Social Security Administration

Taxes: Are We Sure We Need The Carbon Tax?

Believe it or not, on social media, I have witnessed people advocating for Carbon Taxes for the United States and Canada in more than one or two posts. Mentally shocked, stunned, and intrigued, but not wholly surprised by this turn of events, I have been reading some of the literature, the websites, and the emotional pleas. May I congratulate the producers of this literature on the masterful job of marketing ideas anathema to liberty as espoused by these materials?

Before those marketing the Carbon Taxes break out the champagne and meatless burgers, let’s discuss something seriously. When was the last tax that actually did what it was supposed to do? What is an effective tax being collected and used at funding the government without developing the need for debt? Name your favorite tax; if it doesn’t make the list below, leave it in the comments; I will research it, and if it is doing what it was supposed to do, I will retract this entire article and issue an apology! I will put this conclusion against every single tax, in every government, across the globe. The tax’s only stipulation has to be effective in every nuance of the word “effective” as listed in the Webster’s Dictionary.

Social Security was an early contender and loser. Social Security began with a considerable fund, then Congress voted itself the ability to raid the fund, paying “IOU’s,” and now the fund is all but bankrupt, and if you were born after 1980, do not expect to see a dime of forced taxation through Social Security. Between skyrocketing costs in administering the program and the government raids, there are no retirement funds in this Ponzi-Tax scheme.

Medicaid/Medicare is another early contender, another tax that is directly witnessed in the paychecks of Americans, and a program fraught with fraud, laced with expenses, destroyed by exorbitant wages for bureaucrats and processes that are so byzantine that pretzel factories have fewer twists and turns. Another Ponzi-Tax scheme that is underfunded or overstaffed to the Nth degree, and the government continues to add everything but sanity and common sense to the program. As a point of fact, Medicare and Medicaid, being state/federal shared programs, the convolutions and responsibility for who pays make the Tasmanian devil of Warner Brothers fame look like he is strolling in a park as he walks calmly past.

Fuel taxes were a very short non-contender on this list. The government has been pushing fuel taxes as the direct means of fixing roads, bridges, tunnels, and other infrastructure projects. Still, there is never any money in the fund, and there are constantly terrible roads and bridges to point to that need immediate fixing. Worse, the only solution is to increase the taxes paid, not to answer where the money went that was collected to pay for the repairs.

In Maine, as a kid, we had a DARE program. The program was doing a good job and helped to keep kids off drugs. In November, the election carried a tax addendum that parents and teachers all got behind to push to approve because the program was doing a good job. The following January, directly after the tax went into effect, the government announced that the DARE Program was being canceled as too expensive. The tax was not returned, not canceled, and is still on the books as a valid tax for the taxpaying public, but the program has been dead since the mid-1990s. A similar event occurred in Utah, Arizona, and I would bet several hundred other places as well.

Sales tax, do they promote sales; no. Does a sales tax improve sales; no. Does a sales tax help those who sell goods and services; no. Does a sales tax aid the area the sales tax is collected in regarding sidewalks, street maintenance, sewers, etc., for the common good and improvement of society; no. Why do we have sales taxes?

Inheritance Tax, Generation-Skipping Transfer Tax, Gift Tax, etc. – better known as the class of death taxes, are more interesting contenders for this list. Do inheritance taxes promote or demote savings, spending prudence, and family wealth? Go on; I will wait; you can discuss this amongst yourselves for a moment. … Need more time. No worries. I can wait. … Since the government began charging inheritance taxes, less people have saved money, fewer people leave money to their family and friends as it causes long-term problems for the living. The social aspects of this single tax are so incredible; we could spend several years describing the fallout and never cover all the details.

