make room for people who lust for money. It is a ‘buyer be screwed’ mentality.

Business without oversight destroys ethical businesses

Sam and Joe Comparisons

Sam wants to start up a business. She determines what she must do and obtains all the needed licensing and inspections required, and abides by local, state, and federal laws. As she expands her business, she hires qualified workers and abides by the required payroll laws that protect the worker.

Joe starts up a similar business that competes with Sam’s business, but he sneaks around the laws. He only does what he has to do to not get caught. For code inspections he knows what they are looking for, and lies about what he is doing, so he avoids any government regulations that should apply to his business. As he expands his business, Jake pays people ‘under the table,’ to avoid paying taxes, doesn’t provide his employees with benefits, and doesn’t pay overtime. He warns the employees, that if they complain he’ll close down the business and they won’t have a job.

Which business will provide a more honest and trustworthy relationship with his/her customers? And which business provides good jobs? Which business will contribute more back to her/his community? More ethical? Will make more money?

Ethics and a Level Playing Field

The problem with business is that when the only rule is to make money, unethical practices will provide an advantage over the honest and ethical businessperson. Government regulation creates a level playing field for all corporations so that the honest businesses are not pushed out.

Government regulation and oversight of private business is not about crushing business, it is about saving business. It is empowering our citizens, through government employment, to serve as our protectors as workers and customers. It allows us to trust that a business is ethical and helping our nation.

By demonizing government regulation, unethical people seek to take advantage of other citizens of the United States of America. They swindle them out of money, abusing workers, bringing racism and discrimination into the workplace, and providing substandard and/or dangerous products and services.

Government regulation is not perfect, but until someone can find a better way of protecting the interests of our citizens, it is what we have, and it works.

This is NOT an Excuse: Why Older White Men Sexually Harass Women

22 Wednesday Nov 2017

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Business, Communication, Crime, Crisis Management, Employee Retention, Ethics, Generational, History, Honor, Human Resources, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, parenting, Politics, Pride, Public Image, Public Relations, Relationships, Respect, The Tipping Point, Women

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

children, Donald Trump, Education, management by intimidation, men, power, Ray Moore, sex, sex ed, sexual harassment, sexual relationships, wealth, Weinstein, Women

I need to be clear. Sexual harassment is and always has been wrong.

However, as an older white man, I can say that I am not surprised by the revelations coming out about women who have been sexually harassed by powerful older white men, I have to admit that I have been guilty of the same attitudes and behaviors.

Nothing that I have to say should be construed as an excuse for the behavior. No one should read this and feel any sympathy for men who have engaged in sexual harassment. This is simply an explanation of why I am not surprised by the recent revelations, and why I think almost all men of my age or older have a propensity to sexually harass women.

“Nothing that I have to say should be construed as an excuse for the behavior. No one should read this and feel any sympathy for men who have engaged in sexual harassment.”

I was born in 1957. My parents that raised me were married in 1939. My Dad was twenty years old, and my mother was fifteen…on the day she married. That was not typical; however, older men marrying younger women, even girls, was not uncommon, and during my childhood years, almost every Mom was a housewife.

As a child of the 1960’s, the idea that the man was dominant over a woman was not even questioned. Women were created to please men. The mindset was, women should not be overtly sexual and modest; therefore, it was the man’s place to initiate sexual actions. There was no formal instruction about initiating sexual intention with women, it was just expected that boys would learn as they go.

It was blatantly obvious to me, and probably most men my age, that power and wealth made men sexually attractive, and that women craved men who boldly took the initiative, so they didn’t have to pretend that they didn’t want sex. One way to win over a woman was to be in a position of power, and create a situation where the woman could submit to them.

“…that power and wealth made men sexually attractive, and that women craved men who boldly took the initiative, so they didn’t have to pretend that they didn’t want sex.”

The problem was, it worked. In hindsight, it didn’t work because the myth of women secretly wanting sex was true, it worked because the intimidation of a powerful man, and because most fell into the belief that it was a societal norm. Until I was in my late 20’s, the concept of sexual harassment was not even recognized as a problem in the workplace. A man marrying a subordinate was commonplace.

During my adult years, the development of workplace training began to take hold, and one of the primary topics became sexual harassment training. I, and most other men, were told that we had to be careful how we handled ourselves in the workplace, but that seemed to be focused on the workers, not so much on the executives.

When an issue of sexual harassment did come up with someone in management, companies hushed it up “to protect the woman,” and often the woman was given some type of compensation and moved out of the situation. In the business world, the human resources department enabled men to sexual harass women by treating it as an embarrassment for the company that needed to be dealt with internally, without law enforcement involvement.

There is no excuse for my behavior, nor the behavior of white men my age. In part, the problem is born of myths that are created in the absence of discussion and awareness of sex. Young boys will believe what other young boys will tell them when reliable information isn’t available.

We have to stop pretending that sex is only for married adults, and prior to marriage sex isn’t supposed to happen. Abstinence is an abomination to human interaction, and people who promote that idea don’t realize the damage they are doing to our society. Sex is not taboo or should it be embarrassing to discuss. It is a natural function of life.

We also have to stop letting companies deal with sexual harassment issues. Profit, public relations, and efficient operation of the business have no place in how a workplace sexual harassment issue is resolved.

“Profit, public relations, and efficient operation of the business have no place in how a workplace sexual harassment issue is resolved.”

Finally, I apologize to any woman who feels I have offended and/or been sexually inappropriate with. There is no excuse.

My Four Fathers

16 Friday Jun 2017

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Business, Communication, Ethics, genealogy, Generational, Management Practices, parenting, Pride, Public Image, Relationships, Respect, Women

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Barrick, Colorado, Craig, Depue, Family, family history, Henderson, Kiser, siblings, son, Vernon Kiser, Waner

(To understand the background of this story see, Familius Interruptus, the explanation of how I learned through a DNA test that my father was not my father, and that my mother had an affair with another man known to our family.)

I had four fathers. Two of my fathers were real, tangible people. Both were good men and both were good fathers. One of my fathers was my biological father. I knew of him, and people have told me about him, but I never really knew him. He died when I was five years old.

One of my fathers was my man listed on my birth certificate. He was the man I always knew to be my Dad. He raised me and until a few months ago, I was led to believe he was my real father.

But I have two other fathers. They are the two men who I never got to know. They are ghosts of my past. They are the relationships I should have had with both my biological father, and my Dad, but were kept from me in a shroud of secrecy, rumors, and shame.

My Biological Father
My knowledge of my biological father is limited. He was a business owner in Craig, a small northwestern Colorado town. Based on everything I can gather, he was an amazing entrepreneur, creating and maintaining a business in a market that was too small, and too poor for the quality and experience his company offered.

My biological father

I have never heard anyone speak a negative word about my real father. His tragic death when I was only five, kept me from having any kind of relationship with him, and the shroud of secrecy that was maintained prevented me from interacting with the people who really knew him.

It is ironic and poetic that it is the next generation of my biological family that reached out to me after a DNA test proved the link between myself and their family. It was their actions that brought clarity and truth to my family history, and I am grateful.

I regret not knowing my real father and being able to know him as my father. I also am saddened to think of his sons and their mother. His death occurred when his sons were young adults. From what I know of my real father, he would have been proud of who they became, and of their achievements with their families, their work, and their church. My lack of a relationship with my real father pales in comparison to their loss.

My Dad
The man who raised me worked hard all his life. He was often up on Mondays before five in the morning and on the road to the job site, over an hour away. He often stayed at the job site during the week, living out of a camping trailer. He operated heavy equipment, and as a child the words, Cat, Maintainer, and Scraper described the three types of heavy equipment that my father used to build roads and reservoirs.

My Dad, and my Mother

I was the youngest of four sons to my Dad. I remember going with my family to see my oldest brother play high school basketball, my next oldest brother play high school football, but I don’t remember my Dad going see my next to youngest brother in plays, nor do I remember him coming to any of my school events. I suspect that when I was a child, my Dad was at the job site when our events were happening.

If my Dad knew, or suspected that I was not his son, I was not aware of it. I have indications that my mother and he had a strange marriage, but as a child, I had nothing to compare their relationship with, nor did I have any reference to compare my relationship with my parents. In hindsight, I knew I was not the child that my parents beamed with pride over, but I attributed it to being the last of four boys.

The Kiser brothers and me (on left)

My mother posted an October 1968, Erma Bombeck column on our family scrapboard about the Caboose Child that was ‘planned about as well as a headache.’ At the time, I had no idea that my mother was probably well aware of who my real father was, but I didn’t understand the statement she was probably making when she posted this single article on the scrapboard.

I suspect my father also knew, and that is part of the story that is amazing and tragic. Most people would shun the bastard child, but to my knowledge, he didn’t. Our relationship wasn’t close, but he could have justifiably shunned me, and he didn’t.

That is the Dad I didn’t get to know. The man who probably knew I was not his child, but raised me anyway. Regardless of what happened one day in March of 1957, he chose to be my Dad. I wish that before his death, I could have expressed my appreciation for living with the knowledge that few men would have had the character to move beyond.

My Dad wasn’t a perfect father, but he was a father to me, when he could have rejected me. I had a relationship with my Dad that I knew, and I wish I could have had a relationship with the part of my Dad who had to deal with the reality that I was as a son of another man.

I am too late, but I want to express gratitude to my fathers, and wish them a belated Happy Father’s Day.

Job Killing: The Republican Prime Directive

25 Thursday May 2017

Posted by Paul Kiser in About Reno, Branding, Business, Education, Employee Retention, Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, History, Human Resources, Management Practices, Politics, Public Image, Public Relations, racism, Taxes, Technology, Universities, US History, Women

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

BLS, Bureau of Labor Standards, Employment, GOP, government jobs, high paying jobs, job creation, jobs, Manufacturing jobs, Republican, Republicans, Trump's finances, Unemployment

There may be no political party in the history of the world that has killed more jobs, or enacted legislation to kill jobs, than the Republicans of the United States of America. They attempt to deny their legacy and claim that it is government that is killing jobs, while also claiming that illegal immigrants are taking high paying jobs from our citizens. Those are damn lies.

Trump’s SS forces raid homes to allegedly save high paying jobs for U.S. citizens

Business and Republicans are one in the same. Republicans always do what business wants, and in the past thirty years there have been few, if any, examples where a majority of Republicans have voted for legislation that was contrary to business wishes. When manufacturing jobs leave the United States, a Republican businessperson is behind it and it is done with the blessing of Republican politicians.

Manufacturing jobs in the U.S. 1939 to present. Growth occurs under Democratic leadership and shrinks under Republican leadership. (Source: Bureau of Labor Standards)

Trump’s feigned anger at businesses sending jobs overseas is almost comical if it weren’t so pitiful. In 1995, the sixty-year reign of Democratic majority control of Congress ended. in that sixty year history Democrats controlled either the House of Representatives and the Senate for all but four of those years. Republicans controlled the House of Representatives for six additional years during the Reagan administration. Since 1995, Republicans have controlled the Senate, House, or Presidency for all but two years under a banner to thwart all Democratic legislation.

Four years after the Republicans seized control of Congress and passed major business-friendly legislation, the number of manufacturing jobs in the United States began a plunge that would take it down to levels not seen in fifty years.

Job killing our country’s key employer is a primary goal of the Republican party. Federal, state, county, and local governments have been under attack since the Reagan administration. Republicans have consistently sought to strangle funding for public schools as our population has grown, eliminate jobs of the people paid to protect workers and consumers from unethical businesses, prevent funding for workers providing veteran services, and attack critical jobs that provide services for the typical citizen.

The goal of every business person is to make money, not create jobs. That is why Republicans seek to eliminate costs by killing jobs, rather than spend money to create jobs. To a business person, jobs are an expense, and are the obstacle to making money. What Republicans don’t understand is that jobs move the money through the economy, and eliminating high paying government jobs takes money out of the economy. This is why our economy is barely moving forward.

Trump supporters can’t understand the complexities of a national economy, which is why they are the problem in perpetuating Republican domination of our government. Trump is trying to push our economy into a disaster that we may never recover from unless he is stopped.

Don’t Look To The FBI To Bring Trump To Justice

24 Wednesday May 2017

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Crime, Education, Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, History, Honor, Management Practices, Politics, Public Image, Public Relations, racism, Relationships, US History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Conservatives, FBI, FBI Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, James Comey, L. Patrick Gray, liberals, Nixon, President Richard Nixon, Watergate

Former FBI Director James Comey: A Man For No Seasons

FBI Director James Comey was fired by Donald Trump. Was it because he was protecting our country’s interest against an unethical, perverted, traitorous President, or did the Dark Lord have tantrum over a lack of absolute obedience?

There is little reason to believe that James Comey was prepared to act against Trump in the Russiagate investigation. Prior to being fired, Comey had declared to Congress that he believed it was perfectly acceptable to publicly announce unsubstantiated, baseless evidence against a Democratic presidential candidate just prior to an election; however, it was not acceptable to publicly announce substantiated evidence against a conservative and/or Republican prior to, or after an election.

He was correct. That is the role the FBI has historically taken, and continues today.

The FBI investigated Watergate from the moment the burglars were arrested. They had evidence that President Nixon, and his administration were involved, and yet, the FBI somehow failed to find the key evidence of a wider conspiracy that would eventually force Nixon out of office. While we don’t know the full extent of the FBI’s role in hindering the Watergate scandal, we do know the following:

A former FBI agent was recruited to wiretap the Democratic National Headquarters in the Watergate complex.
Acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray during Watergate
Acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray helped destroy Watergate evidence that came from a White House safe of Howard Hunt, eleven days after the burglary.
On October 10, 1972, less than a month prior to the election, the FBI publicly revealed a list of crimes that their investigation had uncovered to date, and that the crimes were linked to staff in the White House. Despite this announcement, the FBI, nor Department of Justice took no action, nor threatened action, giving credibility to White House denials of the facts. Nixon won the election by a landslide, largely because Nixon and his administration were able to convince people that the FBI’s lack of action proved their innocence.

It could be reasonably argued that, in October of 1968, the FBI and the Justice Department were in a state of confusion about the depth of the Democratic National Headquarters break in, spying, eavesdropping, and cover up. It is possible that no legal action occurred before the election due to their own lack of understanding of the real situation. It could also be argued that based on the involvement of past and current members of the FBI in the Watergate break in and subsequent cover up, that the FBI was caught in an internal struggle between protecting Nixon, and not looking like they were protecting Nixon.

J. Edgar Hoover and John and Robert Kennedy

The FBI has historically been a politically motivated investigative body that has a friendly relationship with conservatives, and an adversarial relationship with liberals. The 1987, four-part mini-series, Hoover vs The Kennedys: The Second Civil War, depicts the adversarial relationship of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover had with President Kennedy and his brother Robert.

The FBI Director role has historically been defined by a cozy relationship with conservative politicians, and an adversarial role with liberal politicians. James Comey’s replacement will likely follow that tradition.

Six Facts About Manufacturing Jobs

22 Monday May 2017

Posted by Paul Kiser in About Reno, Aging, Business, College, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Education, Employee Retention, Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, Higher Education, History, Management Practices, Politics, Public Image, Public Relations, Taxes, Universities, US History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Donald Trump, Employment, jobs, Manufacturing jobs, Sierra Nevada Corp., Trump, Trump supporters, unskilled workers

Manufacturing jobs do not just appear or disappear, and the government is not the bad guy.

It is sad to hear Trump supporters to be interviewed about anything, but when they start talking about the lack of manufacturing jobs is when they really start looking like adults in diapers. They act like the government is supposed to force private manufacturers to build a factory and make something so that Joe Blow, with a high school degree, in Small Town USA can drive two miles to the local factory and earn $150,000.

Here are the facts:

1. Manufacturing jobs go overseas because consumers in the USA want to pay less for goods, and labor is cheaper in many places outside the United States, which makes the cost of manufacturing less, which makes the price of the product less.

2. USA, state, and local taxes have almost no impact on good manufacturing jobs. For example, the Sierra Nevada Corporation (a private version of early 1960’s NASA…before we had a successful launch) has its headquarters in Nevada, but all of their non-executive jobs are in Colorado. Colorado has higher taxes than Nevada, but Colorado also has a better, more skilled, higher educated workforce. Nevada is the headquarters only so the executives don’t have to pay taxes, but the jobs are in Colorado. If the issue was about taxes, the jobs would be in Nevada, not Colorado.

Job fairy or much ado about nothing?

3. There is no manufacturing jobs fairy. Manufacturing jobs REQUIRE someone who wants to buy the product. The NEED for a manufacturing job is determined by the consumer. You don’t build a factory, then hang out a sign saying you’re open for business. Manufacturing jobs are “secondary jobs” meaning that before a manufacturing job is created, a product that people want to buy must exist.

4. Most unskilled manufacturing jobs don’t pay well regardless of where the factory is located. CONSERVATION OF COMPENSATION: If anyone can do the work, the jobs go to the people who are willing to be paid the least amount of money. Whether the job is in the United States, or elsewhere, pay is driven by the supply of workers who can do the job.

5. Small towns rarely attract high paying manufacturing jobs. While some factories have moved to rural locations to reduce labor costs, it is rare, and factories still need enough potential workers to avoid a labor shortage, which would increase labor costs.

6. Good business REQUIRES government regulation. Government regulations protect the employee and the consumer. Many countries don’t have rules of against abuse of workers and don’t require manufacturers to abide ethical business practices, and result is always unethical business practices. Remember the Samsung Galaxy Note 7?

Ryssdal Allows Guest To Euphemize High Crude Oil Price As Desirable

26 Wednesday Apr 2017

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Business, Customer Service, Ethics, Government, Government Regulation, Green, History, Management Practices, Politics, Public Image, Public Relations

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

big oil, crude oil prices, Kai Ryssdal, Maria Hollenhorst, Marketplace, npr, oil prices, OPEC, Robert McNally

As host and senior editor of NPR’s (National Public Radio) business-focused, Marketplace, Kai Ryssdal has a tough job. He and his staff have to meld business, politics, and society into small chunks of edible information for his listeners to consume during one of four syndicated shows that air multiple times each day.

For most people, developing and presenting an informative, factual, unbiased radio program about business and everything around it would be a tax that is over 100% of their brain’s income. But Ryssdal isn’t ‘most people.’

So it would be perfectly reasonable to give Mr. Ryssdal a break and overlook a segment that didn’t really measure up to a perfect journalistic standard. Sorry, Kai, but you don’t get that break.