Excise taxes – also referred to as “Sin Taxes.” These are taxes, not fees, passed onto the consumer by the soda, fast food, tobacco, and alcohol manufacturers to prevent kids from using these products that the government collects and then misspend. No, these are direct taxes that raise the final costs before and at the register that everyone thinks is a good idea to deter people from using those nasty products. Except, how many people have been stymied by the taxes on sin products; research claims the number to be a statistical zero. This means that when the error margin is taken into account, the number is too small to be statistically significant enough to measure. Puritans passed this logic into tax code; thank them the next time the government figures you should pay more for a Playboy than a National Geographic, more for a pack of cigarettes and a six-pack of beer. Since fast food is considered a sinful commodity, sin taxes apply, are you eating less fast food because of the sin taxes and sales taxes? By the way, are you losing weight from the height of taxes on your sin foods and drinks?

Wealth Tax – Did this tax increase the number of wealthy people; no! Did the wealth tax make taxes more “fair” and “proportionate” for the lower and middle class; nope! Did the wealth tax equal anything; no! However, the tax did help increase the number of tax lawyers bilking people making money out of their hard-earned dollars to hire them and defend their fortunes. Ask Majority Leader Pelosi how many she has to hire and keep on retainer to avoid taxes; oh wait, she is exempt. But her husband’s income isn’t. How many tax lawyers, accountants, bookkeepers, and money managers does he have to hire to prevent him from paying taxes? Just remember something, according to the government, your cellphone is considered a luxury, and is charged a wealth tax. I know people who live out of their motor-home, they are considered homeless, but their home is charged a luxury tax rate. They do not have any other home to live in, and live year round at various campgrounds as they save enough to move down the road. They are not rich, they sold everything, bought a used motor home to pay the bills, they are not retired; unfortunately, they are not alone in America either. Think the language is skewed where taxes are concerned; I do!

The government already collects a significant amount of taxes classified as “Environmental Taxes” on everything from fuels and oils to chemicals, aerosols, bottled gases, and firefighting retardants, among many other products. There are environmental taxes on the fuels you and I use in our vehicles, the trucks that carry our goods to market, the farm machinery raising animals and grains for markets, and that power the ships sailing the oceans. How much cleaner is the water and air with these taxes? These taxes were intended to help protect the environment; instead, these tax proceeds flowed into mysterious accounts and then into murky government payments. Now the government wants to increase taxes with a carbon tax to protect the environment. Are these environmental taxes going to disappear if a carbon tax is implemented? I did not see this mentioned in the literature; surely, that was a simple oversight, and the government will correct their mistake and eliminate taxes no longer needed.

Here’s a fun exercise, search the phrase “effective taxes,” and you find how language has been plasticized where taxes are concerned. An effective tax is an average tax. Not that the money went where it was supposed to go, not that the tax effectively funded the government without producing debt, simply acknowledging that you paid the average of everyone else. Think the government was effective in using your tax money?

Do you see a commonality here? Failure to fulfill a purpose leads to increases in taxes, fees, surcharges, and other tax schemes, and the money never goes where it is intended. Honestly, can you trust the government to accept your hard-earned money and create a healthier environment? I have my doubts. Feel free to correct me.

© 2021 M. Dave Salisbury
All Rights Reserved
The images used herein were obtained in the public domain; this author holds no copyright to the images displayed.

It IS ALL About Leadership – More Shameful VA Chronicles

Recently, guardianships have been in the news, and I doubt this story will make the lawyers very happy. The department of Veterans Affairs – Office of Inspector General (VA-OIG) reports that an Albuquerque couple has been sentenced for defrauding guardians, which included veterans. The criminal report claims:

“Susan Harris acted as president and was the 95-percent owner of Ayudando, while Moore acted as chief financial officer and was a five-percent owner. They engaged in a pattern of criminal conduct from November 2006 to July 2017 that included unlawfully transferring money from client accounts to a comingled account without any client-based justification. They wrote and endorsed numerous checks, often of more than $10,000, from these comingled accounts to themselves, family members, cash, and other parties where payment would benefit their families.”

For the better part of 11 years, this couple has spent money not their own, abused their charges, and defrauded vulnerable clientele. While the federal attorneys and investigators crow about catching this couple and ending this situation; what about all the rest of the guardianships where abuse is occurring? I have read horrific stories about victims of guardianship abuse and hope more will be done on this topic very shortly!