Last week, (April 18, 2017,) Ryssdal and Maria Hollenhorst produced a segment on oil pricing called, “Why boom-bust oil prices may be here to stay.” Ryssdal was interviewing former President George W. Bush advisor, Robert McNally who recently came out with a book called, Crude Volatility.

In his book, and during this interview, McNally attempts to generate fear that low oil prices are bad. Only, he doesn’t use the words, “low oil prices.” Instead he refers to price instability and price swings. McNally uses the euphemism of price stability to indicate artificially high crude oil prices are good, and free market, low crude oil prices are bad.

Historical Crude Oil Price (red line = adjusted for inflation. Credit: Wikipedia)

Adjusted for inflation, crude oil prices were relatively stable for forty years at around $20/barrel from 1933 to 1973. McNally implies that once OPEC began controlling the oil market in the 1970’s, the artificially high price of crude oil was a ‘stable’ oil price. He seems to suggest that the return to lower oil prices at the end of the 20th century and in the past two years are a sign of instability, simply because the free market is controlling the prices.

From his book and interview, it is clear that McNally is a conservative, on a first name basis with major oil executives, and one who believes that the future consumption of oil, as Agent Smith might say, is the sound of inevitability. It is also clear McNally desires to be a mercenary for oil corporations that seek to manipulate the market for their gain.

What isn’t clear is why Kai Ryssdal gave him a pass on his attempt to generate fear of free market influences on crude oil prices. Ryssdal is too smart to not see McNally’s pandering to his oil clients, and the Marketplace staff had to know that McNally is not an unbiased source of information.

Sure, high oil prices are good for oil companies and their investors, but wasn’t this past election allegedly about making things fair for the poor guy who has to pay the price at the pump?

(Marketplace is owned and operated by American Public Media)

Conversations With Conservatives: The 37 Year Lie

13 Thursday Apr 2017

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Business, Communication, Education, Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, Health, Higher Education, History, Honor, Human Resources, Management Practices, Politics, Pride, Public Image, Public Relations, racism, Religion, Respect, Space, Taxes, Technology, US History, Women

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

conservatism, Conservatives, economic growth, economy, Employment, GDP, Gross domestic product, high paying jobs, Iran Contra Affair, Iran Hostage Crisis, job growth, jobs, President Richard Nixon, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Watergate

(NOTE: This is Part II of this article. Read Part I, here.)

The social and economic issues that people are concerned about in the United States of America don’t necessarily fall along party lines. Some issues, like immigration and applying religion to public policy, have a distinct political division; however, many other issues cross the lines of the ideologies.

In conversations with conservatives I learned that the deep division between conservatives and liberals can be traced back 37 years, to when Republicans managed to break the hold of Democratic leadership of our country in 1980. For 37 years, conservatives have been able to maintain control of our country by singing one anthem, ‘Everything is the government’s fault, and business is the solution.’

Ronald Reagan: Founder of the Cult of Conservatism

Ronald Reagan was elected on the idea that Democrats had failed the country. It was an easy story to sell for one reason. The Iran Hostage Crisis. Every night the news reminded our country of how many days our citizens had been held and humiliated by a group of Iranian students. Most in the United States did not understand the complexities of the situation, and were angry that we didn’t go to war with Iran.

The result was to give Republicans an early opportunity to erase the shame caused by Richard Nixon’s illegal involvement in fixing the 1972 presidential elections during the Watergate affair. The Hostage Crisis ended at the exact hour that Reagan was sworn in as President, a coincidence that causes questions of Republican collusion with the Iranian government during the crisis. Suspicions of collusion were raised again when Reagan’s administration worked a bizarre deal to sell arms to Iran several years later during the Iran/Contra Affair.

The Big Lie
Reagan is famously quoted in his first Inaugural speech when he said:

….government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem…”

Ronald Reagan, January 1981

The demonization of government was necessary for conservatives to achieve their goals. Government is the ethical referee that prevents business from underpaying employees, polluting for profit, abusing and endangering the customer, engaging in banking practices that protect the account holder, etc. Government oversight and regulation keeps business from devouring itself in greed.

Additionally, government collects business taxes for the privilege of having access to our country’s rich consumer markets. By eliminating these taxes, business could keep more of the spoils of capitalism and drain revenues from the entity that kept business fair and ethical.

The other shoe dropped by conservatives was to preach that the solution to our problems was business. In the holy corporate world, business was the shining light on the hill for all to worship.

37 Years Later: The Cult of Conservatism
In my conversation with average conservatives I have discovered that conservatism has now become a cult. The code word for a conservative is ‘fiscal conservatism.’ Ask anyone who votes for a Republican candidate why they vote for the party they will automatically answer, “I believe in fiscal conservatism.” They don’t even pause.

For conservatives, issues are caused by government and solved by business. Among the issues discussed with conservatives I learned the following:

Finance regulation: Conservatives believe that the government is at fault and less regulation will solve the problem, even though a lack of regulation and business greed caused the 2007-8 financial/bank crisis.

Housing Inflation/Bubbles: Conservatives that government is the problem because…I didn’t get an answer on this, but the free market will solve the problem, even though the bubbles that occur with rapid housing price increases are caused by capitalisticitic factors, not government involvement.

Economy: Conservatives believe that business is the creator of jobs and growth in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and government inhibits both. The evidence contradicts this as job and GDP growth have been anemic under almost 35 years of Republican economic policies, and the pre-conservative period of government initiated infrastructure projects and the space program generated massive job and GDP growth.

Healthcare: Conservatives believe that government has been the cause of uncontrolled price increases in healthcare and drug prices, even though it’s the lack of government regulation that has allowed the price increases, especially in the prescription drug market, where Republicans pushed for, and passed an end to competitive market that would help to restrict price increases.

Trump and Republicans have succeeded in creating a cult-like status around the concept that government is the problem and business is the solution…and like any cult, the believers surrender themselves to ‘faith.’ Truth and facts are fiction to a conservative.

The Republican party has no need to be logical, compromising, or reasonable. Their believers have no choice but to hate government, and worship business.

PR Fail: What United Airlines Should Have Done

28 Tuesday Mar 2017

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Branding, Business, Communication, Crisis Management, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Employee Retention, Ethics, Generational, Honor, Human Resources, Internet, Management Practices, parenting, Politics, Pride, Public Image, Public Relations, Respect, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, Travel, Women

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

buddy pass, buddy passes, children, dress code, fashion, gate agent, girls, HR, leggings, non-rev, non-revenue, policies, tickets, UAL, United Airlines

United PR: At least we don’t shove the children out at 35,000 feet!

Sunday morning United Airlines once again proved that they have some of the worst public relations people in the business, which is likely a reflection of their top management.

The Situation
Two young girls, ages estimated to be around ten to eleven years old, were prevented boarding a United Airlines flight from Denver to Minneapolis with their family. These were children, not adults, nor young adults. According to United Airlines, they were flying on what is known in the industry as a “Buddy Pass,” which is a relatively free (taxes have to be paid) ticket that is one of the benefits of airline employees.

The girls were wearing leggings, which again, according to United Airlines, is in violation of the dress code of people flying on a Buddy Pass. The gate agent apparently approached the family and told them the girls could not board the plane wearing leggings.

It is important to note that two of the girls did not have any other clothing options at the gate, and the family apparently checked bags with the girl’s clothing in them at the main ticketing, where a United representative had to weigh the bags, check the tickets, and confirm the identifications of each of the passengers. Despite this close contact with the passengers, the ticket agent did NOT prevent the children, nor the rest of the family from heading to the gate.

The gate agent that confronted the family was involved in a “tense” discussion of the dress code issue in front of other passengers. At one point the gate agent bragged, “I don’t make the rules, I just enforce them.”

This became a major public relations issue because passengers in the area were witness to the scene and a passenger from another gate investigated the situation and reported it on Twitter. The gate agent’s handling of the situation was overt enough to cause another family, not involved in the incident, to have their daughter put on a dress over her leggings.

United later reported that the girls later changed and boarded another flight.

What United Should Have Done
It boggles the mind as to the many public relation fails occurred by United staff, but here is what the public relations people should have said and done:

On Sunday, March 26, a family was boarding one of our flights on a special ticket that includes a dress code requirement for the passenger. One of our gate agents determined that the children were not dressed according to that policy, and the family was not allowed to board the flight.

While the gate agent technically followed our policy, we regret that this situation became a public scene. We also regret that our staff did not remind the family of that policy when they checked their bags at the main ticket counter, when the children would have been able to obtain appropriate clothing before their bags were checked.

Our policy is meant to encourage a professional appearance of those passengers who are flying as a benefit of being employed, or being a family member of one of our employees. When this involves children, we attempt to be sensitive to the difference in the typical appropriate dress for their age.

We regret to the manner in how this situation was handled and apologize to the family involved and to the passengers who were witness to this situation at the gate. We are reviewing our policies and how those policies are enforced.

The United Blood Bath
Rather than apologizing, United decided that it would work to sway public opinion against the traveling family and humiliate them further. Their announcement in response to the situation put all the blame on the children and their family and implied that the gate agent who created the scene was the hero.

It is a Trump-like strategy that is based on never admitting failure, even when the failure is obvious. It did produce a wave of approval by people who enjoy watching someone being crushed by a more powerful and insensitive force.