For 11 years, where were the VA and the Social Security Administration? Where were the local hospital leadership, social workers, and other federal employees who had to have known something fishy was going on? Where are these Federal Employees now? Where are the politicians scrutinizing this incident to ensure that protection for vulnerable citizens never happens again through legal guardianships?

Now traveling to Eastern Oklahoma VAHCS in Muskogee where an audiologist provided poor care and billed for unrendered services. Pay close attention to the VA-OIG report; the leadership failures on this report alone are voluminous and unforgivable!

“A facility fact-finding review revealed the audiologist provided poor care to eight of 43 patients reviewed, including misinforming patients who needed hearing aids that hearing aids were not needed. Although the audiology leaders reported the fact-finding results to the OIG, they failed to evaluate whether patients needed clinical follow-up; determine whether additional patients were affected by the audiologist’s poor care; evaluate whether clinical disclosures were required for the affected patients; and communicate the fact-finding results to the Facility Director, who was, therefore, unable to initiate the process to determine the necessity of a large scale disclosure. The instances of poor care were also not reported to the Patient Safety Manager, who was, as a result, unable to assess the adverse events to determine if patient safety interventions were indicated. The VA-OIG also found that performance monitoring of facility audiologists was not conducted as required. Annual competency assessments and annual performance appraisals were not consistently completed and did not contain adequate performance standards. Audiology leaders failed to consider whether the audiologist’s actions warranted a report to the state licensing board due to a lack of understanding of the requirements for reporting and, therefore, the Facility Director was not informed of the need to initiate a state licensing board review” [emphasis mine].

Will, someone please tell me, were the audiology leaders who failed to perform their jobs removed from Federal Employment? What about the audiologists causing the problems? Are they removed from Federal Employment? Were their licensing practices curbed to protect other populations of patients? The leadership failures here read like a Steven King horror story but do not have the satisfaction of finishing the story.

Yet, the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) will continue to market that they are “defining quality in healthcare.” The jokes write themselves but cannot be fired from Federal Employment! Politicians, why can these jokers not be fired from Federal employment for such egregious abuse of their positions and failures to do their jobs?

Traveling further to North Carolina, we find that the perpetrator of this fraud has pled guilty, but again responsibility, accountability, and correction of the VA is being skirted.

“John Paul Cook, 57, of Alexander, North Carolina, pleaded guilty to defrauding the VA. After enlisting in the Army in 1985, Cook sustained an accidental injury and complained the injury worsened a preexisting eye condition. In 1987, Cook was discharged, and he began receiving benefits that would increase over the next 30 years due to Cook’s repeated false claims of increased visual impairment and unemployability. In 2005, the VA declared Cook legally blind, and he began receiving disability-based compensation at the maximum rate despite repeatedly passing vision screening tests to obtain or renew his driver’s license and purchasing vehicles that he routinely drove.”

1987 to 2020, we will be generous in counting the years here; regardless, we are looking at 30+ years this fraud continued. Where were the verification protocols? I have had to produce a valid driver’s license at the VA to obtain and keep current my VA identification card. How did this fraud go on for so long? What is the VA doing to stop, or at least hinder, those who would defraud the government before the problem becomes 10 years old, let alone 30?!?! I cannot fathom how this fraud went on for so long without a routine checkup, a routine exam, a follow-up exam, etc.

Going north from South Carolina, we find more fraud, this time in New Jersey, where a man did not report his mother had deceased and continued to claim her benefits for a total of over $200K.

“Melvin Greenspan, 72, of Perrineville, New Jersey, pleaded guilty to defrauding VA of over $200,000 in survivor’s pension benefits. After the death of his mother in 2006, who had received survivor’s pension due to his father’s prior military service, Greenspan failed to notify the VA about his mother’s death and made withdrawals of the benefits through 2018.”