However, this type of strategy builds mistrust of an organization and clearly demonstrates United’s lack of empathy for its passengers, paying or not. It also demonstrates the lack of humanity by a corporation that doesn’t understand the deferred cost of bad public relations, and proves that United doesn’t know the quality of mercy.

We Don’t Need More Service Jobs

14 Tuesday Mar 2017

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Business, College, Education, Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, Higher Education, History, Management Practices, Politics, Pride, Public Image, Public Relations, Respect, Science, Space, Taxes, Technology, Travel, Universities, US History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

economy, government programs, government spending, high paying jobs, job creation, job growth, livable wages, Moon landing, NASA, presidential terms, Presidents, private business, service jobs, Space Program, technical jobs

Putting people on the Moon meant jobs on Earth

During President Lyndon Johnson’s second term (1965-1969,) the space program was booming. At almost four percent job growth, his administration exceeded any other presidential term since World War II, including President Jimmy Carter’s impressive 3.2% growth. These were high paying, skilled jobs that created a demand for workers that enticed many young people to choose engineering and scientific careers.

PRESIDENT	PARTY	TERM YR	JOB GROWTH
Herbert Hoover	R	1929–1933	-5.41%
Franklin Roosevelt	D	1933–1937	4.97%
Franklin Roosevelt	D	1937–1941	2.53%
Franklin Roosevelt	D	1941–1945	5.00%
Roosevelt/Truman	D	1945–1949	1.61%
Harry Truman	D	1949–1953	2.93%
Dwight Eisenhower	R	1953–1957	1.34%
Dwight Eisenhower	R	1957–1961	0.87%
Kennedy/Johnson	D	1961–1965	2.64%
Lyndon Johnson	D	1965–1969	3.90%
Richard Nixon	R	1969–1973	2.23%
Nixon/Ford	R	1973–1977	1.68%
Jimmy Carter	D	1977–1981	3.21%
Ronald Reagan	R	1981–1985	1.47%
Ronald Reagan	R	1985–1989	2.80%
George H. W. Bush	R	1989–1993	0.45%
Bill Clinton	D	1993–1997	2.85%
Bill Clinton	D	1997–2001	2.33%
George W. Bush	R	2001–2005	0.02%
George W. Bush	R	2005–2009	0.24%
Barack Obama	D	2009–2013	0.23%
Barack Obama	D	2013–2017	1.85%

CHART 1.0 – Job growth during Presidential Terms (1929-2017) Growth over 2.5% is in green. (DATA credit: Wikipedia)

Service jobs were a byproduct of the main engine driving the boom in the rapid expansion of the space program. Service jobs did not offer the wages or the excitement of the space program, but they did provide employment for those who lacked motivation to qualify and/or seek out better paying, higher skilled jobs.

And then we landed on the Moon.

After we had achieved the primary objective, people who didn’t understand what a large government project means to employment, began questioning the space program. Over time the naysayers effectively killed the program, leaving private business to reinvent what NASA had accomplished in the 1960’s (landing on the Moon) and the 1980’s (a reusable rocket system.)

Today, we are trying to sustain and expand a service industry that lacks the main component of job growth, namely, a major public project that creates high paying and highly skilled jobs. Since NASA wound down its Space Shuttle program, job growth has flat-lined.

Private business does not exist to create jobs. It exists to put money in the pockets of the executives and owners of the business. Creating jobs cuts into profit. Paying higher wages cuts into profit. Private business is never going to create significant job growth, nor improve wages and benefits for the worker.

If we want job growth and livable wages, it is the government that will do it, not private business.

Preparing for the Post Trump Era: Step One

10 Friday Mar 2017

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Business, Ethics, Generational, Government, History, Honor, Management Practices, Panama, Politics, racism, Taxes, US History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Donald Trump, GOP, Jerry Falwell, Michele Bachmann, Mitch McConnell, Newt Gingrich, Paul Ryan, Republican, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Trump properties, Vladimir Putin

Donald Trump is the apex of the Republican model of government. What is happening today is exactly what has been desired by conservatives like, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, Jerry Falwell, Rush Limbaugh, Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, Mitch McConnell, and Paul Ryan. It is a corporate government, not to serve the public, but as a corporation to satisfy the desires of the wealthy.

It is racist. It is secretive. And it is illegal. Our model of government is that it is a government of the people and by the people. What Trump is doing is anything but that.

It is a model of government that Vladimir Putin has perfected, and it seems apparent that he has been trying to export his perversion of government to create subsidiaries of his corporate government in democratic countries.

There is ample evidence of a Trump/Putin connection that is inappropriate for the Office of the President. It would be cause for investigation and removal from office; however, our Republican leadership is in the same bed as Trump.

Still, the tolerance of the political fiasco in our country is wearing thin, and the United States doesn’t suffer fools for long. Before that happens, our country needs to establish a plan of how we will move forward and not let this happen again.

Step One: The Disposal of the Trump Era
It will not be enough to remove Donald Trump from office. He will need to be prosecuted for his crimes against our country. There seems to be enough evidence to suggest that he should be charged as a traitor. If found guilty, he must face punishment. There can be no pardon for him.

If he is found guilty of crimes against foreign countries, extradition should be on the table.

Trump’s tower in Panama

All his assets, and any asset using his name should be confiscated and placed in the public treasury. He cannot be allowed to walk away with the fortunes he is gaining at the expense of the citizens of this country, and we should not be forced to see his name on buildings, projects, and programs.

His children must also be investigated, and prosecuted if they are suspected of acting against the interest of the people of the United States of America.

All Trump appointees, and anyone hired into federal service during the Trump administration should be removed from office immediately. All actions taken by Trump and/or his appointees should be immediately rescinded.

There is likely no legal precedent to allow all of these actions, but Trump has violated the established norms and mores of our country, and legal precedent does not apply.

The Privatization of the Presidency

08 Wednesday Mar 2017

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Business, Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, History, Management Practices, Politics, Privacy, Public Image, Public Relations, racism, Respect, US History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Donald Trump, King George, Office of the President, private business, privatization, Richard M. Nixon, secret government, Watergate

Leadership in secret isn’t in the public’s best interest

The one of the Commandments of the Bible of Conservatism is that government should be privatized. This idea has been proven to cost more, create more corruption, and more inefficiencies, and yet it is still on the banners of the conservative fanatics that don’t need facts, because they have faith.

Donald Trump has now taken the Privatization Commandment to a new level: The Presidency of the United States of America. Trump is operating his administration as if he doesn’t report to the public. He uses the government to promote and fund his own private business interests. He doesn’t believe in transparency, and acts as if the government is his private corporation, where information is to be closely guarded, and the media is the enemy.

The model he is using is a return of a King George type of model, where he is the absolute leader that cannot be questioned or challenged, and uses force to impose his will. It is exactly the type of leadership that our country rejected when it declared independence from Great Britain.

This model of secrecy of leadership is almost always used to hide unethical acts. It is even worse than when Richard Nixon tried to cover up the illegal acts of his administration during Watergate. Like Nixon, Trump believes that he is untouchable. Let’s hope he is not.

Babble Blog

17 Friday Feb 2017

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Branding, Communication, Ethics, Generational, Government, Higher Education, Honor, Management Practices, Politics, Public Image, Public Relations, Respect, US History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

babble, Communication, contentless communication, Donald Trump, nonsense, Republicans, Trump, Trump supporters

I’m working on an article that you are going to really enjoy. The article is going to come out tomorrow, or maybe next week, or sometime, but you are going to love this article.

People, so many people, have wanted me to write this article, and they come to me, everyday, I’m telling you they come to me every day. Every. Day. And they want me to write this article.

This article is so important. So. Important. I can’t even tell you how important this article is, but believe me, this is an important article. And I’m not just saying that. Other people, smart people, these people are so smart it will blow you away. Blow. You. Away. And these smart people are saying that this is the article that needs to be written, and I’m going to write it, because the people want me to write it.

There is such a mess out there, you don’t even know how bad of a mess there is, but once I write this article you will see how big of a mess there is, and the media, the liberal media has been hiding this mess, hiding this mess. I’m telling you they have been purposely hiding this mess from the public, because I’m telling you that they’ve been hiding this mess, and I’m going to tell you about it, because I’m not going to let the liberal media hide this mess anymore. We’re going to fix this mess and were going to make everything better because you deserve better. You. Deserve. Better. Better than what these other people have been giving you.

This is what the people want. They want me to write this article, and they want me to do it because I am the best person to write it. You can’t find a better person than me to write this article. I write. It’s what I do, and I’m great at writing. I’m the best. You will not find anyone more qualified than me to write this article, and this is why I’m the one who the people want to write this article. So this article will come out in the next few weeks, or next year, at the latest.

New Raley’s Unshopping Program Makes Customer a VIP

23 Friday Dec 2016

Posted by Paul Kiser in About Reno, Branding, Business, Communication, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Green, Information Technology, Internet, Management Practices, Pride, Public Image, Public Relations

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

ecart, groceries, grocery shoping, Nevada, online grocery shopping, online shopping, Raley's, Reno, VIP

(NOTE: Raley’s, nor did any of its employees, or agents request, approve, or in any way influence this article.)

My Raley’s Store on Keystone in Reno, NV, USA

It’s not fair, is it? When I go grocery shopping, I park in a special parking space at Raley’s, make a call, my groceries are brought out, I pay, and I’m gone. Grocery shopping done, drop the mic. No finding a cart, wandering around the store, racing for the shortest checkout line, loading up the groceries. I park, I call, I pay, I’m done.