Where was the leadership? Where are the leaders now? Another fraud case, older than a decade, and still the VA cannot be held accountable for facilitating the fraud. I am stunned! How did this one continue for so long? Doesn’t the VA check local newspapers, the Social Security Administration, other Federal Agencies? Since the culprit was not held on defrauding SSA, one can only presume the mother’s death was reported there. Why did the VA not get notified to ask the family questions?

On the topic of guardians and leadership, the following story makes me angry! However, I will withhold further elaboration since those accused remain innocent until proven guilty by a trial of their peers.

“Johnny Ray Gasca, 51, was arrested for allegedly abducting a 68-year-old woman with dementia from the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center in California. A witness recognized Gasca and reported he might have previously taken money from the woman’s bank and retirement accounts. Following his arrest, Gasca described the victim as his girlfriend and told agents that they stopped at a bank where the victim made a $15,000 withdrawal after leaving the medical center.”

In the first report from the VA-OIG discussed, we found guardianship rules being violated to the Nth degree. In this story, we have no information of an assigned guardian, and we have a dementia patient being abused. The dementia patient was traveling with a friend; who is the legal guardian for a dementia patient? Where are the family or friends legally bonded to render aid for this patient and monitor finances to protect them from abuse? How can the VA operate one way in one locale and 180-degrees differently in another locale and the leadership not held accountable?

Speaking of missing leadership, the following VA-OIG report is a beauty! The Department of Veterans Affairs – Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has a program to help homeless veterans, where contractors are used, and the VHA uses case management documentation to verify the veteran is receiving the assistance being paid for, the program is called the contracted residential services (CRS) program.

“The VA-OIG found facility staff did not consistently document case management and monitor the progress of veterans in the program. Further, four of the 14 CRS contracts reviewed had performance deficiencies, with one resulting in improper payments of $592,000. These deficiencies may affect the health and safety of veterans living in transitional settings. Moreover, VA lacks assurance that veterans received required services. There were also contract administration problems in 13 of 14 reviewed contracts. Contracting officers did not always properly delegate responsibilities to staff functioning as contracting officer’s representatives. Further, one facility’s representative did not ensure contractors provided meals or the means to purchase them, as required, and another lacked invoice supporting documentation for approval. The VA-OIG audit team estimated that 107 of 119 contracts had monitoring and administration deficiencies. Furthermore, the team estimated that VHA made $35.3 million in improper payments, of which approximately $21.6 million was technically improper because the individuals authorizing payment were not delegated authority to serve as contracting officer’s representatives.”

If your accomplishment rate in your employment was 48%, would you retain your job for very long? If 90% of your documentation claiming how well you do your job was missing or fabricated, how long would you maintain employment? If you delegated people to complete your work who were unauthorized and you were contractually culpable, how long do you think you would stay out of prison? How long would your boss stay out of jail? How long would your company exist? Now, answer me this riddler, why does the government get a pass on these questions?

Finally, we have Deputy Inspector General David Case’s testimony regarding the failure of VA leadership where the implementation of a new electronic health record (EHR) is being stalled. If you care, the VA leadership and the VHA leadership are failing the EHR initiative. Not that this was not expected, and not that this is not surprising, the IT and IS departments of the VA and VHA are so hopelessly lost it amazes me the VA is even using computers and not written records! But, do not take my word for it, Case himself claims,

“Detailed in this statement, we have repeatedly found unreliable and incomplete estimates for upgrades and costs, inadequate reporting affecting transparency to Congress, and stove-piped governance with decision making that does not appropriately engage Veterans Health Administration (VHA) personnel who are the end-users of the new EHR system.”

Get that; the leadership failures are obstructing Congress and hindering the EHR progress! What can we conclude from this batch of VA-OIG reports:

1. 1. 1. The VA, VHA, VBA, and National Cemetery leadership are actively missing, like the Democrats from the Texas Legislature.
    2. If the leaders are present, the leaders are the problems in progressing.
    3. The leaders have created a system where fraud and abuse of the veterans and taxpayers can be achieved with ease.
    4. Nobody in the US House of Representatives or US Senate scrutinizes the legislative branch sufficiently to effect changes.
    5. When in doubt about where your leaders fall, check to see if they are in their offices. Oh, wait, that won’t help, their offices have locks on the doors!