It should be called Raley’s VIP program, but they call it Raley’s ecart program. Raley’s has been developing this program for years, but they are in the process of installing the ecart program in the Nevada stores.

I ordered my groceries, by brand name, online at the Raley’s ecart website, I set a time to pick it up the next day, and then I showed up at my appointed time, parked in the ecart parking spot, and called the phone number on the ecart sign. After that, they did the rest.

No Cart, No Wandering
Grocery shopping counts as exercise, but not the most efficient use of a person’s time or body. Normal grocery shopping creates a set of customer responsibilities from the moment of arrival; however, with this program, all those responsibilities, (e.g., selecting a shopping cart, determining a route, or deciding to wander, looking for the best checkout line, taking the groceries to the car, and loading them up,) are taken over by the store, or are unnecessary.

Saves Time
Grocery shopping is not an activity that most people seek out, but it is a necessary chore in a citizen’s life. A 2008 study concluded that people spend an average of 41 minutes shopping in the grocery store. Many people would choose to have that 41 minutes to spend doing something else. The Raley’s ecart program is a gift of time and energy to the customer.

Perfect For College Students
My Raley’s store is the closest grocery store to the University of Nevada and I cannot imagine how hard it would be to organize four to six roommates to create a shopping list, then go to the store and shop, especially if they are college students with little time to shop. Raley’s ecart allows each person to do their shopping on one online list, and then only one person has to go to pick it up.

Saves Money
Raley’s ecart flags items on sale, so when I create my online list, I see which items that I can save money, and/or choose the number of the item needed to meet the requirements of the sale price (e.g., five for $5.00)

Safer
It doesn’t happen often, but I have, at times, been approached in various parking lots by someone asking for spare change. This action is dangerous because it could be a person who is needy, or it could be a person who is sizing me up in order to rob me or steal my car. By starting a conversation, a criminal can approach the person without causing them to be alarmed enough to yell or scream.

While it is not a benefit that people would realize, Raley’s ecart makes it safer for me to grocery shop, because I never have to leave my car.

More Personal
It assumed that any transaction on the Internet is less personal; however, my experience with Raley’s ecart was the opposite. The Store Manager was the person to deliver my ecart order to the car. I have lived in this neighborhood for over 21 years and I don’t think I had ever met any of the store managers before that day.

In addition, the Store Manager called me about two items on my list that were out of stock. Normally, I would have wandered the store for several minutes looking for the item, then given up and checked out. In this case, he was able to replace the item with an acceptable substitute and it added little, if any time to my shopping.

I still go in the store for minor trips, but I like unshopping, and I like being a VIP when I shop for groceries.

Pokémon GO: December 12th Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda

13 Tuesday Dec 2016

Posted by Paul Kiser in Branding, Customer Relations, Customer Service, exercise, Generational, Health, Information Technology, Internet, Management Practices, Public Image, Public Relations, Recreation, Respect, Social Media Relations

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Apps, characters, fails, Niantic, Pokémon, Pokemon GO, smartphones, The Pokémon Company International, TPCi

If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all.

That is sage advice that I almost never take.

12 December 2016, could have been a big day in Pokémon GO lore. It was the day that Niantic would recapture the interest of millions of trainers who have lost that loving feeling for the game. It was the day that Niantic, in a stroke of brilliance, would tease, and then deliver on infusing life back into the game.

December 12, 2016: Disappointment Day

Let’s back up for the muggles. The alpha and omega of Pokémon GO is capturing virtual characters in the wild on a player’s smartphone. There are currently 149 characters of which, some are common as dirt, others uncommon, others rare, and a few that are almost nonexistent. There are other aspects of the game, but those are secondary to capturing ‘wild’ Pokémon GO characters.

Since its launch in July, millions of people have played the game and moved through multiple levels of the game; however, the game has lost the attention of many players (or trainers) because they have caught most of the available 149 Pokémon Go characters. When someone has reached Level 25, they have seen and captured almost all the ones that they can realistically find. By Level 25, a trainer is mostly seeing the five to ten ‘common-as-dirt’ characters, and that makes the game boring.

Rumors have been flying for a couple of months now that Niantic has been aware of the issue and was preparing to introduce the “2nd Generation” or 2nd Gen of characters, that would add about 100 new Poké creatures. Last week, Niantic updated the sound files on everyone’s smartphone app, adding 100 new files, leading to speculation that the addition of the 2nd Gen characters was imminent. Then, Niantic said that on 12 December they would make a major announcement about adding new characters. The stage was set and anticipation was building.

What happened? They apparently added eight baby characters, and gave Pikachu a Santa hat. Oh, and the new characters can’t be caught in the wild. A trainer has to take their phone for a walk of up to ten (10) kilometers to hatch an egg that may or may not have a new character inside.

Do you hear that sound? It is the deafening sound of millions of former trainers shrugging their shoulders, shaking their heads and walking away.

So what positive things can I say about Niantic’s big 12 December announcement?

(This section intentionally left blank.)

The Joy of No

01 Tuesday Dec 2015

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Business, Club Leadership, College, Communication, Consulting, Crisis Management, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Education, Employee Retention, Ethics, Generational, Government, Higher Education, Honor, Human Resources, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, Membership Recruitment, Membership Retention, Passionate People, Politics, Pride, Public Image, Public Relations, Re-Imagine!, Relationships, Respect, Rotary, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, The Tipping Point, Tom Peters, Universities

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

bosses, committees, dictators, Human Interaction, meetings, No, organizations, Social Interaction, workplace

No is a perfectly acceptable answer….providing,

The idea or suggestion lacked thought or had no basis in fact. (e.g.; Would Donald Trump be a good President?)
The idea or suggestion has obvious flaws. (e.g.; Should we let a gun be in a room with a bunch of 2nd grade children?)
Is a matter of personal opinion or seeks personal approval. (e.g.; Would you go out with me?)

But when an idea or suggestion doesn’t fall under any of these categories, the “no” answer becomes a potential weapon of personal destruction for the person saying it, and a beautiful opportunity for the person on the receiving end.

Being the youngest of four boys, my brothers and parents became accustomed to telling me ‘no.’ I was constantly asking questions and making suggestions, and the ‘yes’ answer was likely to encourage me. In those situations where I actually had a good idea, it was enough that as the youngest member of the family, a ‘no’ answer was valid.

As an adult, I never had any expectations that my ideas and suggestions would be better received, so hearing ‘no’ was an irritation, but I accepted it as part of life.

However, I as grew older I noticed that some people seemed to enjoy telling other people ‘no.’ Often these people were in leadership positions and their tactic was to dominate and/or intimidate others. In some cases people would act as a dictator within the organization, silencing the ideas and opinions of others with a type of ‘no’ answer that implied dire consequences if the person didn’t drop the subject, or the idea was treated so lightly as if the person was unintelligent for making the suggestion. For years I thought that part of being a good manager was to have the privilege and responsibility to tell others, “NO!”

Then several years ago I joined a service club and became very involved in the organization. I served on several Boards and committees. I discovered that I could manipulate some people because I always knew their response to whatever I suggested would be, ‘no.’

It was then I realized that when someone says ‘no,’ it is a gift. The “No-ee” has done all they are required by making the suggestion or asking the question. The “No-er” has put their reputation and respectability on the line. The ‘no’ answer gives them all the responsibility, and, as a situation plays out, their failure to consider someone else’s idea or suggestion may be the fatal decision that brings them down.

I still find enjoyment of sometimes asking a perfectly legitimate question of someone I know will give me a ‘no’ answer. It is even more interesting to do this when I have more information about the issue or situation than they do and they can’t help but give me an answer that will eventually haunt them.

Still, I have learned that organizations and relationships with ‘no’ people are typically doomed. There’s a time to experience the joy of ‘no,’ and then there are times it’s best to walk away and shake the dust off your sandals.

The Quality of Respect

04 Wednesday Nov 2015

Posted by Paul Kiser in Customer Relations, Customer Service, Employee Retention, Ethics, Human Resources, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, Membership Retention, Politics, Public Relations, Relationships, Respect

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Depth of Relationships, Friendship, Human Interaction, listening, negative relationships, positive relationships

Respect determines the quality of relationships

I have had a few instances of being told I was right. These typically come years after the fact when the acknowledgement is almost meaningless regarding the original idea, issue, or choice. The irony is that the issue discussed years ago is irrelevant, but how the person responded to my idea or concern established the quality of our relationship.

Years of interactions with people through work, social, and personal experiences has taught me that relationships are defined by the quality of respect the two people have for each other. Communication is about sharing information and being correct or not about an issue is secondary to the quality of the relationship. We are not taught that in school, but it is something learned as patterns develop with the people in our social circles.

The way a person responds to our ideas and concerns defines the quality of respect they have for who we are as a person, and that defines the relationship.

Dismissive Response
A dismissive response is the lowest form of respect to a person. Adults often are dismissive of children, and that is a valid description of the relationship between two adults when one is dismissive or condescending to another person. The classic, “Let’s just agree to disagree” is a great example of a dismissive response. If this is happening in a work relationship it means that your value to that person is nonexistent and that you should be seeking a different work environment.

In a personal relationship it means that you are a pet or child to the person and you should take action to get them out of your life. Once a person treats you as an inferior, others will model that and everyone around you will devalue your relationship with them.