If this is how the VA defines quality healthcare. In that case, the veterans are screwed, the taxpayer is sunk, and the leaders will enjoy their magnanimous federally approved retirement packages, ad nauseam ad infinitum!

© 2021 M. Dave Salisbury
All Rights Reserved
The images used herein were obtained in the public domain; this author holds no copyright to the images displayed.

NO MORE BS: Affirmative Action – A Discussion for Eradication!

I wonder if maybe affirmative action is not just dead but ready for the waste pits of history. Cohen (1996) acknowledged that federal hiring has a set of laws, with exceptions for every rule, to justify not hiring individuals. I have personally witnessed this in Albuquerque, NM., for the better part of three years. At the V.A. Hospital and Social Security Offices, the hiring managers refuse to hire veterans, and multiple other hiring paths to keep “undesired people” from being hired.”

As a dual-service (U.S. Army & U.S. Navy) disabled veteran with a handicap that is visible (neurological shaking, twitching, and muscle spasms, which include trouble speaking) too often, I am the best candidate until the interview. Walking into an interview with a cane, spasm, or twitch a couple of times, and the faces of those interviewing reflect their discomfort, and I will not be hired. Government, private sector, for-profit, not-for-profit, none of these matters, people are uncomfortable around those of us with visible disabilities. Affirmative action has never helped, and as an experiment in social behavior, should be scraped from the law as soon as legislation can be written to effect this change!

Undesired people” includes people with handicaps (though Schedule A hiring has top priority in government hiring), veterans, spouses, and dependents with specific federal benefits, minorities (including men, people of color of all shades, American Indians, etc.) also have priority in hiring. All the best jobs, positions, and perks are awarded through nepotism and the court of public opinion. The system is structured in such a way as to remain in legal compliance to affirmative action; thus, affirmative action is a shield protecting lousy behavior instead of as a tool to improve workforce hiring. My assertion of the uselessness of affirmative action is not just based upon my experiences. I have witnessed people get into car accidents, get a disability, and go from productive worker to shunned worker almost overnight, all due to the disability sustained.

Harasztosi and Lindner (2015) discussed how the minimum wage costs jobs and excluded the neediest citizens from employment. I contend that affirmative action has negatively impacted minorities, men and women, disabled people, etc., most significantly using the principles and logic of Harasztosi and Lindner (2015). Rules demanding social behavior always will substantially and negatively impact those designed in the law to enjoy the most benefit. I believe in the Missouri State Motto; “Show ME!” Show me a single piece of legislation that has helped those it was written for. Legislation cannot dictate behavior or morals in society; hence the following from John Adams applies, the U.S. Constitution “… was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Hence, the path forward is not more laws to avoid, but less. The way forward is the societal education in morals as governed through a religious society.

Historically, there are no legal, moral, or ethical reasons for affirmative action. Affirmative action, and the diversity policies feeding the modern workplace adopted after affirmative action was legislated, barely have a legal foothold, let alone a justifiable reason for existence (Brazelton, 2016; Oppenheimer, 2016; Pierce, 2013; Young, 2001). Human Resources is the capitalization of human capital to meet organizational needs. When capitalization of human abilities is appropriately affected, the effort becomes work, leading to finished products or services for sale to consumers. When not adequately modified, capitalization of human skills turns into waste, loss, confusion, and the organization will eventually “fall an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle” (Bloom, & Kamm, 2014; Typographical Journal, 1892).