Deflective Response
The next lowest form of respect is when someone is deflective or derogatory to you when you express concern about an issue. This behavior can be recognized by responses that begin with or include the following:

“You’ve always disliked. ..” or “You don’t know for sure that…” or “Here you go again…”

The point here is that the person is not responding to your concern, just devaluing you and anything you have to say. It is a close cousin to a dismissive response, but the person feels a need to answer your concern, even though the answer is actually an insult to your intelligence.

Illogical Response
Another close relative of the Dismissive Response is the Illogical Response. It is the type of response that has the appearance of a discussion of two people who mutually respect each other; however, the response is often a desperate attempt to suggest Point A is negated by Point B, but in reality Point A has nothing to do with Point B.

An example of this is if Ryan is saying that a school’s quality is on the decline because some of the best teachers in a school are leaving and Barbara counters by saying the school has a great reputation for the quality of education. Barbara’s argument is based on past performance, but Evan’s argument is talking about current and future performance.

Respectful Discussion
The hallmark of any valid discussion is the respect the people involved have for each other. When both people respect each other every attempt will be made to reach a reasonable solution because the relationship is more important than the argument.

Finally, when someone comes back to you years after a discussion and tells you that you were correct, it really is about admitting the lack of respect they had for you, and they are attempting to recognize their error. Never assume that they have found a new respect for you because respect is not a quality that returns once it has been lost.

2016: Oil Prices Near $5/Gallon?

12 Monday Oct 2015

Posted by Paul Kiser in About Reno, Business, Ethics, Government, History, Management Practices, Politics, US History

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

alternative fuel, big oil, Bush, Clinton, crude, electric, fuel, gas prices, gasoline, margin, oil, oil prices, OPEC, President Obama, profit, Reagan, solar, Supply and Demand

Oil prices have more excuses than a meth addict. Demand in China, oil refinery fires or in maintenance, OPEC restricting supply, Saudi Arabia flooding the market, etc. Reality in oil pricing is elusive; however, despite what some experts say, next year will likely see the price at the pump jump based on current factors and on politics.

Minor Influence: Supply and Demand
We have always been told that supply and demand rules the capitalistic market. Most people mistakenly assume that free market means the market can’t be manipulated, but a free market is ripe for manipulation, especially for the unethical business person.

A prime example of market manipulator is Saudi Arabia. Big oil producers are constantly seeking a bigger piece of the oil market, and fracking in the United States has revitalized US oil production. The Saudi response has been to flood the market with oil to bring down the price/barrel, leaving US producers with increased expenses and less revenue.

World oil supply carefully follows demand (Graphics credit: Yardeni.com)

Graphic 1.0: World oil supply carefully follows demand (Source: Yardeni.com)

Despite temporary manipulations of the oil supply, the ratio of world supply and demand has not significantly changed in recent history. Demand has steadily increased (See Graphic 1.0,) and supply has increased just slightly less than demand. In fact, the supply of oil carefully follows demand so perfectly that it seems unnatural. It’s almost as if oil companies knew that an over supply would force oil prices down and oil shortages would lead to high gas prices, which would stimulate the development of alternative fuels.

Graphic 2.0: Monthly imported crude oil price (1980 to 2014) Source: Energy Information Administration (eia.gov)

There is no obvious correlation when comparing the wild deviations in crude oil price (See Graphic 2.0) to the world supply and demand (See Graphic 1.0.) This raises the question: If supply and demand doesn’t control the price of oil in the United States, what does?

Graphic 3.0: US and Europe Oil Demand. The 2008 recession-triggered a drop in demand (Source: Yardeni.com)

The Game of Oil Pricing
World oil demand has been on the increase, but not in the United States and Western Europe (See Graphic 3.0.) The Recession of 2008, pushed demand down in the United States and Western Europe, but as the world economy collapsed, the price of crude oil rocketed up, then dropped dramatically for six months, then returned to its pre-recession price and resumed a steep climb for the next five years. The price of crude oil didn’t coincide with pre-recession, recession, or post recession demand.

Interestingly, retail gas prices (See Graphic 4.0) make even less sense than crude oil prices, as the price at the pump spiked while crude oil prices dropped. This deviation between crude oil prices and retail gas prices would be repeated, in 2012. The common denominator? The Presidential election.

2016
Some experts are saying oil prices will remain low in 2016. The problem with these predictions are that the demand for oil is increasing, Republicans are self-destructing, and the economy is in good shape. Low prices at the pump in 2016, would be death to Republicans, and that is not what conservatives in the oil industry do in an election year.

Graphic 4.0: October 2008 and 2012 pricing show a dramatic deviation from past years (Source eia.gov)

Since 1980, oil pricing just prior to Presidential elections in the United States follows an interesting pattern. According to the Energy Information Administration (eia.gov) the average retail regular unleaded price has a strong correlation to the imported crude oil prices; however, during the last two Presidential election years, the October retail price jumped dramatically, while crude oil prices fell (See Graphic 4.0.) The rare deviation in the price of retail regular unleaded gasoline just before an election again indicates that the market was influenced by political, not free-market, forces.

Graphic 5.0: Oil pricing during Presidential election year follows a consistent pattern

As 2016, is another election year, and as the Republican party is in deep trouble, the conservative leadership in the oil industry will likely follow the past pattern of attempting to create an economic crisis through manipulation of retail oil prices. Based on the Presidential election years since 1980, the average at-the-pump price of regular unleaded (See Graphic 5.0) will be about $270/barrel or around $4.91/gal.

(NOTE: Personally, it’s hard to believe we could see $4.91/gallon next October. Despite what the trendlines suggest, I would expect the price to be closer to an average of $4.50/gallon. However, I’m confident that the average price of regular unleaded gas will be over $4.25/gallon.)

A Failure of Communication

06 Tuesday Oct 2015

Posted by Paul Kiser in About Reno, Branding, Business, Communication, Crisis Management, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Education, Generational, Government, Higher Education, Information Technology, Internet, Management Practices, parenting, Print Media, Public Image, Public Relations, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, Technology, Traditional Media, Universities, Website, Women

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

CAS, charter schools, Communication, Coral Academy of Science, Education, elementary, emal, Facebook, Gulen movement, Gulen Schools, high school, Iman, Instagram, K-12, middle school, Nevada, Reno, Teaching

“What we got here is a failure to communicate“
Prison Warden in Cool Hand Luke

Organizations should use extreme caution in employing anyone over forty-five for handling public image and public relations. I fall into that bracket and I’ve been studying social media since 2007, but I only know enough to understand that most ‘professionals’ of the traditional media don’t have a clue when it comes to communicating information to people in this century.

Traditional media professionals reminisce about the glory days when the game was to be on good terms with the editor of the local newspapers, have drinks with the news directors of the local television stations, and talk shop with the other local public relations (PR) directors at the bigger companies. Those were the days when a phone call could land a big story for the local news that would launch a new product or service. Top management would pat the PR guy on the back (or on the butt if the person was female) and tell him or her what a great job they did.

Those days are over.

The Internet, Facebook, customer reviews, Twitter, Yelp, and a thousand other media channels severely wounded traditional media and the old ways are never coming back. Yet, talk to an old PR person and say that nothing has really changed. It’s all about who you know. Old PR people don’t have a clue at how silly they sound.

I was at a school board meeting for a public charter school last week where a self-professed ‘expert’ in public relations announced that she was at a conference and learned that people no longer used websites to obtain information. She said that parents of school-age children only paid attention to Facebook and Instagram.

Actual “Principal’s message” from current school website….written at least three years ago

It should be noted, and that the school’s website is one of the worst on the Internet, and that the school is known for its severe deficiency in communicating information to parents.

Public Communication 2015
As part of the out-of-touch generation, take my advice with a grain of sodium chloride, or whatever water retaining additive you choose, but here is what I have learned in the past eight years.

It is true that many people from different generations tend to engage in social media at varying levels; however, there is no one single media that can reach everyone regardless of their generation. Education level, social economic status, and language all play a role in where people gather information. To declare that there are one or two media sources that parents of school-age children rely on is arrogant at best, and more likely, ignorant.

Any organization’s strategy has to be to use every possible form of media delivery to reach the stakeholders. In the case of a school, information has to be delivered through student folders, phone call announcements, in-school announcements, school website, parent emails, mail, Public Service Announcements (PSA,) school’s Facebook page, etc. Information must also be repeated in order to reach people when they’re listening. A single Facebook post is like going to a street corner at 6:00 AM and yelling out information and then assuming that everyone who passes by that street corner that day will hear the message.

But just sending out the same message through all the channels is ineffective. Social media channels are best used as a ‘reminder’ or ‘alert’ forum with a link back to one source (e.g.; the school website.) Long posts on Facebook make the information less likely to be read both now and in the future. Short posts with a link to more information for those interested is the most efficient method of delivery.

The website is NOT dead. In fact, it is more vital than ever. A charter school’s website is an information source for those considering enrolling their children, a primary source for parents for detailed information, and it establishes the public image for the school. A Facebook page is vital, and if you have a brilliant administration, Twitter can be the inside source for parents who want to know the inside scoop of what is happening now, but the school website will always be the 24/7/365 place for vital information.

It will take a decade or more to weed out the old PR professionals who live in the past; however, it doesn’t take a sixteen-year-old to know when someone doesn’t understand how to communicate in this century. If the stakeholders say they are not being adequately informed, it’s obvious the organization has a problem.

Death By Incentive Program

04 Monday May 2015

Posted by Paul Kiser in Business, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Education, Employee Retention, Ethics, Honor, Human Resources, Management Practices, parenting, Public Image, Public Relations, Re-Imagine!, Relationships, Respect

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

evaluation, incentive programs, office, Pay for Performance, reward, school

Incentive programs are the tip of the sword in organizational suicide. They are often designed by people who believe that there is a single cause leading to a positive effect in achievement. The reality is that life isn’t that simple. Here are three examples of incentive program fails:

EXAMPLE 1 – Retaining Major Customers
ISSUE: A business owner loses a major customer and believes that it was because his employees weren’t responsive enough to the major customer’s needs.

INCENTIVE: The owner creates and incentive program that rewards employees for being more attentive to major customers. (Potential measures: Major customer satisfaction surveys, increase in revenue from major customers, response time data.)

EFFECT: Some employees learn how to gain the favor of the major customer through unethical tactics: i.e. kickbacks, access to inside information about the major customer’s competition, sacrificing minor customers in order to be more attentive to major customers, giving more product or service to the major customers and charging it to minor customers, etc.

RESULT: The owner finds out that some unethical employees look like superstars to the major customers, while ethical employees seem to be failures. Minor customers, a primary source of new revenue, leave for competitors leaving the company with a few major customers that demand special treatment.

EXAMPLE 2 – Improving Student Performance
ISSUE: Recognizing and reinforcing good student behavior and educational achievement.

INCENTIVE: Teachers are given special reward tokens to give to students who display good behavior, or who perform exceptionally on class or homework assignments. Students with the most tokens are given a special reward at the end of the school year.

EFFECT: Some teachers give out tokens liberally and gain favor with the students. Some teachers attempt to ethically administer the program, but find that they are not consistent in giving out tokens to the students for similar positive events. Some teachers do not buy into the incentive program and rarely give out tokens.

RESULT: High performing students discover that their behavior and achievements is subject to different evaluators who create an reward system that is not objective. Students who are recognized feel superior to other students, and other high performing students become angry, frustrated, and discouraged.

EXAMPLE 3 – Improving Productivity
ISSUE: Motivate management to improve to eliminate wasted time and resources.

INCENTIVE: Financial bonuses for top managers who have higher output per employee and/or expenses, OR have lower cost per dollar of revenue.

EFFECT: Managers discover that by making salaried employees work longer hours and not replacing old equipment as needed, they can look more productive. Employees may not like working with broken or outdated equipment, or be required to work longer hours, but that is not what is measured, so it is irrelevant to the manager.

RESULT: Other indicators (high turnover, loss of customers, etc.) might indicate a failure of the manager in performing his or her duty; however, because the incentive is to improve productivity, those factors are ignored. The manager looks like a superstar and yet the division or department has severe morale issues and is a business failure.

Why Incentive Programs Fail
Despite the popular idea that incentive programs are a good motivational tool, there are four reasons why they are not.

Organizational success is not a science, but an art

Incentive plans are based on the old idea that the ends justify the means. True organizational success is all about the ‘means’ and the success comes only after multiple factors combine. Organizational success often can’t be repeated because it was contingent on the talents of key team members who brought key talents or skills into the formula of success.

Cause and effect are rarely in a one-to-one relationship

Whatever is defined as the positive outcome, people will find multiple ways to achieve the desired goal, regardless of ethics.

People are not ethical by nature

Incentive programs encourage unethical behavior. The goal is assumed to be the highest priority and that is tacit approval to some that anything goes as long as the goal is met or exceeded.

Some organizations intend the incentive program to encourage unethical behavior

Executives cannot tell their employees to be unethical, but they can create the environment that fosters unethical behavior in pursuit of the indicators of success. This protects the company and puts all the risk on the employees.

Incentive = Manipulation

People who design incentive programs explain that the intent is to reward good behavior, and they fail to complete the sentence, “through manipulation.” Manipulation requires a lack of respect. Most people want to do the right thing and don’t need to be tricked into doing it. It is possible that unethical behavior is stimulated by incentive programs because the person feels disrespected by the use of manipulation and responds by obtaining the reward while sabotaging the program.

The Need For An Incentive Program?
Organizations that need an incentive program indicate a failure in leadership. Any business or school should know who its best performers without an artificial measurement program in place to identify them. In addition, any organization should have an ongoing effort to recognize and reward the best performers. Leadership that is effective in celebrating success will be setting the example for others without manipulation through an artificial program that disrespects people and will likely be vulnerable to unfair evaluation and unethical behavior.

Goodbye to HelloFresh

30 Thursday Apr 2015

Posted by Paul Kiser in Business, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Green, Health, Information Technology, Internet, Management Practices, Public Image, Public Relations, Recreation, Technology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

cooking, eating, Food, food service, HelloFresh, home meal delivery, internet food, meal, meal choice, meat, vegetarian

Instructions for preparing HelloFresh meals

We were not in the market for a home delivery meal service, but when I received a coupon for three meals for less than $30 from HelloFresh we took the plunge.

HelloFresh is a subscription dinner service. For the normal price of $69/week we could have a UPS truck stop at our house every Tuesday (or any other day) with the ingredients and recipes for three meals. The box had three large ice blocks with the meat under them and the other ingredients on the top. The meals were enclosed in a large plastic bag in case the ice began to melt and leak.

The meals were for two people, (you can get boxes with meals for four) and the quality of the ingredients were good with one exception, an avocado that was overripe.

The issues with the service are as follows:

Extremely limited menu – HelloFresh has two menus to select from, a meat menu and a vegetarian menu. You cannot mix the meals from the two different menus. On the meat menu, they offer three meals of their choosing, or we could have selected from two alternatives; however, we found the alternatives to be less palatable than the three primary choices.

Odd menu choices – The lack of quality cuts of red meat on their menu is obvious. The red meat offerings during the two weeks were flank steak and a meal with hamburger mixed in with the stuffed pepper meal. The six meals were:

Pan-seared chicken & pea pilaf
Citrus skillet shrimp
Wasabi-glazed (flank) steak
Goat cheese-stuffed chicken roulades
Indian stuffed peppers (with hamburger)
Oven-roasted salmon

Alternatives for week one were:

Fregola Sarda & Sweet Italian Sausage
Pea & Asparagus Gnocchi

Alternatives for week two were:

Mustard pork chops
Burst tomato & squash fusilli

The menu targets the person with eclectic taste and/or someone who loves the challenge of cooking new foods. If you are a person who can only find four or five acceptable choices on a typical 50 item restaurant menu, HelloFresh is not for you.

Heavy on frying – olive oil and the skillet are prominent aspects of preparing a HelloFresh meal.

Increased prep and clean up time – the HelloFresh website proudly states, “Cooking Made Easy.” This was not our experience. If you are an experienced chef you might be able to meet the prep times listed, but we found that it typically took about an hour to prep a HelloFresh meal. Clean up took at least two to three times longer than clean up for our own home cooked meals.

Confusing recipes – HelloFresh breaks down the recipe in steps; however, each step is written in paragraph form with multiple sub-tasks in each paragraph. It requires re-reading the same paragraph multiple times to make sure you don’t miss a step.

Cost – At almost $70 for three meals, HelloFresh is an expensive meal service. I estimate that the ingredients for each meal cost around $10, so we paid about $40 for shipping, meal planning, and ingredient procurement while still being responsible for the cooking and clean up.

Excessive delay between order and delivery – All orders for the next week must be in by Wednesday midnight of the previous week regardless of what day it is delivered. That means the food for the meals is probably ordered/finalized on Thursday. That would make the process for HelloFresh much easier, but it sacrifices convenience for the customer and means the ingredients delivered late in the week are likely as old as the ingredients delivered at the beginning of the week.

Of all the issues I have with HelloFresh, it is the lack of choice. The limitations set by HelloFresh indicate a minimal budget and a lack of commitment to the concept of home delivered meals. That suggests an organization that lacks the financial and human resources to meet the expectations of the customer.

I have tried to understand what market HelloFresh is attempting to capture; however, with the menu limitations, cost, and eccentric meal choices, it is mystifying who would pay for a glorified shopping service that places customer choice and convenience as secondary to their own.

Religious Liberty Laws Violate The Bible

03 Friday Apr 2015

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Branding, Business, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Ethics, Government, Government Regulation, Management Practices, Politics, Public Image, Public Relations, Religion, Respect

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Arkansas, Bible, Do Not Judge, Indiana, New Testament, Paul, Religious Liberty laws, Romans 14

Dave Granlund Cartoon: Liberty for who?

The irony of conservatives effort to allegedly ‘preserve’ religious liberty is that they are actually inflicting one person’s religion on others through their business activities. The concept that other people should be forced to accept one person’s bias is discussed in the Bible, and conservatives are taking a position opposite of what is taught in the New Testament.

Romans 14 nails Christians to the cross of behavior. Nowhere in the New Testament is the definition of what it means to be a Christian better explained than in this single chapter. Paul, in his letter to the Romans explains to Christians:

You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. It is written: “ ‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord, ‘every knee will bow before me; every tongue will acknowledge God.’ ” So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God. Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister.

Romans 14: 10-13
New International Version¹

Both before and after this passage Paul offers examples of what he means by ‘passing judgement.’ The examples make it clear that the issue is not about what issues a Christian can condemn or protest regarding someone else’s choices, but that no Christian has the authority to judge another person.