Sykes (1995) defined affirmative action as “… [T]he set of public policies and initiatives designed to help eliminate past and present discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” As promising as this sounds, affirmative action remains the biggest farce crammed down the business community’s throats since the Federal Income Tax. By focusing, as this definition states, on “eliminating discrimination past and present,” the entire country forgets the wise words from Master Oogway in Kung Fu Panda, “Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, today is a gift; that is why it is called the present.” By focusing on the past, we project the same problems of the past, ruining both the present and the future. While providing fodder for ill-advised politicians and media hacks to accuse everyone of racism, sexism, and a host of other “-ism” claims that are erroneous. I repeat, only for emphasis, you cannot legislate human behavior and morals, and hiring an employee is the epitome of human behavior and morals.

Affirmative action is not necessary, needed, or applicable; affirmative action, and the diversity programs replacing affirmative action, were never required, helpful, or valuable enough to create from whole cloth the legal precedent to justify implementation (Brazelton, 2016; Oppenheimer, 2016; Pierce, 2013; Young, 2001). No, the short answer remains clear, Affirmative Action was not needed in 1964 and is still not needed today. Before 1964 when the Civil Rights Legislation was passed, the educational and experience gap between those working and not working caused pay problems, yet new professional opportunities naturally occurred as educational opportunities increased. Affirmative action was not needed. Let’s be clear, the executive orders and complicit Congress during President Woodrow Wilson’s tenure are the reasons the 1960s were so tumultuous, and the Civil Rights movement became needed. But the reliance upon a government fix for personal behavior and morals was the wrong answer in the 1960s and remains a horrible answer today!

Now that Affirmative Action has pampered more than two generations, we have more women and minorities in the workplace with the same skills as white males, and the same problem exists in deferential hiring, differential treatment based upon race, gender, and other politically acceptable groups. People who want to work, start early, work hard, and prepare for better jobs through education, experience, and single-minded determinedness. Those who do not wish to work create excuses, live off the government dole, and remain entrenched in ignorance, causing poverty, loss of self-esteem, ruined families, and a host of social problems that those who are working have to deal with and pay taxes to the government, who started the problem in the first place. These same workers have to fight affirmative action and diversity policies for new jobs, promotions, pay increases, etc., including all the issues associated with a minimum wage and associated costs (Harasztosi, & Lindner, 2015; Hawkins & Sowell, 2011).

References

Bloom, R., & Kamm, J. (2014). Human resources: Assets that should be capitalized. Compensation & Benefits Review, 46(4), 219-222. doi:10.1177/0886368714555453

Brazelton, S. (2016). A hollow hope? Social change, the U.S. supreme court, and affirmative action. The Journal of Race & Policy, 12(2), 84-95. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/docview/1940981339?accountid=134061

Cohen, C. (1996). Should federal affirmative action policies be continued? Congressional Digest, 75, 181-181.

Harasztosi, P. & Lindner, A. (2015). Who pays for the minimum wage?UC Berkeley.Hawkins, J., & Sowell, T. (2011). Right-wing news: An interview with Thomas Sowell. Retrieved from http://www.rightwingnews.com/interviews/sowell.php

Master, Oogway (Character). (2008). Kung Fu Panda [DVD].

Oppenheimer, D. B. (2016). The disappearance of voluntary affirmative action from the U.S. workplace. The Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, 24(1), 37-50. doi: http://dx.doi.org.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/10.1332/175982716X14538098991133

Pierce, J. L. (2013). White Racism, Social Class, and the Backlash Against Affirmative Action. Sociology Compass, 7(11), 914–926. https://doi-org.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/10.1111/soc4.12082

Sykes, M. (1995, August). The origins of affirmative action. Retrieved from http://www.now.org/nnt/08-95/affirmhs.html

Typographical Journal. (1892). Typographical Journal, Volume 4 [Google Play]. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=FydFAQAAMAAJ&pg=RA10-PA4&lpg=RA10-PA4&dq=%E2%80%9Cfall+an+unpitied+sacrifice+in+a+contemptible+struggle%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=DW3MDox1Xu&sig=vd-U9cqe7PVSqLbA27FIX5DgJOs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi4zp3I-ZTeAhXqwlQKHZfZC6QQ6AEwA3oECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9Cfall%20an%20unpitied%20sacrifice%20in%20a%20contemptible%20struggle%E2%80%9D&f=false