The Religious Liberty laws passed in Indiana and other states emphasize the ‘right’ of a person to impose his or her religious beliefs on others who do not share those beliefs. The assumption is that a person can judge someone else’s personal choices, judge them as sinners, then refuse that person access to their products or services. This is in violation of the teachings of how a Christian is obligated to behave.

Applying the full meaning of Romans 14 to the situation, a Christian business person should not only accept another person’s lifestyle choices, and not judge them, but they should do everything possible to accommodate that person and their choices. Paul emphasizes to the Romans that a Christians obligation is to make peace, not conflict:

Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.

Romans 14: 19
New International Version

The Religious Liberty laws are actually anti-Christian laws.

¹(KING JAMES VERSION – Romans 14:10-13)
But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.

Boehner’s Mismanagement of Politics

22 Thursday Jan 2015

Posted by Paul Kiser in Management Practices, Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Congress, Conservatives, Epic Fail, John Boehner, Republicans, Speaker of the House, Tea Party

Speaker Boehner: A political epic fail

During Tuesday night’s State of the Union Speech, Vice President Biden could have worn a “I’m with stupid” t-shirt with the arrow pointing to the left and Boehner wouldn’t have understood the joke.

John Boehner is possibly the most clueless, out-of-date Speaker of the House in the history of America. Here is a man no one respects, no one likes, and in which no one believes. He is in a position of great power and yet he is a cartoon of power. His ineffectiveness is only exceeded by his inability to grasp the larger vision of his duties. He is the definition of epic fail.

We can make a lot of excuse for his failures, but he sits in political bath water that smells like urine because he peed in it. He simply lacks the intelligence of independent thought and is incapable of doing anything that is unexpected.

Certainly Speaker Boehner is confronted with a difficult position. While everyone talks about how the Republicans now run the House and Senate, the fact is that Boehner’s failure to put right-wing extremists in their place has created a three party government consisting of Democrats, Republicans, and wackos.

There is a segment of America that loves wackos…right up until someone exposes their stupidity and then wackos become everybody’s joke. Boehner is the one person in a position to expose the right-wing extremists as the buffoons they are, but rather than do that, he has coddled them in order to promote the myth of a united Republican party.

If Speaker Boehner extended a alliance to moderate Republicans and Democrats he could end the rhetoric, slap down the wackos, and make the Republican party look like leaders. More importantly, he could become an effective Speaker of the House crafting legislation that President Obama would have to take seriously. Instead, he tries to wear a mantle of stupidity in order to appease the stupid, and employ meaningless posturing that makes him look foolish and President Obama look even more intelligent.

Speaker Boehner will be the reason that Republicans will find 2016, to be even more disappointing than 2012.

Thank you Apple!

08 Friday Aug 2014

Posted by Paul Kiser in Business, Communication, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Ethics, Information Technology, Management Practices, Opinion, Public Image, Public Relations, Technology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

account, Amazon, Apple, Google, Google Play, iPhone, iPod, iTunes, Kindle Fire, Music, music library, password, scam, security, security questions

Apple’s end product without iTunes, a useless piece of technology

Recently I was freed of my Apple conflict. Thanks to Apple’s security policy regarding my iTunes account, I no longer use it for buying music.

Like most people I have always used a PC. Apple computers were interesting, but I was always leery of the Apple agenda. I did have iTunes and an iPod and purchased songs through iTunes for most of my musical entertainment.

A few years ago I was given a Kindle Fire for Christmas and I began buying some music from Amazon, but then I had a split music library. One with iTunes. One with Amazon. Fortunately, I quickly discovered that my Kindle Fire couldn’t handle storing my songs, apps, and movies in the Kindle, so that ended my brief affair with Amazon music.

Then last year I was introduced to Google Play. I found that with their service I could play all the songs from my computer on my Android phone. Still, a question remained about the iTunes service I’ve used since I transcended from CD’s to digital.

In this past year, Apple made the decision for me. Apple has created a password security process that is complex and leads the customer to being locked out of his or her iTunes library with no recourse but to start a new iTunes account.

Here’s the way the scam works. During a purchase of an iTunes product, Apple forces the customer into a convoluted process that requires her or him to change their iTunes password and answer a limited choice of possible questions about the customer’s childhood memories. For several months after the customer has been forced to go through the new password procedure Apple allows him or her to make purchases from iTunes without giving the new password. The customer has no cause to recall the password until sufficient time has passed to make the customer forget the new password

However, after six months or so, Apple will spring the trap and make the customer give the complicated password before a purchase. Upon failing to give the correct password, Apple then requires the customer answer the questions about their childhood memories, which are so lame that most people won’t remember the answers.

So, then you contact Apple and get help, right?

Contacting Apple’s “Support” is where you find out how deep the password rabbit hole goes. They will ask for your password. You already tried that and they will, surprise, surprise, also find you don’t know it. They will ask for the answers to the childhood questions. You still don’t know the answers. After that they will ask you for the original credit card number with which you set up your account iTunes account. When you can’t produce that number, they will ask for the serial number of the first Apple product you owned. In my case, this is the 1st generation iPod that was recalled several years ago.

R.I.P. iPod

That’s it. Because you can’t answer any of their ridiculous questions they will tell you they can’t do anything more for you. You must set up a new iTunes account and the past digital downloads must be repurchased.

So now I must thank Apple. I no longer have a conflict with my digital music libraries. Google Play is the best choice and I won’t be purchasing anything from iTunes.

I suppose that someone will file a class action lawsuit with Apple in a few years. Apple emails will probably reveal their strategy to make customers repurchase their digital libraries and a settlement of a few dollars per customer will be made while the attorneys make millions of dollars.

In the meantime, I will listen to ALL my songs I purchased through Google Play.

Forest Service Waved Off Early Air Support of Hunter Falls Fire Near Reno

27 Tuesday May 2014

Posted by Paul Kiser in About Reno, Crisis Management, Government, Management Practices, Public Relations, Recreation

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

air tankers, Fire, fire boss, fire management, fire retardant, forest fire, Hunter Falls fire, KRNV, U.S. Forest Service, USFS, Washoe County Sheriff's Department, WCSD

12:04 PM Hunter Falls fire from Reno

On Saturday evening, May 17, the U. S. Forest Service was informed that there was an uncontrolled fire in the Hunter Falls area west of Reno, Nevada. Because it was dark and the area was difficult to reach by vehicle, the Forest Service elected to wait until dawn to attack the fire. On Sunday noon a ground crew still had not reached the fire and winds had picked up. The fire was rapidly growing sending smoke towering over Reno, Nevada.

According to an anonymous source it was 2:15 PM on Sunday before an air attack on the fire would begin and by that time the U.S. Forest Service had known about the fire for at least 15 hours. The lack of rapid response occurred on an active fire where high winds from an incoming front were predicted by the National Weather Service.

When asked about the delay in air support, a spokesperson for the U. S. Forest Service had said that air support was not available. According to the KRNV News in Reno, the Washoe County Sheriff”s Department, helicopter, capable of making water drops on a fire, was available. Another source said that two air tankers from California were in process of being repositioned Sunday morning to the Stead airport north of Reno to attack the fire.

4:55 PM Hunter Falls fire continues to grow

Apparently those resources were waved off by the Forest Service on Sunday morning. According to the source, the rationale for waving off the air tankers was to avoid dropping fire-retardant in the local watershed. There was no apparent reason for not using water drops from the Washoe County Sheriff’s Department’s helicopter.

The choice to send in ground crews, rather than air support, is also questionable. In 1994, a fire on Storm King Mountain fire near Glenwood Springs, Colorado killed 14 firefighters when high winds kicked up and trapped them.

Colder temperatures and precipitation over the next few days allowed the fire to be controlled; however, there are many questions that need to be answered regarding the decision to wave off air support considering the weather forecast and the difficult terrain of the Hunter Falls areas.

3rd From Sol

~ Learn from before. Live now. Look ahead.

Category Archives: Management Practices

Government Regulation Makes USA Business Great

Sam and Joe Comparisons

Ethics and a Level Playing Field

This is NOT an Excuse: Why Older White Men Sexually Harass Women

“Nothing that I have to say should be construed as an excuse for the behavior. No one should read this and feel any sympathy for men who have engaged in sexual harassment.”

“…that power and wealth made men sexually attractive, and that women craved men who boldly took the initiative, so they didn’t have to pretend that they didn’t want sex.”

“Profit, public relations, and efficient operation of the business have no place in how a workplace sexual harassment issue is resolved.”

My Four Fathers

Job Killing: The Republican Prime Directive

Don’t Look To The FBI To Bring Trump To Justice

Six Facts About Manufacturing Jobs

Ryssdal Allows Guest To Euphemize High Crude Oil Price As Desirable

Conversations With Conservatives: The 37 Year Lie

We Don’t Need More Service Jobs

Preparing for the Post Trump Era: Step One

The Privatization of the Presidency

Babble Blog

New Raley’s Unshopping Program Makes Customer a VIP

The Quality of Respect

2016: Oil Prices Near $5/Gallon?

Death By Incentive Program

Goodbye to HelloFresh

Religious Liberty Laws Violate The Bible

Boehner’s Mismanagement of Politics

Thank you Apple!

Forest Service Waved Off Early Air Support of Hunter Falls Fire Near Reno