Young, I. M. (2001). Equality of Whom? Social Groups and Judgments of Injustice. Journal of Political Philosophy, 9(1). Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=4335602&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Let’s Talk Customer Service – Internal and External Processes

I have been shopping for a new financial institution since Washington Mutual was gobbled by Chase ten years ago this October. Washington Mutual was not perfect, but they offered two things I rate all business transactions upon, ease of business, and functionality. The functionality occurred with precision, veracity, and good customer experience. Ease of business meant that the customer experience was not inhibited by internal processes, the need for conducting business (external) was not clogged or overshadowed by processes (internal).

Why does this matter? – Because when the customer needed a transaction concluded at Washington Mutual, the bank philosophies of ease of business and functionality made the customer experience more robust and easier for employees and customers alike. It is to ease of business and functionality, as a core business mentality, the following is addressed, in the hopes of promoting improvements in customer attention, focus, and support.

As a financial institution shopper, especially when the customer approaches a manager or assistant manager, regarding a poor experience, the mentality of ease of business and functionality should be the cornerstone of the conversation with customers (external & internal). 10 October 2019 – I approach the “Welcome Desk” at Navy Federal Credit Union (NFCU) and ask to speak to a manager. The person behind the desk claims, “I am an assistant manager; how may I help?” I explain, I am shopping financial institution shopping and have a problem depositing a check using the NFCU App. Then I ask if the check I was presenting for the deposit, and the endorsement were acceptable for both an ATM and the counter. When the endorsement was verified as acceptable; I asked, “Why is the endorsement unacceptable for the NFCU App? To which my answer was, “The verbiage specified for deposits through the APP is different to protect NFCU from double or triple deposits of the same check.” Interestingly enough, the verbiage is not standard across the website, the NFCU App, or the email received rejecting the deposit through the NFCU App. Meaning, my check deposit was denied through the App because NFCU’s internal processes are insufficiently designed for ease of business and functionality; thus, the customer is inconvenienced because NFCU cannot function properly in the back office in support of front office customer facing-transactions. Why is it an external customers job to make the back-office employees work less?

There is a trend in financial institutions, Government offices, and emergency rooms to hide the employees behind the double and triple walls of an impenetrable polymer. Chase branches have all been upgraded, my local VA Hospital is being updated, and the local Social Security Office was upgraded several years prior. At the Chase branch, the counters appear to have shrunk to improve the ability to hear and be heard through the thick polymer; good job Chase, Thank you! The VA ER, no such luck, no such plans, hearing a patient’s concerns has been trumped by the business stated need to “protect the worker.” At the local Social Security Office, the desks and counters equate to more than 4-feet of separation between the speaker and the listener, and communication is non-existent for anyone with hearing difficulties, speech difficulties, etc. Functionality and ease of business have been eternally sundered, and the customer pays the price in time, frustration, aggravation, and the inability to conduct business. In the dangerous times we live, it only makes sense to have a security plan, to implement security options, and to support a safe business environment. However, security should never be the excuse for killing ease of business or functionality. I recently traveled from Albuquerque, NM to El Paso, Texas, to visit my “local” Chase branch. Where I then had to repeat myself no less than twice for every verbal request, and the teller had to repeat themselves the same to conduct business. Was a transaction concluded; yes, but the functionality and ease of business were abnegated and not conducive to continuing a customer relationship.

Ease of business and functionality should not be sacrificed as a cost-savings measure or staff reduction model. The Chase branches I have visited in the last two-to-three years have been changing, staff reductions have occurred, while automation has increased. During a previous visit to a Chase branch, three teller positions had been replaced with ATMs inside the branch office. I applaud Chase for the investment made in making technology work; but, when I visit a branch, I want to speak to a person, not be hassled by another machine. I want to be treated as a person whose time is as important as the banker/teller’s time, and have a human experience. Hence, when I witness people replaced by machines, no matter how good the technology is, my cherub-like demeanor takes a significant hit. I understand Federal Minimum Wage, State, County, City Mandated Minimum Wage Laws have all gone crazy increasing the human cost in business, I understand the need for physical security increases costs for human transactions, and I know that the human element is expensive in other ways and means, requiring more back-office work and humans. Do not sacrifice ease of business and functionality on the alter with the humans. If you have physical, armed guards, checking, x-raying, and hassling customers, you should not need the polymer and technical stations. Strike a balance and err on the side of human-to-human contact, not technology.

Speaking of the need to strike a balance between technology and human-to-human contact, ease of business, functionality, and customer service, those “Self-Checkout” stations forced upon customers in retail stores remain a significant point of contention. Home Depot and Lowe’s, thank you for not sacrificing customer attention and customer responsiveness on the altar of technology as “Self-Checkout” has proliferated in your stores. Walmart, Smith’s, Kroger, Fry’s, and so many more stores could learn from your example.

My spouse has several Walmart locations she visits as “local.” In every one of these stores, the same thing has transpired, the self-checkout stations have multiplied exceedingly, but the number of floor employees has dropped exponentially. In fact, there is less customer attention in Walmart since the explosion of self-checkout than before across the five states I have been measuring; thus, I can only conclude, this is a tactical exercise from Walmart Corporate Offices to reduce staff, while not improving the customer experience. Between the constant game of “Musical Shelves,” where products are in continuous movement from shelf to shelf and location to location, and the reduction in customer support, I find myself losing my cherub-like demeanor when trying to complete shopping. Back in the 1990s I read a research report discussing how for every minute spent in a store, the balance of the shopping cart increases $10.00; thus, I understand the psychology of playing “Musical Shelves,” but the human-to-human involvement has led to less functionality in the shopping experience, throwing ease of business in the garbage.

Leading to the following suggestions:

When looking to strike a balance between expenses and functionality and ease of business, err on the side of ease of business. Functionality will automatically improve when ease of business is sufficiently provided.
Never allow a process, a procedure, and a business standard of measure to celebrate a second birthday. The ease of business should be a constant aspect of the daily workflow. Functionality, as an extension of ease of business, should be the second prerequisite in the evaluation of processes to meet customer service goals. Never forget, if a process, procedure, or business matrix cannot be explained completely in a single elevator ride, then that process, procedure, and business matrix are too complicated and need revision.
Customer service should never involve telling a customer about an internal process. Thus, if the back-office is demanding a customer inconvenience that hinders ease of business or functionality, the back-office needs to be held to task and the process changed.

Businesses cannot long shirk ease of business and functionality and survive. Human-to-human interactions are customer service, and when anything gets between the customer and the employee, business leadership must return focus to ease of business and functionality, not cut out the human. Customer service should never be tossed because of technology, ease of employees, or as a staff reduction effort. Your employee today is your customer tomorrow, and your customer today is your employee tomorrow, do you really want to proliferate problems handed to external customer’s as they become tomorrow’s internal customer?

Trader Joe’s remains the pre-eminent example of ease of business, functionality, and customer service working in an environment that is well balanced. No self-checkout, no hassle when asking questions, and several of my local stores have added physical security without changing the human element. Ease of business and functionality are apparent from the prices to the products, the shelves, to the physical store environment. No technology separates the customer from a robust shopping experience that is both pleasing and adventurous. Nothing special is done as a process by Trader Joe’s, but the ease of business and functionality promote the customer experience, which is shared by customers who spend short or long periods shopping and desire to return. I recently witnessed a Trader Joe’s employee explaining to a customer how to improve fruit ripening techniques, the employee then went out of their way to guide the customer through what to buy and how to use the methods discussed with several different varieties of fruit. This example is not a one-off singular event, but a regular occurrence at every Trader Joe’s store I have visited. When you commit to ease of business and functionality, as a person and as a professional, opportunities develop.

The images used herein were obtained in the public domain, this author holds no copyright to the images displayed.

Spread the word:

Spread the word:

Spread the word:

Spread the word: